What Lenses to start with?

<p>I've just put a bid on a 4x5 Tachihara camera, and I'm looking at lenses for it. One for portraits &

tele-

landscapes, something like 135 or 85 in 35mm, and also something for wide-angle landscapes.

 

<p>I've found a few second hand, but don't know my Sironars from Symmars..

 

<p>Schneider 90mm f/8 Super Angulon<br>

Schneider 120mm f/8 Super Angulon<br>

Schneider Symmar 135/235 f/5.6-f/12 (is this some kind of zoom?)<br>

Schneider Symmar 210/370 f/5.6-f/12<br>

Schneider Symmar-S 135mm f/5.6 MC<br>

Rodenstock Sironar-N 150mm f/5.6 MC<br>

Rodenstock Sironar-N 180mm f/5.6 MC <br>

Rodenstock Sironar-N 240mm f/5.6 MC Copal 3<br>

Rodenstock APO Ronar 150mm f/8 Copal 0<br>

Gandagon-N 90mm MC f/6.8<br>

Sinar Sinaron-S 210mm f/5.6 MC<br>

 

<p>CONFUSING!!!!

 

<p>What do the different Copal numbers mean? My thought were maybe to get the Sironar 240mm and

the

Gandaon 90mm.

 

<p>Daniel.

Daniel,

 

I've only been working with large format for just over a year now so 'take this with a grain of salt'. The Copal numbers indicate the size of the shutter, zero is the smallest, then 1,2 and 3. Each size shutter requires a specific size hole in the lensboard, zero is the smallest (~35mm) and the size of the hole goes up from there.

 

I started with a 150mm Nikkor-W f/5.6 and I would recommend you start with one lens in the 'normal' range. I recently acquired a 135mm Xenar with a Crown Graphic I just acquired. I also have a 90mm Angulon. I would not start with a wide lens, it is too easy to fill up the image with so much stuff your subject can be difficult to see. If you like the wide look try out a 135mm lens. If you like to 'extract' a smaller piece of the landscape or portraiture start wtih a 180. The 135 and 180 are at the extremes of what is considered a 'normal' lens. If you don't want the 'normal' lens go with a 210mm or greater since you have expressed and interest in portraits but I don't have any experience with those focal lengths yet, however a 200-210mm lens is next on my list.

 

Scott

 

www.scottkathe.com

If you browse the archives of the forum, you will find discussions of many of these lenses.

 

Because longer focal length and faster lenses need larger apertures, they need larger shutters. Shutter sizes are traditionally designated with numbers. Copal shutters are available in sizes 0, 1 and 3. Size 3 is much larger and you might want to avoid it for 4x5 field work.

 

The Symmar and Sironar lenses are Schneider's and Rodenstock's plasmat lenses of wide coverage. The slight name differences indicate different generations of lenses.

 

The plain Symmar was a convertiable lens, in which a second, longer focal length was obtained by removing the front cell. Don't expect the same image quality in the converted mode. It isn't a zoom -- you only get two focal lengths.

 

The Grandagon-N and Super-Angulon are Rodenstock's and Schneider's names for lenses of extra-wide coverage. These would be excellent chocies for 4x5 for focal lengths of 120 mm and shorter.

 

When Rodenstock sold the Apo-Ronars, they suggested the 150 mm only for 6x9 cm. On 4x5, it would work for closeups.

 

Popular "normal" lenses for 4x5 are 150 to 210. My favorite is 180 mm. The 240 mm would be slightly long, approximately matching your desire for the equivalent of 85 mm in 135. However, it will be rather heavier than some of the other lenses because of the larger glass elements and the Copal 3 shutter.

I'd recommend the rodenstock sironar N 5,6 210mm. a good lens that will give you a nice working distance for portraits.

Daniel: the approximate equivalent of a 135mm lens in 5x4 would be 400mm. Way too long for portraits, and not terribly useful for landscapes either. So forget 35mm equivalents, you're playing with the big boys now!

 

The 90mm Grandagon is a good all-purpose wide-angle, so no argument with your choice there. However, if you have restricted studio space, then 240mm might limit you to just head-and-shoulders shots. For an 8 times reduction (about a 3ft subject fitted across the long side of 5x4) you'll need 6ft 6" from lens to subject, plus around 10" bellows extension, plus room to get behind the camera to focus, plus some space behind the sitter. It all adds up, and 10ft of studio space has been swallowed up before you know it.

For a few years I used just one lens, a 180 mm. Later I added a 90 mm. Now I use a larger number of lenses, still using the 180 mm most frequently. The 90 mm is mostly set aside because it doesn't fit into my focal length spacing -- my second most used lens is 110 mm.

 

You could try 90 and 180 mm, like I used. For my tastes, I would find the 120 mm lens, as a moderate wide, more useful. It would be too close to 180 mm though to make a good combination with that lens. The combination of 120 and 210 mm is a classic choice. A 120 mm Super-Angulon/Grandagon/Nikkor-SW you will give you tremendous coverage for 4x5. Any 210 mm plasmat will have plenty of coverage for 4x5.

