35mm-format lenses with large image circles?

AudiiDudii · Sep 1, 2017

I have a Cambo Actus, along with a modified Cambo WDS and Toyo VX23D, that I use with an A7R body mounted on one side and adapted 35mm format lenses* mounted on the other side.

I'm using these cameras because I do a lot of architectural-type photography and use the various camera movements to increase DoF, as well as to tweak my compositions and correct any geometric and perspective distortions in-camera instead of during post-processing. (This is because old habits die hard, but also because in-camera corrections usually look better to my eyes.)

Unlike most photographers, it seems, I very rarely stitch my photos because printing at 16x24 is plenty large enough for me, thank you, and also, with the long exposures that I typically use, taking multiple shots without the scenes changing in some way is difficult. So I generally don't need to use large amounts of rise / fall / shift movements.

I also photograph primarily at night, so any vignetting or minor softness in the corners is usually not an issue, because those areas are typically dark to begin with and generally contain little, if any, visual information of significance.

For the most part, I've settled on using Sigma Art lenses, because they perform well in a modern sense, offer good value for the money, and have sufficiently large image circles to be useful for my purposes. But thanks to a friend's generosity in letting me borrow a dozen of his lenses, I've also started exploring other lens families as well.

Recently, it was the Zeiss ZK series and the Pentax FA Limiteds, all of which have their merits and surprisingly, most of which also project image circles large enough to provide amounts of rise / fall / shift movements that are adequate for my purposes.

And most recently, I've started exploring vintage lenses. Specifically, the classic Contax range, starting with a mint condition 35/f2.8 that was made available to me by a friendly Fred Miranda forum contributor:

Cambo Actus with Contax 35/f2.8 Distagon

I have been quite surprised -- and pleased! -- by how well this lens performs considering its age and especially the parameters around which it was originally designed relative to today's digital cameras.

Not only does it have better-than-decent resolution and render in a most attractive way (although with perhaps a bit less contrast than I prefer), it also projects an image circle that's sufficiently large for 95+% of the photos I take. Plus, it's compact and lightweight -- it weighs roughly a fourth of my Sigma Art 35/f1.4! -- and inexpensive enough that its price practically rounds to zero. (Well, not quite, but even on my modest budget these days, the handful of lenses that interest me are easily affordable.)

As a result of my positive experience with this lens, I now have two more Contax lenses on the way to evaluate (the 28/f2.8 and 50/f.17) and I am even contemplating buying a 35/f2.8 for myself so I can have it available in my toolbox, so to speak.

Which brings me to my question: Which other families of 35mm-format lenses from the Golden Age of Film might perform equally well for my purposes as the classic C/Y lenses apparently do?

Remember, this isn't just a question about image quality -- as this forum demonstrates, there's plenty of info and commentary available on the 'net about that! -- but also about the size of the image circles these lenses project, about which there's precious little info available.

I realize that I am a bit of an outlier with my requirements, so I am not expecting to be overwhelmed by responses. I also apologize for this post rambling on at some length, but any pointers or recommendations will be gratefully appreciated, for which I extend my thanks in advance!

JG

* Since you're probably wondering why I'm focused on 35mm format lenses when using medium-format lenses would seem to make more sense in these circumstances, there are two reasons: 1) I am primarily a wide-angle photographer and prefer working in the 24-35mm focal length range, where there are very few medium-format lenses available; and 2) I photograph almost exclusively at night, so while I take most of my photos with the lens stopped down to f8-f11 and live with the resulting long exposures, because of my aging eyes, I need fast lenses to assist me in composing and focusing my images.

Based upon nearly a decade's worth of experience doing this type of photography, I find f2.8 lenses to be adequate most of the time, but also increasingly a struggle, with f2.0 lenses being much better, and f1.4 lenses even better still. Unfortunately, as rare as wide-angle medium-format lenses are, ones that are also faster than, say, f3.5 are even more rare still, hence my focus on 35mm-format lenses that project large image circles.)

mapgraphs · Sep 1, 2017

I'd be interested in seeing some samples, and hearing a bit more about your workflow!

As for lenses with large image circles for the 36x24 format, I would assume (presume?) that legacy PC lenses would be one place to look since they were designed to use a larger image circle to begin with (that is, using them without their own shift/tilt).

AudiiDudii · Sep 1, 2017

mapgraphs said:
I'd be interested in seeing some samples, and hearing a bit more about your workflow!

I'm not sure what you mean by "workflow," but here are a few recent photos I've taken with various lenses:

Sigma Art 24-35/f2

Sigma Art 24/f1.4

Sigma Art 35/f1.4

Zeiss ZK 25/f2.8

Leica 28mm PC (taken on a different night, with different lighting)

Zeiss ZK 21/f2.8

Zeiss ZK 35/f2

Zeiss ZK 85/f1.4

Zeiss ZK 28/2.8

Contax 35/f2.8

There are plenty more, but you get the idea...

mapgraphs said:
As for lenses with large image circles for the 36x24 format, I would assume (presume?) that legacy PC lenses would be one place to look since they were designed to use a larger image circle to begin with (that is, using them without their own shift/tilt).

