Lens selection

I want to thanks folks for their help selecting my initial set of

lenses. Going through the iterations, more questions arose from

several of the recent responses. As noted the composition in 4x5

doesn't directly translate from 35mm, mostly from the film size. So my

questions are:

 

Once you started in 4x5 work, how did your lens selection change? Did

you increase or decrease the focal length of your lenses you normally

use? If for example you started with a 150mm or 180mm lens as your

"normal" lens, did you keep it or go to a longer or shorter focal

length lenses?

 

What is your normal set of lenses? I ask this to get ideas of the

range and steps photographers normally use from the (second) set I've

determined so far.

 

Sorry to run this into the ground, but it's a big investment and the

last thing a new 4x5 photographer needs is a lens that isn't used.

My initial LF work was done with a Crown Graphic with a 135mm lens. When I moved up to a "real camera", I concluded that I wanted something slightly longer, and opted for a 210mm, and ought a Caltar to go with my Zone VI. No regrets - fine for landscape and portraiture, excellent for still life.

 

Step two was when I wanted to move into architectural, and especially interior work. The 210mm was fine for details, but not for the "grand view". I decided to go with a 90mm. Shopped around and eventually picked up another Caltar on the auction site. Again - no regrets.

 

One of the promises I made myself when I went to LF was that I would not get caught in the gadget trap that 35mm so often becomes. So at this point I don't want any more lenses.

 

And the bag that holds my camera is full and won't hold any more!

Hi Scott,

 

I started out with a 127mm because it was cheap. I replaced that with a 150mm because I prefer that length. I have since added a 210mm. Once I have taken a bunch of pictures with the 210mm I will probably go back to mostly using the 150mm. The novelty of the new 210mm hasn't worn off quite yet.

Being an amateur and thus not having to photograph any subject matter in particular, and being attracted mostly to photographing landscape and architecture, I began with a 150 as a normal (this was the only lens bought new). After that lens acquisitions were serandipitous. I happened on to a 210 Nikkor at a good price at a camera show and added that one and then felt the need for a wider angle lens so I bought a 90mm Super Angulon f/8 on E-Bay. I worked with these for awhile. I then happened on to an excellent deal on a 125mm Fujinon which I bought and like very much as a slightly wide angle. Feeling as though I should have something longer I acquired a 300mm Fujinon T which focuses from about 4 ft. to infinity on my Shen Hao and then ran into a deal I just couldn't pass up (good price) for a 75mm Super Angulon f/8 on the used shelf at a local camera store. I haven't used the latter two lenses very much yet and indeed I might not always carry them. Had I run into these lenses in a different order I might have acquired them in that sequence. I don't think I need any more lenses. You might, however, have some specific photographic interests to which specific focal lengths would best lend themselves and if I were you I'd think along those lines. What would be best for portraiture, studio photography of smaller objects, architectural interiors, architectural exteriors, landscapes and so on... Each choice would reflect certain focal length choices.

It depends on the way you see. In my 35 days, I mostly used a 28. I now have the equivalent (90) for 4x5, my least used lens. My way of seeing changed with the format! I have been adding, to fill gaps, from the auction. Now have 65, 90, 135, 150, 203, 300, 360, 485, with the 135, 203, and 360 (all 3 Ektars, the 203 my first lens) by far the most used. I do landscapes.

Starting with a 210mm, I didn't need another optic for nearly two decades when working in 4x5. I really didn't "need" another lens. But I stumbled across a cheap 90mm Super Angulon and an even cheaper 150mm Xenar. I seldom used the 90mm and found the 150mm length to be useful.

 

The big economy boom in the '90's allowed me to play with just about everything from 65mm through 450mm. Money was the enabler that fulfilled an unquenchable curiousity which lead to greater desire. So in my case, your question really doesn't apply. I tried them all. Nearly literally.

 

For 4x5, here's how my lens kit breaks down in terms of actual use: 75mm - 7%, 110mm - 35%, 150mm - 15%, 200mm - 40%, 250mm - 1%, 305mm - 2%

 

For 8x10, I use just a single lens - 305mm. But I have a 250mm Soft Focus Fuji and a 355 GClaron that I'll try someday.