 

The Sinar Sinaron-S is a Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-N sold by Sinar under their own name. The 210 mm Sinaron-S is a more recent lens than the 210 mm Symmar on your list. The former is multicoated, the later single-coated.

To supplement Michael's information, Super Angulons tend to be big and heavy. The F8 versions you mention here are smaller than the F5.6 versions but they still are pretty big and heavy. The Symmar line of Schneider lenses is fairly old, it was replaced by the Symmar S line, which was replaced by the APO Symmar line, which was replaced by the current L line. So with Symmars you're going back four generations of lenses of the same basic design. That doesn't mean they aren't capable lenses, they generally are, but their price should reflect their age. Apart from the condition of the glass, in any used lens the most important thing is the shutter. Shutters are expensive to replace or repair and while the glass in an older lens may be fine, the shutter may not be. If you're buying from an indivicual make sure they can tell you that they've used the shutter and that it at least appears to be accurate if it hasn't actually been tested.

 

Convertible lenses (the 135/235 in your list) can be fine but the generalization about them is to buy for the "normal" focal length (the first length listed, 135mm in your example) and if the "converted" length (235mm in your example) is good just regard that as a bonus. You can usually get usable but not excellent quality from the converted length so a convertible lens of two focal lengths isn't a total substitute for having two separate lenses in those lengths (or three, there are also triple convertible lenses).

 

The "MC" in your list of lenses means "multi-coated." It's nice to have a multicoated lens but there isn't much difference between single coated and multicoated lenses in large format. Multicoating was of much greater importance with smaller format zoom lenses than it is for large format lenses. Almost any lens you buy will at least be single coated but it's good to ask to be sure. I have owned many single coated lenses, they all worked fine. I've also owned uncoated lenses and they worked fine too as long as I used a lens shade in potential high flare situations.

 

You generally can get an idea of the size and weight you'll be carrying around by the shutter number. As Michael mentioned, Copal 0 and 1 are small and light, 3 is big and heavy (there is no Copal 2, there used to be a Copal 00 and it was even smaller and lighter than a 0). There are older shutters still out there on used lenses, e.g. Compur, Synchro Compur, Alphax, etc. Their numbers don't correspond to Copal numbers but in general the higher the number the bigger the shutter will be. Since these shutters tend to be older there's more of risk of problems with them.

 

Large format photographers almost never photograph with a lens' largest aperture so the importance of having say an F5.6 lens as compared with an F8 lens of the same length is that the F5.6 lens will be easier to view on the ground glass and will usually have a larger image circle than a lens of the same design and length but with a smaller maximum aperture. However, it will also be bigger and heavier.

 

For a first lens anything in the "wide normal" (e.g. 135mm), "normal" (e.g. 150mm), or "long normal" (e.g. 210) is usually a good choice. 240mm would be o.k. too but you don't have as big a selection in that length as you do in 210 and the shutters tend to be big (as you can see from the Copal 3 on the 240mm lens in your example). Given the small difference between 210 and 240 mm lens(roughly the equivalent of the difference between a 50mm and a 60mm lens in 35mm) I'd go for a 210mm lens in a Copal 1 shutter rather than a 240mm in Copal 3 if you're going to be carrying things around. 90mm is a good choice for a second lens if you're looking for something wide.

One thing that's still surprising to me is the size of a lens. I bought a 90mm f/5.6 SA as an upgrade to my f/8, and couldn't believe how huge it was. It's difficult to get a sense of scale from a picture.

 

Another example is the 210mm Symmar is quite a bit larger than a 150mm. It makes a big difference if you get a folding field camera (I use a Crown Graphic a lot). Some lenses are small enough they can be folded into the camera, others are so large you'll have to take them on or off all the time.

 

All the lenses you list are great lenses. My recommendation is that you pick one in the 105 to 210mm range and just use it until you understand its angle of coverage and other properties. Then you'll have a better idea of what to buy next.

I agree with what others have said as far as starting with a semi-normal lens. I used a 150 for 16 years before adding a 90 last year.

 

 

The pic of the cam hanging from a tree branch is hilarious, I doubt I would do that, being accident prone...

Daniel,

 

As stated on the LF forum... I'd strongly suggest that you pick up a book on LF

photography and do some reading before diving head first into the pool. :)

 

When I first started... I simply jumped in and, at the end of the day, I regretted buying

some of the lenses I did for the camera I used. So, I ended up disposing of them and

replacing them with what I really should have had in the first place.

 

I'm not trying to disuade you from getting into LF... but, rather, I'm trying to get you to

think about the decisions you're going to make BASED on a degree of knowledge going in.

