Second Lens help.

I have learned a lot in the past few weeks and I have gotten some

great advice here. I was considering a 150mm lens for my speed

graphic. I have 2 to choose from. A Rodenstock Geronar 150 f6.3

($215) or a Fujinon W 150 F6.3 ($185)

 

I spent the day shooting the swamps here in Louisiana and I began to

wonder is a 150mm a good match to the 127mm Ektar I am using now?

Are they too close to each other. There were a few times today that

I wished I had a little more reach. Would a 180-210mm lens be a

better match to the 127mm ektar?

I have a 135 and a 210. They are about right as far as spacing for me. I think the 180-210 would be a better second lens.

Yes 180 to 210mm. In a 35mm camera I consider 150 to be about 38mm and 127mm to be about 32mm so obviously not much difference no matter how you base your calculation of 35mm equivalents. I have done 20 years of 35mm photography and only 3 of 4x5 so I lean on 35mm equivalents to figure out approximately what lenses I am interested in. Oddly enough I do find my difference from 135mm to 210mm to be a little too much but I am sure you will be fine either way. Good luck!

i think the second lense would be a 90. also the 210 i have is huge and the difference between 150 and 210 sometimes can be made up in the lab.. i guess it depends on what your doing in the swamp... sometimes you can get closer but not maybe in a swamp.. it seems your getting by cheap for those prices anyway.. dave

Sam,

 

You might want to take a look at the 203mm f/7.7 Ektar. I can't imagine it not being a worthwhile addition. I have a 127mm Ektar and the difference between the two focal lengths make them quite complimentary to each other.-------Cheers!

A 150 mm lens has only an 18% longer focal length than the 127 mm that you already have. If you wanted to us 150 mm lens for a particular photo and only had a 127 mm len, you could easily crop your negative when making the enlargement and get a print virtually identical to what the 150 mm would have given uncropped. I recommend a reasonable spacing between lens focal lengths of about a factor of 1.5 (perhaps a little close for wide angles). A 180 or 210 mm lens that you are also considering would fit this suggest spacing from 127 mm.

 

A possible reason to get a 150 mm lens is to make useful amounts of movements such as front rise possible. I expect that the 127 mm Ektar won't support movements on 4x5 (which I am assuming that you are using). Kodak originally specified the maximum format for this lens as 3.25 X 4.25 inches. The Fuji-W has a better optical design than the Geronar. Assuming that it is in fully usable condition, the price you mention is very good.

Hi Sam, I am in the same boat as you. My only lens is a 127 mm Ysaron and I am waiting for my income tax refund to pick up lens two. I have decided on a 210 mm and am going with the Geronar 210mm. I believe that one is an f/6.3 as well.

I agree with the 210mm length. 90/150/210 seem to be the 'classics'. I suggest either the Kodak 203 7.7 or the Schneider Symmar convertible 210 5.6 or for something a bit faster (and heavier).

It might help to think of it like this. A 150mm lens for 4x5 is approximately equal to a 50mm lens for 35mm photography. A 127mm lens for 4x5 is approximately equal to a 42mm lens for 35mm photography. If you were using a 35mm camera would you buy a 50mm lens and a 42mm lens? Probably not.

Brian,

 

I know the point you are making, and I agree with it, so please excuse me for being pedantic. But, the usual estimates for extra enlargement going from 35 mm to 4 x 5 is roughly 3.3 to 3.9. (The aspect ratios are different, so there is no one answer.) This gives a range of about 38 mm to about 45 mm for a 35 mm focal length equivalent to 150 mm for 4 x 5. As I'm sure you know, the problem is that for historical reasons, 50 mm has been chosen as the 'normal' focal length for 35 mm, while for all other formats it is usually chosen to be something close to the diagonal of the format. By this criterion, 50 mm is a bit long for the 35 mm format.

 

Again, excuse my pedantry, but this can be a point of confusion for 35 mm photographers thinking of changing formats, particularly if they want to go to large format.

The question is are you trying to complement or replace the 127mm Ektar? The Ektar is a very nice lens, but it's got significant limitations, particularly in coverage. If you're satisfied with the focal length, but not with the coverage Fujinon W 150 6.3 might provide a significant step up- particularly if you want lightweight lens that will fold into you camera. You'd also step up to a more modern, reliable shutter and slighty sharper optics. <a href="http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/mid-rang.htm">Kerry Thalmann</a> has very good things to say about this lens. For about $250 you could move up to Calumet Caltar II (aka Sironar) N 150mm 5.6 that would be a major upgrade from a 127mm Ektar.</p>

 

If you are satisfied with the 127mm Ektar however, then something in 180mm-210mm makes more sense- although for my purposes I prefer something in the 240mm-250mm range. 210mm seems a little too "normal" for my tastes, and if I am going to have a normal lens I'd rather have something slightly wide like a 135mm than slightly long. A 240mm on the other hand is more like a very short 35mm telephoto, say an 80mm. On a speed graphic however, a 210mm is probably your best choice. And again the first thing I would start looking for in that length would a Caltar II N 5.6. Getting one for under $300 is a definite possibility on Ebay. The Caltar S II (aka Symmar-S) is another possibility.

Sam,

Thought I'd throw my $0.02 worth into the ring. Since you are mucking about in the swamp, wouldn't a lightweight lens seem more appealing? Consider the Schnieder 240mm/f9 G-Claron, they are small and light and very sharp. I have an old Goerz 240mm/f9 Red Dot Apo-Artar that fits that same bill and love the results from it.

Good luck with your quest.

I 'd say you would be well served with an older Fujinon 'W' 150 /5.6 it has an

image circle of 245mm! .It is single coated so it might match your Ektar for

contrast but more relevant than 35 mm focal length equivelencies are the

possibilities that are open to you with such extensive movements . For some

strange reason they are sleeper lenses (not the 250 /6.7 same series though)I

recently picked one of these tiny lenses for $160 mint- from KEH. You won't

feel a need to bady this one in your swamp and this is a very versatile lens. By

all means keep your 127mm , Its a great length to have, I use my 250mm

(8x10) more than any other lens as it captures a given scene with much the

same field of view as I would see it. The 150 (4x5)will also afford you some

decent close-up work as well. I have never tried removing the front cell to

increase its focal length, I understand this can be done for b&w with a yellow

filter, on some symmetrical lenses. Perhaps someone else can chime in about

this possiblity.

I agree with the 210mm. I have a 120mm and 210mm, and the difference between is about right...

127 and 150...way too close in my book and just to put the record straight the equivalents are

 

150mm @ 4x5 = 45mm @ 35mm

 

127mm @ 4x5 = 38mm @ 35mm

 

210mm @ 4x5 = 63mm @ 35mm

 

90mm @ 4x5 = 27mm @ 35mm

 

72mm @ 4x5 = 21mm @ 35mm

 

the 210 is great or maybe a 90 from a 127 starting point depending at on what you want to do.

I know I said I was planning on getting the 210mm f/6.3 Geronar but another lens has become available and I thought I would seek advice. KEH has a 180 F5.6 NIKKOR W in a Copel Press shutter for $399. I love my Prontor Press shutter that my Ysaron is in. It is very comfortable to work with. How would the Nikon lens compare to the Geronar or the 210mm Sironar N in sharpness/contrast etc..?