I've tried a couple of them, but with the exception of the Olympus 24/f3.5 (which is a bit too slow and the copy I tried, at least, was only a so-so performer), the widest is 28mm, which often isn't quite wide enough. As for modern lenses, I don't like the Canons, plus I'm no longer willing to work with lenses that have electronic apertures, because they're too clunky to use in the field at night.

Rod McD · Sep 1, 2017

Hi,

I tend to agree with mapgraphs suggestion to consider using 35mm format TS lenses because they already have enlarged image circles (ICs) designed for the job. The modern ones are better than their earlier siblings, but they are very expensive and I don't know if there is any adapter which would allow you to operate their electronic aperture and focusing mechanisms when on the Cambo.

You could use the manual focus film era Canon FD TS 35/2.8, or the Nikon PC 28/3.5 and 35/2.8 shift-only lenses, and there are similar lenses from Olympus, Pentax, Minolta and Zeiss. You should predict needing to correct some CAs on high contrast image elements - TS lenses are not immune from these, and as usual they tend to get worse away from the center of the frame. I no longer have links but in the past there were internet sites that tested a few of these lenses.

Apart from TS lenses, I think some experimentation is probably needed to determine those that might be useful. I would caution against assuming that having a larger IC means that the IQ outside the 35mm frame is necessarily of high quality. Some lenses illuminate beyond the frame, but the resolution is much deteriorated. In general, it is easier to design lenses with a larger IC at longer FLs, so you should have more luck with standard and short teles than wide angles. You'll probably find that the wider the angle of view, the tighter is the size of the IC to the frame. (This is the reason that the curvatures of the tilting dovetails on Canon TS lenses operate in differing directions on say their 24mm and 90mm TS lenses. The direction of the curves and the resulting placement of the center of rotation conserves limited image circle on the WA versions.)

I use a Nikon AIS 20/2.8 as a shift lens via a Kipon TS adapter on APSC. I can confirm that the lens allows a modest but still useful 9mm of shift on APSC before hitting the edge of the IC, so it wouldn't give you much shift on FF. It allows the full 12 degrees of mechanical tilt provided by the adapter without vignetting at all. This is vastly in excess of the very tiny tilt angles required by a 20mm lens at normal J values. I don't think tilt is a lot of use on very short FLs anyway.

Good luck.

Regards, Rod

AudiiDudii · Sep 1, 2017

Rod McD said:
Hi,

I tend to agree with mapgraphs suggestion to consider using 35mm format TS lenses because they already have enlarged image circles (ICs) designed for the job. The modern ones are better than their earlier siblings, but they are very expensive and I don't know if there is any adapter which would allow you to operate their electronic aperture and focusing mechanisms when on the Cambo.

As it happens, Cambo does make an adapter for the Actus that will the Canon lens apertures, but it's expensive ($1,299 at B&H) and there's that whole "I generally don't like the look of Canon's lenses" thing, too. <sigh>

Rod McD said:
You could use the manual focus film era Canon FD TS 35/2.8, or the Nikon PC 28/3.5 and 35/2.8 shift-only lenses, and there are similar lenses from Olympus, Pentax, Minolta and Zeiss. You should predict needing to correct some CAs on high contrast image elements - TS lenses are not immune from these, and as usual they tend to get worse away from the center of the frame. I no longer have links but in the past there were internet sites that tested a few of these lenses.

Of the film-era T&S lenses I've tried, only the Leica 28mm PC has proved satisfactory to me. All the others have had had disappointing image quality.

Rod McD said:
Apart from TS lenses, I think some experimentation is probably needed to determine those that might be useful. I would caution against assuming that having a larger IC means that the IQ outside the 35mm frame is necessarily of high quality. Some lenses illuminate beyond the frame, but the resolution is much deteriorated. In general, it is easier to design lenses with a larger IC at longer FLs, so you should have more luck with standard and short teles than wide angles.

All of what you say is true, but there are also exceptions to the rule. The Sigma Art lenses, for example, clearly achieve some portion of their vaunted image quality by having oversize image circles such that their center "sweet spots" are larger than they would be otherwise. Although they weren't designed to be used the way that I'm using them, I'm only too happy to take advantage of when it knocks!

Unfortunately, except for testing all likely candidates myself, it's difficult to determine which lenses might be useful in this respect, which is why I posted this query here. <shrugs>

Oh, and another thing: I really like the idea of an entire family of lenses, so I can achieve a consistent look from one to another. I have done the hodge-podge, ransom-note approach before and definitely to avoid that this time around.

Again, I realize all signs point to using Canon's T&S lenses, but the 45mm and 90mm are way too long for me, so I don't have any use for them. The 17mm will be every now and but is really too short for my night-to-night photography and the 24mm is both too short for my typical photo and, IMO, is blah, IQ-wise (even the Gen. II version.) And even if I didn't feel that way about them, the f3.5 and f4 apertures are at least a stop too slow for my purposes.

