"Beginner" lens recommendation, please.

I've given up 35mm in favor of digital but still shoot medium format. I am,

however, progressing in retro fashion to large format. The last LF photography

I did was 40 years ago with my first "serious" camera -- a Speed Graphic (I wish

I still had it).

 

I'm beginning my new venture in very modest fashion with a just completed Bender

4x5. Now, I need a lens. My subjects range from landscapes to portraits, but

I'm guessing the bulk of my 4 x 5 work initially will be on large static objects

like airplanes and railroad locomotives shot at medium distances. Since my

subjects will be "technical" I need a sharp lens with a good tonal range. Oh --

and I'll be needing fill flash at times.

 

I'm tempted at first to purchase an old Kodak Ektar of suitable focal length

just to get started, but I do forsee upgrading my camera after I've seved my

"apprenticeship", so maybe a lens I can grow into might be better.

 

What are your recoimmendatioins?

 

Many thanks,

 

Craig Roberts

Washington, DC

Something like a 150mm Schneider Symmar S, of reasonably recent vintage, should be excellent. You can find these quite inexpensively. I'm suggesting a 150mm because I don't know what the bellows limits are on your home-made Bender, so a lens that would be either too wide or too long might be unusable.

I would concur with your first idea. A Kodak 203mm f7.7 Ektar is ideal for what you say you'll be shooting. Get a coated lateish one in a good working shutter with flash sync. Another Great little lens is the Fuji 150mm f6.3.

I have to highly recommend the Nikon LF lenses. Amazingly sharp and very good tonal range. I use the 65mm, 75mm and 90mm versions. The 90 is a great all round lens with high performance. They are also very good value for money compared to Schnieder etc.

I'd say that there's no reason not to buy a lens that you can hang onto when you eventually upgrade cameras. The expense and time of buying and reselling a lens just to upgrade would likely negate any short term savings.

 

The modern 210mm Plastmat f/5.6 lenses have been selling dirt cheap lately. I just purchased a nice 210mm Caltar II-N f/5.6 (same as a Rodenstock APO Sironar N) for $200, and have seen lots of others at that price point and better. Since you mention shooting at medium distances, a longer lens like a 210mm would also be a good choice (equivalent to 60mm in 35mm film terms).

 

I wouldn't worry about brand, and just choose either a Fujinon W, Schneider Symmar-S, Nikkor W, or Rodenstock Sironar N (Caltar II-N) at whichever was least expensive on that given day. They are all good, sharp lenses with large image circles. You'll appreciate the faster aperture and large image circle while composing and trying out movements.

I second the nod for a 150mm Symmar S. I got mine for $200. It's a 5.6 aperture, so that will make focussing on the not-terribly-bright ground glass in a Bender. And because it's a very light lens, you wont' have to tighten the lens tilt screws very hard to hold it in place. And you can easily keep it as part of your kit as you expand. I was my first LF lens, and is still my second most-used lens.

I will as usual suggest planning ahead, which is what you asked about doing in the first place. Older lenses such as the Kodak mentioned have their uses and are actually not bad, especially with faster B&W films that challenge them less. They are also usually quite inexpensive but may also suffer from fungus or damage to any coatings they have. Still, I have an old Raptar 127mm and a Graphic 90mm WA and 135mm which I use on occasion with good success on 4x5. Some of my favorite color scenics were done with that Raptar.

 

However, those were acquired when I only had my old Orbit 4x5 rail camera. When I went with bigger and better equipment I began to upgrade the optics. This is particularly important to consider when using multiple formats, whether 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10, or a large panoramic back (6x17 comes to mind but I also have a custom 6x24). A 6x12 back works fine with a 4x5 but a 6x17 doesn't.

 

The fellow with the three wide angles didn't mention the cost of the center filters for each lens, and with few exceptions each WA will need one to maintain even illumination on the film. Rodenstock's 90mm f/4.5 and 115mm Grandagons use the same very large and expensive center filter so that is something to ponder as you build your collecton of lenses. Process lenses such as the G-Clarons and Nikon M series are slow but also small and light-- a real boon for back country photographers and anyone that needs a large collection of focal lengths to do their work.