 

For 7x17, I really like the 250mm FOV and hope the Kodak Wide Field Ektar works. Otherwise I'm kind of stuck with few options that cover the format in that focal length. The 305mm is very nice. And the 355mm gives me a pleasingly "tight" crop on the panoramic view. Lastly, I have a 150mm Super Symmar XL that I'll try just to see if it can produce a pleasingly sharp image to the edges a covering 114 degrees FOV (which I doubt, but won't know for sure until I try).

 

So with regards to your 4x5 work, try a 180mm to 210mm lens and see where you feel the need to go. If you have a vast budget, then maybe buying used and reselling the optics you don't have use for would be a way to proceed? Otherwise, try renting other focal lengths and see how they work for you. Purchase after you've convinced yourself you can't live without a certain focal length lens. Another $0.02US worth of thought... :-)

I started with a 150 and 300 and found te 150 to be too normal so I went to a 120 and 180 pair. Then added a 75 on the wide end.

For 4x5, I started with a 58, 80, 110, 150, and 240; based on my most frequently used 35mm lenses as well as general research on popular 4x5 focal lengths. After six months experience I found myself yearning for longer lenses and eventually purchased a 450 and 600. Eventually it became clear that the gap between the 240 and 450 was too large, and I purchased a 300. While this is a lot of lenses, this set has served me very well and I have no plans to change it. Replacing the 150-240 with a 180 is not feasible since my lightweight camera is an Ebony RSW45, which is essentially a wide-to-normal camera (it only has 180mm of extension, and I generally don't care for "top hat" extended lensboards).

 

Recently I got into 8x10, and I've closely replicated my 4x5 focal lengths: 150, 210, 300, 450, 600, 800, and 1200.

 

Normally I scout out my photo targets ahead of time, and take with me only the focal lengths I'll need before hiking out to take pictures.

 

The biggest thing I learned when moving to LF is that I rarely need ultra wide-angle lenses. While I frequently used my 20mm lens on my 35mm camera, I rarely use my 58mm lens on my 4x5, primarily due to the difference in aspect ratio (it's easier for me to compose with the less rectangular 4x5, also I no longer have to crop the left and right edges for fit standard print sizes). The quality of my overall photography also improved, and I developed a greater appreciation for zooming in on a point of interest, rather than indiscriminately taking in an entire scene. Hence the greater appreciation for long lenses.

WOW! Some very excellent responses here.

 

As for me, I started with an old 127mm Raptar and 90mm Graphic wideangle that worked very nicely for 4x5 and smaller so long as the contrast was low and no movements were needed on 4x5 film, but they are no comparison to the newer German and Japanese lenses I eventually acquired. I now use a variety of film sizes in my view cameras, everything from 6x6cm to 8x10, and I'd like to someday get a very large format panoramic camera so I can do contacts from it.

 

Thus my lens selections have related to the film formats, with that currently spanning pretty consistently small steps from 90mm to 300mm. I'd like to get a 450mm Nikkor M and a 600 of some sort, probably another multicoated Apo of some variety, although also adding something in the Tele-Xenars will be a good solution for putting a telephoto image onto the 4x5 and 5x7 film.

 

One note I pass on to those doing very wideangle work-- using a slightly too wide lens for the format, such as the current 110/115mm lenses from Schneider and Rodenstock (which don't quite cover 8x10) actually works fine for most interiors and even most scenics so long as your primary focus is not concentrated at infinity. I just rack out the lens a bit to provide for adequate coverage, and can also drop & tilt the front standard a bit to improve the depth of field. This also works for other lenses including the G-Clarons which are so popular with backpackers.

 

I am also finding that my focus is less towards "wideangle" imagery and now leaning more towards more tightly focused subjects including closeups of nature and manmade objects. The G-Clarons and M series Nikkors are a great choice for this kind of work, but I still recommend taking a decent wideangle along. A 240mm G-Claron is also a modest wideangle for 8x10, and the 210mm G-Claron can also be used if stopped down almost all the way.

 

A competent 8x10 field camera along with 5x7 and 4x5 reducing backs (and a Calumet C2 6x7 roll film back) making a great all around choice for short backcountry expeditions where you want to be able to cover all of your bases. If you take a 110/115mm wideangle, a fast 150/180mm lens plus 210/240 and 300mm Apos with that camera combination, I think you'll find most of your needs will always be accomplished.

 

IF you want to stick with a 5x7 or smaller camera, then you will still have most of your bases covered with that lens selection but I'd add another shorter wideangle, probably the faster 90mm since the graduated ND filters are usually compatible with their slightly longer brethern. Indeed, when chosing your wideangles, keep this very important point in mind since those special ND filters cost hundreds of dollars and make a real difference in the images!

