90mm for travel and backpacking

I'm shopping for a small lightweight 90mm for use on a 4x5. I'm
considering the Angulon F6.8 (non super), the Geronar F8 (hard to
find), Wollensal/Optar F6.8 (I think they are the same), and the
Wollensak Series IIIa EX.W.A. 3 1/2 inch. Realising that there is a
great variation in samples of old lenses, have I listed them in quality
order (best to worst)??

I have a nice modern 90mm with lots of movement. It is great for studio
and in town use, but too big for these uses. If you aren't willing to
carry a lens it doesn't take good pics!

Any other thoughts?

In article ,
Tom Ferguson wrote:

I'm shopping for a small lightweight 90mm for use on a 4x5. I'm
considering the Angulon F6.8 (non super), the Geronar F8 (hard to
find), Wollensal/Optar F6.8 (I think they are the same), and the
Wollensak Series IIIa EX.W.A. 3 1/2 inch. Realising that there is a
great variation in samples of old lenses, have I listed them in quality
order (best to worst)??

I have a nice modern 90mm with lots of movement. It is great for studio
and in town use, but too big for these uses. If you aren't willing to
carry a lens it doesn't take good pics!

Any other thoughts?

What is more important to you?

Coverage and performance or size and weight?

After all, if you are not truly happy with the quality that is on the
film you might want to go shoot it again. And there is no guarantee that
the conditions that you saw that made you take the shot originally will
be there the next time. If you can really do it again.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

"Tom Ferguson" wrote in message
...
I'm shopping for a small lightweight 90mm for use on a 4x5. I'm
considering the Angulon F6.8 (non super), the Geronar F8 (hard to
find), Wollensal/Optar F6.8 (I think they are the same), and the
Wollensak Series IIIa EX.W.A. 3 1/2 inch. Realising that there is a
great variation in samples of old lenses, have I listed them in quality
order (best to worst)??

I have a nice modern 90mm with lots of movement. It is great for studio
and in town use, but too big for these uses. If you aren't willing to
carry a lens it doesn't take good pics!

Any other thoughts?

Tom,

You might also consider a 90mm Congo WA or a 100mm WF Ektar. These are both
Gauss wide field designs (4 element in 4 groups). They cover about 85
degrees. The Congo is in current production and available new. It is
multicoated and in a current style black Copal shutter. The WF Ektar has
been out of production for over 40 years. It is single coated, and in a
Supermatic shutter. Ironically, even though Congo has had 50 years to catch
up, their quality control isn't up to Kodak standards.

If you go with an Angulon, beware that quality also varied over the years.
The 90mm Angulon was made for about 40 years. The oldest samples are
pre-WWII and uncoated. The latest samples were made in the early 1970s and
came in Copal shutters. After testing several 90mm Angulons, I would
recommend either looking for a Linhof select model, or a later (mid-1960s to
early 1970s) "generic" sample. Schneider's quality control steadily
improved over the years. I recommend avoiding early, uncoated samples.

I went through this exact same search several years ago. Selecting the best
compact wide angle lens was the original goal of the lens testing I
performed with Chris Perez. You can review the results of our tests at:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

You might also want to check out the lightweight lenses section of my web
site at:

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/wide.htm

Kerry

....other thoughts:

As far as what I know ... Schneider 90 6.8 will
cover 4x5 but zero movements. Optar is a 3
element design and more than likely the same,
made for 6x9cm. Raptar is a 4 element design,
better. I will say I believe Congo might be the
only company making a genuinly compact
90mm F/1:6.3 with an image circle of 6.88
inches (175mm), for decent movements. I could
be wrong, maybe Rodenstock, Nikkor and fujinon
make them, but it's what I know. $516.00 only
from Congo:
http://www.cosmonet.org/congo/index_e.html
you could do a web search for who is selling
a used one. There is also Osaka lenses from
Bromwell marketing. Their 90mm F/1:6.3 costs
less at $425.xx. They don't show pictures and
the specs are not listed for this specific lens, you
would have to call or email them. These might
be more readily available in the U.S.
http://www.bromwellmarketing.com/

hope this helps,
Alex

"Tom Ferguson" wrote in message ...
I'm shopping for a small lightweight 90mm for use on a 4x5. I'm
considering the Angulon F6.8 (non super), the Geronar F8 (hard to
find), Wollensal/Optar F6.8 (I think they are the same), and the
Wollensak Series IIIa EX.W.A. 3 1/2 inch. Realising that there is a
great variation in samples of old lenses, have I listed them in quality
order (best to worst)??

I have a nice modern 90mm with lots of movement. It is great for studio
and in town use, but too big for these uses. If you aren't willing to
carry a lens it doesn't take good pics!

Any other thoughts?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Ferguson"

the Geronar F8 (hard to find)

The 90mm f8 Geronar WA is available on the used market. They show up
regulary on eBay and used equipment dealers like Midwest Photo Exchange and
KEH.