I am drawn to the Zeiss lenses because 1) I've been a fan of their lenses for many decades now; 2) their lens line-up is decently broad in 3) there are several available with f/1.4 and f2 apertures.

Ditto for the Contax C/Y lenses, except their lens line-up is even more broad in scope than the modern Zeiss series and the ones that interest me the most can be bought these days for not very much money, which is why I've started my exploration there.

Honestly, if the 28mm and 55mm Otii lenses had larger image circles, I'd be very tempted to suck it up about their prices, buy the pair, and live happily ever after. Alas, they don't, so I'm still looking and am now looking backward as well as forward for possible candidates...

E Dinkla · Sep 1, 2017

Are some more modern MF rangefinder lenses adaptable to that camera? I mean without electronic aperture control on their lenses. Mamiya 6 and 7, Bronica 645 rangefinder with the short commercial life, some Fuji models with their lens cannibalised. On image quality they all seem to be top class, coverage can not be an issue. Might be less expensive than PC lenses that are sure giving good image quality too.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
750+ inkjet paper white spectral plots: OBA content etc.

spectrumviz_1

AudiiDudii · Sep 1, 2017

E Dinkla said:
Are some more modern MF rangefinder lenses adaptable to that camera? I mean without electronic aperture control on their lenses. Mamiya 6 and 7, Bronica 645 rangefinder with the short commercial life, some Fuji models with their lens cannibalised. On image quality they all seem to be top class, coverage can not be an issue. Might be less expensive than PC lenses that are sure giving good image quality too.

It's only metal, so where there's a will -- and a mill, and potentially a lathe! -- then there's a way! In fact, the setup that I am presently using is adapted, because Cambo doesn't make a suitable lens board, so I began with a custom Canon EOS mount and adapt from there via inexpensive adapters:

E Dinkla said:
I mean without electronic aperture control on their lenses. Mamiya 6 and 7, Bronica 645 rangefinder with the short commercial life, some Fuji models with their lens cannibalised. On image quality they all seem to be top class, coverage can not be an issue. Might be less expensive than PC lenses that are sure giving good image quality too.

The widest Mamiya 6 lens is 50mm and the widest Mamiya 7 lens is 43mm, plus both of them have apertures that are too slow for my nighttime photography. I have tried both the Bronica PS and PE series lenses, because I had Bronica outfits back in my film days and recall them being good performers. But time has apparently caught up with them, because I was disappointed by their performance with my A7R. (I confess that I have no experience with the RF645 lenses, but the shortest of them is 45mm, IIRC, which is too long, so they're not an option, either.)

The same is also true for the vintage Mamiya Press 50mm Biogon lens that I once loved to an unhealthy extent, as well as the 75mm, 127mm, and 150mm Polaroid 600SE lenses I removed from their focusing helicals and happily used on my medium-format view camera for many years.

Similarly, I have an adapted 38mm Biogon salvaged from a Hasselblad SWC that I once loved, too, but it's also a disappointment when used with my A7R and, again, of their apertures are just too slow. And the widest of the regular Hasselblad V-series lenses is 40mm, which is too long.

I also have a half-dozen Contax 645 lenses that I've used and while their IQ is stellar, it's too much of a pain to work with their electronic apertures in the dark; their apertures are all too slow (except for the 80/f2.8, which is passable), and 35mm is the shortest focal length available (and alas, it suffers of too much mustache distortion for my type of photography and my general nit-pickiness.)

Unfortunately, the lenses on Fuji's Texas Leicas are too long for my purposes, although I have thought about how well adapted X-Pan lenses might work.

Unfortunately, their flange to focal length is fairly short, which will make using them on the Actus problematic, because the rear element will have to be recessed into the A7R body slightly to focus at infinity and assuming this is even possible, it will also limit the extent to which movements can be used. Plus, they are expensive and, yet again, their apertures are all too slow.

I have also ruled out the digital versions of various large-format lenses, because while they do have suitable focal lengths and passably fast apertures and large enough image circles, they're typically symmetrical designs and cause cross-talk problems when used with the A7R's sensor. That said, there are a few that should work well and have short enough focal lengths to be useful, but they're also prohibitively expensive ... enough so as to make a Zeiss Otus purchase seem affordable!

As you can see, I have explored my options fairly thoroughly and didn't come to using 35mm format lenses easily. But they do seem to be my best option overall, provided I can find ones with suitably large image circles to provide ~8-10mm of rise / fall / shift movement while maintaining sufficient IQ beyond the 35mm format.

If I was a daylight photographer, the situation would be completely different. But I'm not and I don't expect this to change any time soon, because I enjoy photographing at night too much.