 

Hope this helps.

My first LF lens (for 4x5), and my only lens for some years, was a 180 mm. 180 mm is still my most used focal length. Popular focal lengths for both a first lens for 4x5 and to be the "normal" focal length are 150, 180 and 210. Going by the format diagonal as the definition of normal suggests 150 mm. Some prefer a bit tighter view, additionally, many 150 mm lenses don't have much extra coverage for movements so other have picked a longer focal length. In the past 210 has been very popular. I like the view that 180 mm offers and this focal length is already long enough that plasmat designs offer plenty of coverage.

 

My guess is that most 4x5 photographers learn to see with their first lens, be it 150, 180 or 210 mm, and end up liking that focal length as their "normal" lens.

 

The other focal lengths in my lens kit have changed as I converged. My kit for 4x5 is now 72 / 110 / 180 / 270 / 450 mm. My second most used lens is the 110. I think a spacing of about a factor of about 1.5 to 1.7 works well. With this spacing the views are substantially different and not too many lenses are required to span a range of focal lengths. If none of the lenses gives exactly the spacing you want, you can either change the camera position or use a wider lens and crop slightly.

 

I think it useful for a beginner at LF photography to start with one lens for many months. After learning to "see" with this lens, the photographer will know whether they want a wider or a longer lens for their second lens. If one lens seems too constraining, then perhaps two -- with the second being a moderate wide (90 to 120 mm) for a landscape or architecture photographer, or a 240 to 300 mm for someone interested in portraits.

I think my use varies with format, but I generally adapt to what I have available. My mind is more flexible than my lens selection!

 

My 135mm lens came with the 5x4 camera. Although it is a 'short standard' I am not aware of it being slightly wide.

 

I have added a 90mm since which does come in very useful with large subjects. I might leave it behind if I was trying to keep weight down.

 

My long 'lens' is a 6x9cm roll film back. If I am going to enlarge a lot I may as well use smaller film format to start with, but I rarely want that sort of long reach. Maybe something around 300mm in the future.

"Lens selection" sounds much too methodical to describe the way my collection of glass took shape. I've had a Speed Graphic for about 35 years that came with a slightly flawed 150mm Zeiss Tessar. More recently I bought a monorail rig that came with three lenses, all in very good condition: 90mm Super Angulon f8.0; 120mm Angulon f6.8; and 203mm Ektar f7.7. A bit later, having sold the monorail (but kept those lenses) and bought a Canham DLC45, I added a 250mm Fuji f6.3, and very recently a 450mm Nikkor-M f9.0.

 

If I were starting out from scratch, would I wind up with a collection of 90-120-150-203-250-450? No! But I'm an amateur, shooting portraits, landscapes, and architectural details, and except for three of the lenses I don't have that much invested in them. They do what I need, and I'm happy.

I started with a 150, then added a 250, then a 90. Later, I sold the 150 and 250, replaced them with 135 and 200. Still saving my pennies for a 300, but once I have that, I'll be set for quite a while.

 

The 200 shoots about half of my images, and the 135 get most of the rest. The 90 is very useful when I need it, but that's only about 10-15% of the time.

i started with a 240. shortly thereafter i picked up a 150... then a 110... then a 300. my kit stayed at 110-150-240-300 for quite a while.

 

i then bought a 75... then a 450, and i am now selling my fuji 240-a and sironar 150-s, as they have both been replaced by a 180 lens.

 

my kit going forward will be 75-110-180-300-450

 

those 5 lenses pretty much cover everything i need them to.

I started with a 210, which came with the (4x5")camera. Then I got a 300, which followed another (5x7")camera. Next was a 135, a 150, a 210 and a 360, which came with yet another (4x5") camera. I ten traced in the first one.

 

Oddly enough I felt I needed a wide-angle lens - oddly because the 28mm was my least used 35mm-lens - and got a 90. And a 120. And another 90. And a 121. Then I got a bigger camera, and a 165, and a 240.

 

So on 4x5" I use 90, 120, 135, 150, 180 (forgot to mention that one? Bought as "old shutter with glass"!), 210, 240, 360.

 

On 5x7" it's 90, 121, 150, 165, 180, 210, 300, 420 (converted 240).

 

On 18x24cm so far only 121, 165, 240. And an antique 130...