Like the Congo WA and the WF Ektar, it is a wide field Gauss design that
covers about 80 - 85 degrees. Like the Congo, it has the advantages of
being multicoated and in the modern Copal shutter. It also has the added
advantage of being made by Rodenstock, a world class lens manufacturer. So,
quality control should not be an issue. That said, it isn't nearly as
compact or light as the other lenses you mentioned. Where the others are
typically on No. 0 size shutters, the Geronar WA is in a special Copal No. 1
shutter (it's a No. 1 shutter, but requires the same size mounting hole as a
Copal No. 3). And while it is slightly more compact than the 90mm Biogon
derivatives (Super Angulon, Grandagon-N, Nikkor SW, Fujinon SW), it isn't
much lighter. I bought one of these several years ago with the goal of
replacing my 90mm Nikkor SW for backpacking. It ended up weiging only an
ounce less, and had far less coverage than the Nikkor. For the difference
of only an ounce, it didn't seem worthwhile to have two 90mm lenses. So, I
sold it and kept the Nikkor. As I mentioned in my previous post, I ended up
with a 90mm Congo WA that I use for backpacking (it weighs about 8 oz. les
than the Nikkor and is significantly more compact).

Kerry

You might consider something like a Scheider Apo-Symar 100mm f5.6 or similar.
These kinds of 72 degree lenses cover 4x5 with not much to spare, but are small
and light and of moder design.

Tom Ferguson wrote:
I'm shopping for a small lightweight 90mm for use on a 4x5. I'm
considering the Angulon F6.8 (non super), the Geronar F8 (hard to
find), Wollensal/Optar F6.8 (I think they are the same), and the
Wollensak Series IIIa EX.W.A. 3 1/2 inch. Realising that there is a
great variation in samples of old lenses, have I listed them in quality
order (best to worst)??

I have a nice modern 90mm with lots of movement. It is great for studio
and in town use, but too big for these uses. If you aren't willing to
carry a lens it doesn't take good pics!

Any other thoughts?

"Bob Salomon" wrote:

What is more important to you?

Coverage and performance or size and weight?

Bob,

You don't backpack, do you? If you did, you would understand the trade-off.
Saving 8 oz. on one lens may not seem like a lot, but it all adds up - and
fast. For backpacking, I have a ligter, camera, a lighter tripod, a ligher
set of lenses, and even a lighter lightmeter (say that three times fast).
All these items represent a compromise, but in total, the 4x5 kit I carry
backpacking weighs 20 - 25 lbs. less than my general purpose 4x5 outfit.
That kit is light enough that it allows me to go more places and stay longer
than if I had to schlepp my heavy 4x5 kit, and food, clothing and shelter on
my back.

After all, if you are not truly happy with the quality that is on the
film you might want to go shoot it again. And there is no guarantee that
the conditions that you saw that made you take the shot originally will
be there the next time. If you can really do it again.

Likewise, if the gear is too heavy to carry, you'll leave it at home, or not
go at all. I'd rather have a lens with a bit less coverage, than no lens at
all, or worse not bothering to be out in the wilds because my gear is just
too darn heavy. The original poster mentioned that he already had a larger,
modern 90mm lens with gobs of coverage. What he speifically asked about was
smaller, lighter lens for times when conditions dictate that he travel
light.

Kerry

In article k.net,
"Kerry L. Thalmann" wrote:

The original poster mentioned that he already had a larger,
modern 90mm lens with gobs of coverage. What he speifically asked about was
smaller, lighter lens for times when conditions dictate that he travel
light.

I did backpack when younger.

But he has a superior lens now. So how many ounces will he actually save
by going to a far less adequate performer?

Maybe he could get a newer, lighter parka, or net carbon poles, or a
newer sleeping bag of superior and lighter materials, or carry lithium
AA rather then other types, or, etc, etc.

To me I would rather have the best possible image on film. And to me
there may be other areas to save a few ounces. And save spending money
on something I already have.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

"Bob Salomon" wrote:

But he has a superior lens now. So how many ounces will he actually save
by going to a far less adequate performer?

Probably about about 12 oz. Somewhere between 8 and 19 oz. depending on
which current 90 he has and what he ends up with.

Maybe he could get a newer, lighter parka, or net carbon poles, or a
newer sleeping bag of superior and lighter materials, or carry lithium
AA rather then other types, or, etc, etc.

Maybe he already has those things. He didn't ask about them. So, we don't
know. He asked specifically about recommendations for a lightweight 90mm
lens.

To me I would rather have the best possible image on film.

More coverage doesn't necessarily mean better image quality. A lens with
less coverage can still deliver diffraction limited (or film limited)
performance at normal working aperatures. Again we know nothing anout the
original poster's requirements other than that he asked specifically for
advice on lightweight 90mm lenses for travel and backpacking.

And to me
there may be other areas to save a few ounces. And save spending money
on something I already have.

Believe me (I speak from experience), you can spend a lot more money on
ultralight camping gear than on a compact 90mm lens. Carbon fiber poles
(tent poles, trekking poles, tripods, etc.), ultralight parkas and down
sleeping bags are all very expensive. But then, that's not the topic of the
original post.

Kerry

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

Tom Ferguson wrote:
I'm shopping for a small lightweight 90mm for use on a 4x5. I'm
considering the Angulon F6.8 (non super), the Geronar F8 (hard to
find), Wollensal/Optar F6.8 (I think they are the same), and the
Wollensak Series IIIa EX.W.A. 3 1/2 inch. Realising that there is a
great variation in samples of old lenses, have I listed them in quality
order (best to worst)??

I have a nice modern 90mm with lots of movement. It is great for studio
and in town use, but too big for these uses. If you aren't willing to
carry a lens it doesn't take good pics!

Any other thoughts?
I had an Angulon once, and apart from a shutter clean it made nice
enlargements (stopped down) to 20x24 no trouble... Standard lens
variation disclaimer applies.