As it stands, I have developed a limited, but workable solution, which is great. But I'm also positive that it can be improved further and let's face it, the journey is at least half the fun, because I enjoy tinkering with cameras almost as much as I do using them.

In fact, I consider this my daytime hobby and photography is my nighttime hobby.

Rod McD · Sep 1, 2017

Hi again,

I saw your images from the Sigmas and the Contax in your reply post only after I'd written and posted my own response above. They look very good and beautifully exposed.

In the light of all of the above, the only other suggestion that I can make about film TS lenses is perhaps to try the shift-only CY Zeiss 35/2.8PC lens. I haven't used one, but it topped the PC lens comparison here http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/35mm_shift/35mm_test1.html. Beware the site is old and clunky to navigate - best to go from page to page sequentially. The lens turns up rarely on e-Bay and elsewhere, but they are unfortunately very expensive.

Of non-PC 28mm lenses, the CY Zeiss, Leica R (late version) and AIS Nikkors seem to consistently top the comparisons. I mentioned using the AIS 20/2.8 in my first post, but I also have an AIS 28/2.8 and use it occasionally on my TS adapter too. I'd never explored its limits as to how far it will shift, so tried it just now in case it helps...... The Kipon adapter allows 15mm of shift in any direction. The AIS 28mm will shift up 14mm parallel to the short side of the APSC frame and 13mm parallel to the long side without vignetting. You can just see the corners cutting off at 15mm in either direction. That means it would offer some modest shift on FF and easily enough tilt for most applications. The AIS 28/2.8 is a good lens and very rectilinear. If it has a weakness its flare. Its 28/2 sibling is faster and very flare resistant, but heavier and dearer. Both are easily found and would be inexpensive to try if your CY Zeiss 28mm doesn't work out.

Good luck.

Regards, Rod

schafphoto · Nov 30, 2017

Hi I just stumbled on this discussion. I too am very interested in the Image circles as I build a mirrorless or medium format shift system for Architecture. Have you tried any zoom lenses? My experience being that zooms regularly exhibited a minimum-required circle at their widest and tgen the IC got bigger. A 12-24 Tokina DX lens would for instance, cover FX at around 16mm.

I am looking at a Tamron SP 24-70 2.8 because it has low CA and high sharpness (DXO scores). I’m hoping the IC at 35-70 will allow shifts.

DavidKennard · Nov 30, 2017

That's a good point. So a lens like the Nikkor 14-14mm or Tamron 15-30mm may work well.

This subject is something I'm interested in as well. What we really need is people to test their lenses and then add the data to an online database. But finding the image circle size is tricky.

Holding the lens looking out a window, with the lens inserted through a hole in some card (to block light) and a sheet of squared paper held behind (at the correct flange distance) allows the lens to project an image onto the paper. You can then see from that the image circle size, however you can't judge what the image quality is like. And doing this without some contraption to hold everything in place is very difficult.

If anyone wants to buy me a Cambo and some lens boards I'd be happy to test my lenses and report the image circle sizes.

AudiiDudii · Nov 30, 2017

schafphoto said:
Hi I just stumbled on this discussion. I too am very interested in the Image circles as I build a mirrorless or medium format shift system for Architecture. Have you tried any zoom lenses? My experience being that zooms regularly exhibited a minimum-required circle at their widest and tgen the IC got bigger. A 12-24 Tokina DX lens would for instance, cover FX at around 16mm.

Yes, I have tried several wide angle and ultra-wide angle zooms over the past few years.

Some work fairly well -- the Contax 17-35/f2.8, for example, will allow for 3-4 mm of rise / fall / shift movement at 17 mm, increasing to ~6-8 mm by 20 mm, and by 35mm, it will cover the 44 x 33 sensor of my Phase One P30+ -- but most of the wide and ultra-wide ones, it seems, have their image circles restricted by permanently attached lens hoods or baffles over the rear element.

The Sigma 12-24, Nikon 14-24, and Canon 11-24 all fall into this category, as they are all capable of projecting larger image circles with decent image quality once modified. I'm fairly good at modifying cameras, but a bit squeamish about modifying costly lenses, so I have ventured there yet.

A friend let me borrow his Tamron 15-30, but it was a Pentax version and I had no way to control its electronic aperture, so that was a non-starter. Perhaps the Nikon version has some potential?

It's also my understanding the Canon 16-35/f4 projects an image circle large enough to allow for movements, but it being a Canon lens, I haven't bothred to look into it myself.

schafphoto said:
I am looking at a Tamron SP 24-70 2.8 because it has low CA and high sharpness (DXO scores). I’m hoping the IC at 35-70 will allow shifts.

Cool! Post back here once you have a better idea as to how it performs.

JG

AudiiDudii · Nov 30, 2017

DavidKennard said:
That's a good point. So a lens like the Nikkor 14-14mm or Tamron 15-30mm may work well.

Yes, (but see my comments posted above about them.)

DavidKennard said:
This subject is something I'm interested in as well. What we really need is people to test their lenses and then add the data to an online database. But finding the image circle size is tricky.