 

Look up Steve Simmon's book. Or, the book by Larry Stone. Pick up the Jack Dykinga book

to get an idea of what can be done with a LF camera. But, DO SOME READING before you

spend your dollars!

 

That said... my first lens was a Rodenstock 210 f5.6 :)

 

Good luck...

 

Cheers

Daniel, the Tachihara is a nice folding field camera. I started with a Wista DX, which is quite similar, and, several cameras later, remains my favorite 4x5 camera. The Tachihara has a practical range of about 90 to 210 for lenses. Anything shorter or longer will not work well with the bellows. You need not think of this as a constraint for field work.

 

The first lens purchased should be a length which is useful in learning how to use the camera. A lens in the 180 to 210 range simplifies the learning process. This is because of the larger image magnification on the groundglass. The image is simply easier to see. There is a learning curve with using a view camera. Either a 180 or a 210 will make the process less frustrating, and is also a very versatile length. 180/210 is neither long enough for tight portraiture nor wide enough for sweeping landscape. However, you will find many interesting images in this range.

 

My suggestion would be either a 180 or a 210. I started with the 210 and like it very much. Michael makes a very good case for the 180. I would start with only that lens until you are comfortable with the camera.

 

If you feel you must have more than one lens at first, or for a later second lens, a 135 is a very nice length. A 135 works very well for small groups of people or non sweeping landscapes. A 135 and 180 or 210 make a very useful field combination.

 

Stick with a fairly modern lens from one of the "big four" in their plasma design.

 

A small lens like a 135 with a 0 shutter will probably fold up in your camera. This is convenient, but not enough of a reason to skip the longer lens first.

 

Wider lenses like the 90 are more difficult to use because of their very small magnification. I would suggest you leave them for later.

It would be good if you borrowed or rented a couple for comparison. Your interests are close to mine and I used a 150 Rodenstock S and a 250 Fuji for quite a long time and found it an excellent combination for landscapes and portraits. The 250 Fuji is one of those rare lenses in this focal length with a Copal 1 shutter. The 150 is about a 45 in 35mm terms and the 250 bout a 75 in 35mm terms. Unfotunately, both are hard to find used.

 

Mike

Thankyou all for the help and advise. I'll go with the 210 instead of the 240, but I still think Ill

get the 90 as I predominatley shoot wide in 35mm and like getting down low and close with

foreground subjects to get some strong perspectives.

 

Daniel.

I personally think your initial inclination for the 90 and the 240 is a good one. The 90 is the equivelant of a ~28 in the long side and a ~25 in the short side. If you're comfortable with those lengths in 35mm work, then you know what you're getting into. For interior work focussing a 90mm f/8 can be a challenge. An f/5.6 is easier to focus. For outdoor work f/8 is fine, and the weight savings is substantial. The f/6.8 lenses are a good compromise. a 90/240 split will leave you wanting sometimes. I shoot 55/90/150, but would like to add a 240 or 250 to the mix.

"The Tachihara has a practical range of about 90 to 210 for lenses. Anything shorter or longer will not work well with the bellows."

 

With all due respect, this is wrong on both ends. The practical range of a Tachihara (13 inch bellows extension) is a 300mm normal lens (allows close focusing to about 10 feet, not as close as if the bellows were a little longer but still very usable since a 300mm lens wouldn't normally be used for close ups) and at least a 400mm telephoto (maybe longer but I used a Fuji 400T on mine so I know it will go at least that long) and 65mm on the short end, maybe shorter but I tested a 65mm lens and it worked fine with some room for movements.

I made the step up to LF less than a year ago and the camera I bought came with a 150mm Nikkor. Over the next few months I acquired a Schneider SA 90, a Fuji 210, and a Nikkor 300, in that order. The 90 was the second lens I bought because I use 28mm a lot in 35mm photography, and assumed that I needed a similar lens for LF. Yet I find that I do not use it as much as I expected. I generally find myself going for the 150 more than anything else. I think this is because LF with a "standard" lens gives me the feeling of space and depth that I associated with wide-angle on 35mm. So I use 150mm for about 50% of my shots. The other lenses in order of use are 300, 90 and 210. In the end I guess it is a personal thing, but my point is that you may find you react differently to LF than you did in smaller formats. I certainly did.

Steve simmons has a nice little chart in his book Using the View Camerat that is a great help at figuring out which lenses to buy first (page 40). The chart is made up of First Purchase, Second Purchase and Third Purchase on the top and General Purpose, Architecture, Table Top Studio, Industrial & Corporate, Studio and Environmental on the side. An overall conclusion out of this might be: 210mm as first purchase and 90mm as second if you want to be able to tackle a mixture of assignments. After working with the first two for a while, you will be well placed to decide what to buy next. Just my two cents since I also just recently moved up to LF.

On the longer end, be aware that the lenses and shutters are big and heavy, almost as heavy as the camera itself in your case. They'll fit the lensboard, but may be unwieldy, and definitely heaavy for carrying around.