Hi

 

I started with a 135mm SironarN and I worked for 2 years only with it, then I got a 75mm Nikkor and a 300mm Apo Ronar and then I get a 210mm and a 90mm and 150mm wich was togheter with a camera and I sold it very soon then i got a480mm APO Ronar, Imagon SF lens. Then I got a 55mm, 47mm and a 360mm and a f3.5 250mm and now a 150mm G-Glaron for Macro wich I will sell because I now have a 120mm Macro and a Universal Heliar 360mm and my last 2buy's where almost only for my 8x10 a 155mm APO Grandagon and a 610mm Nikkor.

But you will as many storys get as photogs!

I started with a 150. It was the cheapest and most plentiful lens that seemed to appear used. It was a 150 G-claron, which is tiny. Actually, I was kindof dissapointed in a way at first -- such a huge camera, and all for this tiny lens no bigger than a nickel in the front of it?!?

 

I have since learned to appreciate the small size. I then spaced out my lenses in 2X gaps; 75mm, and 300mm. So now I have 75, 150, 300. My 35mm kit was pretty much the same spacing (24, 50, 100).

 

My most used lens is by *far* the 150. It just seems to work for everything, and I rarely find myself wishing for anything a little longer or shorter. The 300, though, is nice for portraits.

 

The 75mm is quite wide, a bit startlingly so at first. And it is very infrequently used, the most expensive one, and the biggest and heaviest. But... when you need to go wide, you need to go wide, and that's all there is to it.

I tended to get pretty close to things with 35mm and medium format (a 70-210 zoom and a 105mm macro were my most used 35mm lenses) so I began large format at 210. Over the years (almost 10 now) I've tended to see things wider with large format than I do with medium and digital (I no longer do any 35mm work, it's pretty much all digital and large format now). My widest large format lens is now an 80mm, I also have a 135, 150, 210, and 300. My most used lens is still the 210 I think but I use the 135 more than I thought I would.

I started with a 90/8 and then added a 150/5.6. I then found that I was using the 150 more because it was brighter. Not the best reason. Mr White gave me a good exchange deal and I swapped the 90/8 for the 80/4.5 XL. My RSW has a limited bellows draw but eventually I found a 270/5.5 Tele-Arton on Ebay which now completes my lens set. I found surprisingly that I use the 80 a lot less that the other two which is a little disconcerting as it cost more than the other two together. Percentage wise roughly 80 - 10%, 150 - 60%, 270 - 30%. I go walking a lot and feel I can't leave any of them behind as they are each great in there own way. Won't be adding more lenses as I simply couldn't carry any more.

A lot of people recommend starting with just one lens for while, but I recommend starting with two. Which two will depend on your subject matter and style. Architecture: 90 and 150. Landscape: 120 and 210 or 150 and 300. Details: 180 and 300. You get the idea. The odds are that when you add other lenses, these first two will still probably cover 75% of all that you do. If you really are uncertain, than buy your first lenses used, so that you can sell them for only a small loss (if any) if you decide your first choices were a little too long or too short. I spent $1100 on my 90 because I was sure about that one, but only $200 on my 150 because I felt I needed to try that length out first. Turns out I liked it a lot and use it a lot (f/5.6 Symmar-S), so I'm glad to have such a cheap but excellent lens. If you try to replicate your favorite 35mm lenses, choose a lens that's a bit longer than the common "equivelants" charts, which are usually based on the horizontal dimension. The extra height of the 4x5 frame really produces a wider feeling image. It's subtle, but the psychology of a 4x5 rectangle is quite different than the long 2x3 rectangle.

I started out with a 75-150-300mm combo, to cover a reasonably wide range. That is what I used for several years. The equivalent of my favorite 35mm lens (85mm) was the 300, but it turned out that I used the wider ones more than in the 35mm days, especially the 150mm. I missed something in between though, so my next acqusition was a 120mm/210mm combo (the 120 has now been sidelined by a 110mm, because that fits better in the line, and the 75 by an 80mm). The 120/110 and 210mm are the ones most used now, so in retrospect I should have started with those maybe. After that came a 450 on the long side, and then a 55mm on the short end. That is my standard "large" kit for 4x5 now: 55-80-110-150-210-300-450mm (I have others to play with nowadays, but this is the main kit). For a 2 lens kit, I'd go with the (old) 120mm and 210, for a 4-lens one with 80-120-210-300.