If one digs around enough, there's a surprising amount of info about image circle size available out there.

DavidKennard said:
Holding the lens looking out a window, with the lens inserted through a hole in some card (to block light) and a sheet of squared paper held behind (at the correct flange distance) allows the lens to project an image onto the paper. You can then see from that the image circle size, however you can't judge what the image quality is like. And doing this without some contraption to hold everything in place is very difficult.

Or you can do as I do, which is to mount the lens on my Toyo VX23D view camera and physically measure the size of the image circle it projects onto a ground glass. Another approach is to mount the lens on a camera and then shift it around, either using a T&S adapter, or a camera like the Actus, which provides movements, and keep track of how far it can be shifted before the image dims, goes soft, or becomes distorted. 8^)

DavidKennard said:
If anyone wants to buy me a Cambo and some lens boards I'd be happy to test my lenses and report the image circle sizes.

FYI, my Cambo Actus may be for sale soon, as just today, I successfully got another one of my project cameras working with my C/Y lenses:

While I have enjoyed using the Cambo Actus, I've found that I don't use its tilt and swing movements very often. I also don't enjoy at all discovering that these mechanisms have drifted during an outing and unintentionally applied small, random amounts of tilt and swing to my photos, something that has happened several times over the time I've had mine.

The Cambo WDS, on the other hand, offers only rise / fall / shift movements and due to its design, the sensor and the lens' plane of focus remain perfectly parallel to each other at all times, so no more unintended tilts and swings screwing up my photos!

Plus, they can be purchased used for a lot less money than an Actus and modified just as I have for maybe $75 in materials, which makes them a bargain. 8^)

schafphoto · Dec 1, 2017

A cardboad box with an extension tube or mount adapter hot glued and a piece of wax paper will get you a “contraption” to measure the IC. Just knowing the size of the projected IC at F11 would be a great resource. When large format lenses are listed on IC databases, the quality of the edges is not discussed. The edges will have issues- CA, Vignette, sharpness... we will all need to decide if those issues are deal killers or if the lenses’ attributes overcome the flaws. But I think the 14-14 zoom won’t work ;-)

schafphoto · Dec 1, 2017

AudiiDudii said:
The Cambo WDS, on the other hand, offers only rise / fall / shift movements and due to its design, the sensor and the lens' plane of focus remain perfectly parallel to each other at all times, so no more unintended tilts and swings screwing up my photos!

Plus, they can be purchased used for a lot less money than an Actus and modified just as I have for maybe $75 in materials, which makes them a bargain. 8^)

Please show us some more angles. Very interested in your Wide DS trials.

your needs intrigue me since your art is very exact, but you want a style/look of a lens. I am more concerned about corners and sharpness in my documentations so your comment that you don’t like the look of the Canon TSE lenses makes me think. Sharpness is always my starting point and I’m willing to sacrifice brightness and style but there are many situations where I can’t see the machinery in front of me to focus so getting a brighter focus image would often be helpful.

So while my starting point is the 24-70 Tamron, for sharpness maybe yours would be a f2.0 zoom with darker corners.

Good discussion.

-Schaf

DavidKennard · Dec 2, 2017

schafphoto said:
A cardboad box with an extension tube or mount adapter hot glued and a piece of wax paper will get you a “contraption” to measure the IC. Just knowing the size of the projected IC at F11 would be a great resource. When large format lenses are listed on IC databases, the quality of the edges is not discussed. The edges will have issues- CA, Vignette, sharpness... we will all need to decide if those issues are deal killers or if the lenses’ attributes overcome the flaws. But I think the 14-14 zoom won’t work ;-)

AudiiDudii · Dec 2, 2017

schafphoto said:
Please show us some more angles. Very interested in your Wide DS trials.

Sure. It's 5:00 am and I'm off to bed shortly -- I'm always out photographing the nights before, during, and after a full moon, and especially so when it's a supermoon! -- but I will take some more photos later today and post them here. Is there a particular angle that is of interest to you?

schafphoto said:
your needs intrigue me since your art is very exact, but you want a style/look of a lens. I am more concerned about corners and sharpness in my documentations so your comment that you don’t like the look of the Canon TSE lenses makes me think. Sharpness is always my starting point and I’m willing to sacrifice brightness and style but there are many situations where I can’t see the machinery in front of me to focus so getting a brighter focus image would often be helpful.

I'm a big fan of sharpness, too (hence the Sigma Art lenses I also own!) But the Sigmas also have a slightly hard / harsh quality to them that has grown to grate on me over the year or so that I've been using them. Somebody from a Fred Miranda forum sent me a C/Y 35/f2.8 lens to test on my Actus to determine the size of its useful image circle and I found myself intrigued and/or smitten by its "Zeiss-ness," as well as its "old-school" way of rendering images. That many of them can also be bought very inexpensively and are physically small and light were merely bonuses.