 

That said, a 210mm as recommended by others will certainly cover up to 5x7 film, and will potentially cover 8x10 as well. The 150mm is probably a great choice as well, and perhaps the best starter lens for a 4x5. In the end you'll probably find that having a 90mm WA, 150mm 210mm, and 300mm will cover almost every need you'll encounter with a 4x5 and even for 5x7 with some limitations on coverage that may require racking out the lens for closer focus. A 65mm or shorter WA will be useful for architecture and some scenics on 4x5 and with a 6x12 back. The need for a lens longer than 300mm is very limited and really ought not be a consideration for most photographers, but if you decide you need one, Nikon and Schneider make true telephoto lenses.

 

When buying, the cost and availability will be a consideration, but also ponder filters, size and weight. As I noted, process lenses are smaller and lighter, and some have astounding coverage to boot. G-Clarons are very popular with hikers, but the Nikons and Fuji units are usually well multicoated while the G-Clarons are mostly single-coated. Schneider and Rodenstocks are also both fine choices. Any differences between color spectra in brands will not be seen in B&W images and is hardly noticable in chromes.

 

There are a number of documents available on line to aid your research. Calumet is very helpful as is the B&H website, so do some research on current designs and then watch eBay or other vendors with good reputations for good deals on the lenses that best meet your needs.

Look at Caltar lenses (from Calumet, of course.) Most are rebadged Schneiders and Rodenstocks, and are usually available for less than you'd pay with the actual manufacturer's name on the bezel.

Just to add on the Caltars, if you are going to buy them used, don't go through Calumet. You can usually get them far cheaper at KEH, Midwest Camera (www.mpex.com) or BH. Calumet is a great company to deal with, at least in my experience, but they do seem to overprice their *used* Caltars.

I don't believe there's anything better than a post WW2 Kodak Ektar unless you are planning to make huge enlargements, or need extreme lens movements. It is surprising how seldom 150mm Ektars come up on ebay, they must have been a lot more expensive than a 135mm Raptar when new.

As I noted above, older lenses tend to have their own set of problems, but newer glass is not immune as owners of old Schneiders know all too well. I did once have several older Graphic types (127mm and 135mm) with fungus, and their shutters are not as nice as the modern Copals or Compurs. Plus they are almost always at best single coated while the newest glass is multicoated and thus produce far more contrast, especially with color film. On the other hand, the quality of the image is often unique and hard if not impossible to reproduce with new optics.

 

That's why I geneally use newer optics with modern shutters, with my G-Clarons the oldest of those. The old Ektars, Raptars, Graphics and the like are seldom used but still around for those special images calling for a little classic optical flaw.

If you like a 35mm lens, the a 135 is pretty close. Most have a small image circle and no movement possibilities. 150 is better. A 180 will give generous movement and has an angle of view like a 50 on a 35mm camera.

 

Schneider 110XL is about like a 30mm lens with very generous movement ( it comes close to covering 8x10 ).

The shorter normals (like the 127mm-- 135mm mentioned above) all tend to be shy in the coverage area, and best used for something closer than infinity when any movement is required. They are, however, a bargain in dollar terms-- I paid $40 for my first 127mm Raptar, and the 135mm lenses are often not much more and are almost always better optically. My 90mm Optar is probably worth only a $100 or so, but works fine so long as movements aren't a necessity.

 

 

Modern optics are all around better, and a longer WA designed for bigger film does even better on coverage but these are big, heavy and expensive (I could stuff most of my other lenses in my 8x10's 165mm SA). When working in multiple formats having those options available become necessities, but with a 4x5 it's probably better to stick with more routine units bought in this general order--

 

1. a 150mm-- 180mm Symmar or equivilant as your "normal". Unless you routinely do WA scenics or architecture, you'll probably use this lens the most.

 

2. one or two WA (58mm, 72mm and 90mm Schneider SA-XL come to mind, or the more pedestrian 65mm/75mm/90mm families). Keep in mind that the WA lenses ususally need to have center filters, and those specialized filters are with rare exceptions not interchangeable between lenses.

 

 

3. a long lens like a 270mm- 305mm process lens IF your bellows and rails can handle it (most can). This or a lens in the 200mm range can also serve as a portrait lens should you want to do that, but unless painful sharpness is desired, a soft filter is needed. Cooke and others make dedicated "portrait" lenses with built in optial defects to soften light in unusual and rather appealing ways.

 

4. a longer "normal" like the 210mm G-Claron or Nikon M for closeups and general use.

Landscape and portraits...210mm, or 180mm for sure as a starter and then I would GO longer. For compression and abstract in landscape. The last lens would be a 90mm, or wider. Caltar's are a great choice. Lot's of choices and don't overlook older, less expensive lenses.