But that's just me and I do this as a hobby, not a profession (although I am looking into doing some real estate photography as a part-time thing, so who knows?) thus am free to pursue (or avoid!) a certain look merely as a personal whim.

As for sacrificing sharpness for brightness, until recently, that's something I tried not to do (hence the Sigmas, which are sharp, sharp, sharp, and with f1.4 and f2 apertures, as bright or brighter than any of the alternatives.) My aging eyes aren't what they used to be, so although I typically stop down to f8 to take photos, I happily compose and focus at f1.4 and f2, where the additional stop or two of light makes a noticeable difference.

If you like the look rendered by Canon TSE lenses, then I would say it's a no-brainer for you to go that route instead. Buy the HCAM TSE collar mount for the 17 mm and 24 mm lenses, so you can shift properly by moving the body instead of the lens, and live happily ever after. (As a bonus, they will cover a 44x33 sensor, so when you buy a Fuji GFX, you can continue to use them, although with reduced amounts of movement.)

schafphoto said:
So while my starting point is the 24-70 Tamron, for sharpness maybe yours would be a f2.0 zoom with darker corners.

For several years, the only lens I used was a Contax N 17-35/f2.8 zoom on a custom shift adapter. It offers a more modern style version of the Zeiss look I love and on Fuji bodies I then used with it, plenty of shift movements thanks to their APS sensors. Plus, because of the sensors smaller size, I could use shorter exposures without sacrificing DoF, since it wasn't necessary to stop down the aperture quite as much.

Alas, I grew frustrated with their 16 MP sensors, because I was only able to print a typical photo at 10x15; any larger, and I found the image quality degraded beyond what I could accept. I had started using a Sony RX-1 as my everyday camera and found I could make satisfactory prints quite a bit larger still, so was intrigued by the A7R when it reached the market and eventually bought one.

Not only was the larger, higher resolution sensor welcome, but it turned my much loved Contax 17-35 lens back into the zoom I originally fell in love with back in the day, instead of teh 25-52 zoom it had effectively become when used with Fuji bodies.

But over the last two years or so, my eyes started aging and I found myself composing almost blindly at times even with its f2.8 aperture. So I tried the Sigma 24-35/f2 zoom, then later several of the f1.4 primes, and found the extra stop or two of light really was helpful, even though I never shot any of these lenses wide open.

FYI, I also tried a few of the other Sigmas, too: Alas, the 20/f1.4 prime has a built-in lens hood, which apparently limits its image circle such that only 1-2mm of shift movements are possible. I fear the same is likely true of the 14mm/f1.8 as well, but I don't know for certain. And while the Sigma Art 12-24/f4 zoom does allow for an acceptable amount of shift after 15-16mm or so, its f4 aperture is simply too slow for my purposes. (BTW, the 11mm and 15mm Irix lenses have removable hoods and project image circles that are large enough to provide for several mm of shift and at f2.4, the 15mm lens, at least, has an adequately fast aperture. Alas, the 11mm lens has an f4 aperture, which will limit its usefulness to me. But I digress....)

schafphoto said:
Good discussion.

Indeed. Especially because it often seems I'm the only one who is working under these restrictions, so it's nice to know I'm not alone.

AudiiDudii · Dec 2, 2017

DavidKennard said:
Majority of people don't own view cameras that they can check their lenses with. (And those that do may not have short enough minimum flange back distance for SLR lenses).

Both of these points are true, as I had to modify my Toyo 23D to be able to focus 35mm lenses at infinity.

DavidKennard said:
With a cardboard box you still need some way of holding the lens in place while you also note the image circle size on the back. However, I think this shouldn't be too difficult, and likely easier than my suggestion. I shall have to try it.

I believe the easiest, most widely applicable approach is for people to mount lenses on a shift adapter and keep track of how far they can move it around while achieving decent results.

AudiiDudii · Dec 2, 2017

schafphoto said:
Please show us some more angles. Very interested in your Wide DS trials.

As promised, here's a photo of the back side, where the A7R mounts to the Cambo WDS:

For the sake of expediency, I adapted a Toyo 45A 110 mm x 110 mm to replace the OEM mount panel Cambo uses. Surprisingly, it fits the opening with only minor trimming of the corners and unlike a flat piece of aluminum, it has a light trap cast into the back to prevent light from spilling around the edges and reaching the sensor. I had to drill four mounting holes in it and purchased some small metric knobs from my local Ace Hardware store to hold it in place. Lastly, I had to sand a few thousands off the light trap on the bottom so it would sit at the correct height.

I used a pair of hole saws (one for the inside diameter and a second one for the outside diameter) on a drill press to make the circular spacer from a .25" thick piece of cast aluminum plate (I used cast aluminum instead of rolled aluminum because its surface finish is smoother and its thickness is more consistent across the plate.) I reduced its thickness to the correct dimensions by carefully sanding it thinner using a 10" diameter disc sander and finally by finishing sanding it using increasingly finer grit sandpaper spray-mounted onto a .5" thick piece of glass to have a flat surface behind it. I sanded it slowly and stopped frequently to take measuresments around its periphery with dial calipers so I could be certain I was preserving its inherent flatness. (Ultimately, it measured flat to within .003" using a precision surface plate / dial caliper setup.)

I purchased a Sony E-mount plate for the Cambo Actus from B&H for $75 to standarize on one bolt pattern so I can easily adapt the camera to use other bodies should I ever desire to do so.

To change from horizontal to vertical format, I simply unscrew the camera mounting plate, rotate it 90 degrees, then reinstall it. It's easy enough to do in the field, even in the dark, but I am working on modifying the original mounting plate (which allows one to switch from horizontal to vertical format simply by sliding a clamp and then rotating the panel.)

To adapt the front to support different lens mounts, I removed all the OEM hardware, then added a second panel made from .090" aluminum sheet (puchased from my local Ace Hardware store) to which I screwed a Fotodiox EOS to C/Y adapter. (For the Nikon F-mount Sigma Art lenses, I used a Fotodiox Cinepro adapter, which has a lever that will control lens aperture mechanically instead of electronically.)

Lastly, to move the rise/fall movement to the rear panel (as delivered by Cambo, it's on the front panel and the horizontal shift movement is on the rear panel), I rotated the whole camera thru 90 degrees and replaced the OEM wood handle with a piece of .25" cast aluminum sheet. (Note that I don't use a tripod head, but level the camera on the tripod by adjusting the angle of its legs. So long as the legs are properly oriented -- the center column is rotated such that two legs end up parallel to the sensor plane and one leg ends up parallel to the lens axis -- it's quick and easy to level the tripod by changing the angle of one or two legs slightly. This works so well that I sold my Arca Cube, since I no longer needed it and it was an extra kilo of weight to carry around unnecesarily.)

Finally, I painted all the aluminum parts that I made or modified using VHT wrinkle-finish black paint purchased from an auto parts store and cured them by baking in an oven at 200 degrees for an hour.

To get the lens register correct, I adjusted the thickness of the spacer under the camera mount by trial and error. To the extent that any fine-tuning was necessary to square up everything, I used pieces of Scotch tape as shims (a single thickness measures .004" and several layers can be stacked, if necessary.)

So, as you can see, while this might look like a difficult project, it really wasn't and I was able to do it myself using just basic tools. If you have any mechanical sympathy, I'll bet you can do likewise!

schafphoto · Dec 2, 2017

Thanks for the extra pic. You’re doing my R&D for me.

Very fine work. Definitely in my ability. BTW The stock Cambo Wide DS will take a 24mm Schneider XL in a helical mount off the shelf too. Does that work with the flange distance your modded camera has? They made a smaller Cambo Wide RS as well, No? Smaller but not able to adapt to 4x5 film. I almost bought a big Wide DS for HABS work before building a Frankenstein 5x7 camera with a 4x5 reducing back. Since I have mostly Cambo large format equipment this is a familiar possibility. I too was dissatisfied when I found that a standard had slipped out of plane when all I usually need is rise and fall, I finally built a rigid back with no movements. A digital solution with only rise and fall and side shift would meet 95% of my needs and I can figure out another way for the other 5%.

I keep coming back to the comment you made at the start of this thread about not liking the look of lens corrections and wanting to do the corrections optically. While I need to do optical shifts in my documentations (per the documentary rules), your art is under no such “requirement” and thus optical vs. software perspective control is your choice.

When I did side by side tests between the optical 24mm Nikon shift and a 20mm Nikon corrected in post, I could perceive a small difference, but personally can’t say one was better or more “corrected-er” than the other without the ability to flip back and fourth at full screen, the differenced were imperceptible to anyone and the PC cropping on a 48MP chip would still get you a 24x30 print.

I know it’s not my business, and the degree of your dedication and resources is evident, but if you want the biggest choice of optical “look” and “feel” removing the large image circle necessity and doing PC in post would probably be my approach. (and would result in a smaller/lighter kit). (not as cool looking though).(and not as much fun to figure out).

With all the Leica and Olympus, Nikon, Otus, Canon, Schneider and Zeiss options out there there’s a lot of options to get a particular stylistic look.

AudiiDudii · Dec 3, 2017

schafphoto said:
Thanks for the extra pic. You’re doing my R&D for me.

If you're at all like me, then I apologize for doing your R&D. Because for me, at least, it's fully half the fun of undertaking projects such as this one. (As I like to say, photography is my nighttime hobby and tinkering with the cameras I use is my daytime hobby.)

schafphoto said:
Very fine work. Definitely in my ability. BTW The stock Cambo Wide DS will take a 24mm Schneider XL in a helical mount off the shelf too. Does that work with the flange distance your modded camera has?

No, it doesn't. It has a flange-to-focal distance of 26.4 mm, whereas my setup requires a minimum of 45.3 mm (which I've shimmed to 45.5 mm to work with the C/Y lenses.) The A7R uses up 18 mm of that, which leaves 8.4 mm of space for an adapter between it and the back of the lens. Without resorting to major machine work on the Cambo (such that one might as well build their own "Cambo" from scratch instead of modifying one), even accommodating Canon EOS lenses at 44 mm will be a struggle. (Not that I'd ever want to use one of those, of course, but it does make adapting other lenses more convenient as there are lots of off-the-shelf, whatever-to-EOS lens adapters available inexpensively.)

BTW, the primary issue here is the form-factor of the A7R, because it must be spaced at least 8.8 mm from the camera mount plate for its battery grip to clear (and that's after I removed the rubber cover over it, which gained an additional 1.5 mm of clearance.) On the other hand, a Fuji X-Pro 1 requires only 3.25 mm of clearance for its flatter front, so this can vary significantly from camera to camera. (Would that Fuji cameras work better for nighttime photography with adapted lenses and had higher-resolution sensors, as I would love to use a camera with an APS-C sensor for the DoF benefits it would offer.)

And Yes, this means that swapping the A7R for anA7RII or III will require work, because their battery grips extend several millimeters even further forward. (For the moment, at least, this isn't an issue, because I am mostly happy with the A7R and I find its low-light, long-exposure peformance superior to that of the A7RII and, I presume, to the A7RIII as well, because they share the same sensor.)

schafphoto said:
They made a smaller Cambo Wide RS as well, No? Smaller but not able to adapt to 4x5 film.

An even better camera for this application would be the Cambo WRC-400, which is more compact and lighter. But the least expensive used one I found was $1,400 and I was not willing to spend the money for it, especially as I already owned this camera and selling it would be difficult due to the lack of demand for them these days.

schafphoto said:
I almost bought a big Wide DS for HABS work before building a Frankenstein 5x7 camera with a 4x5 reducing back. Since I have mostly Cambo large format equipment this is a familiar possibility. I too was dissatisfied when I found that a standard had slipped out of plane when all I usually need is rise and fall, I finally built a rigid back with no movements. A digital solution with only rise and fall and side shift would meet 95% of my needs and I can figure out another way for the other 5%.

It sounds like our needs are very similar. I really hoped the Actus would bridge the gap between a rigid, plate-type, technincal camera and a flexible view camera, but no such luck. Or at least not to my standards, which I will admit to being quite high.

schafphoto said:
I keep coming back to the comment you made at the start of this thread about not liking the look of lens corrections and wanting to do the corrections optically. While I need to do optical shifts in my documentations (per the documentary rules), your art is under no such “requirement” and thus optical vs. software perspective control is your choice.

True enough. Except that I answer to an even higher authority than your documentary rules, which is the voice inside my head. :-D

schafphoto said:
When I did side by side tests between the optical 24mm Nikon shift and a 20mm Nikon corrected in post, I could perceive a small difference, but personally can’t say one was better or more “corrected-er” than the other without the ability to flip back and fourth at full screen, the differenced were imperceptible to anyone and the PC cropping on a 48MP chip would still get you a 24x30 print.

I don't doubt you at all about perceiving the differences between the two photos as just minor. But there is a visible difference and for me, that's all the justification I need for a project such as this one. Remember that I'm doing this as a hobby, not as a profession, so I don't need to approach it as logically and/or rationally as you do. "Because I can" is really the only justification I need (well, that and I can afford it, which in this case, I can.)

schafphoto said:
I know it’s not my business, and the degree of your dedication and resources is evident, but if you want the biggest choice of optical “look” and “feel” removing the large image circle necessity and doing PC in post would probably be my approach. (and would result in a smaller/lighter kit). (not as cool looking though).(and not as much fun to figure out).

I also tinker with cars as well as cameras. I learned long ago that the best, least costly way to approach these projects is to start with a car that's already as close to the one you want to end up with and my experience has proven this to be true with cameras, too! YMMV.

schafphoto said:
With all the Leica and Olympus, Nikon, Otus, Canon, Schneider and Zeiss options out there there’s a lot of options to get a particular stylistic look.

Indeed and I've tried many of them over the years, only to end up exactly where I am. I should also add that I have been unemployed for four years now and am on the verge of calling it retirement instead of unemployment. As such, I'm starting to feel an itch to simplify my life and get rid of a lot of baggage that's heretofore been known as "toys."

I'm also feeling the urge to be a lot more frugal than I have been in the past, so I'm very happy when I can replace a lens that will sell for $1,000 (or more!) with one I bought for $125. (This is especially true because I have many that fall into that category, so there's potentially a lot of cash to be raised as a result of my economy drive.)

For the most part, the C/Y lens lineup offers great value these days and that, as much as their familial look, is a large part of why I've redirected my focus to them (pun intended!) No doubt your situation is different than mine and as such, YMMV.

JG

35mm-format lenses with large image circles?

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Active member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Active member

Leading Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts