Best Focal Length to Start With

I'm about to spring for my first LF kit. There seems to be several

used systems available with 127mm lenses. I understand 150mm is

considered the "standard" focal length, equal to 50mm on a 35mm

camera. I can afford only one lens at the moment. I shoot mostly

B&W landscape and outdoor architecture. I know this is subjective,

but I need some input: which focal length to start with - 127, 150,

or 210?

I looked at your 3 uploaded photos, and think you would be happier with a slight wide-angle. Many architectural and wide landscapers would go even wider, say, 90 mm. Use of a longer than normal lens for many of these subjects requires either distance, or considerable camera movements.

 

127's are likely vintage, 1940s and 50s. They should be fine for your B&W work (I don't want to start a war), but a more modern 110 through 135 (moderate to barely wide) may fit your bill well; this depends on moneys available, of course.

150 mm for 4 x 5 is very close to the diagonal of the exposed area (when you take account of the margins cut off by the film holder). For 35 mm, 50 mm is actually a little long when compared to the film diagonal which is more like 43 mm. So 150 mm is already a trifle wider angle than you are used to. But if you are mainly doing landscape and outdoor photography, you might find an even shorter focal length lens more useful. (With such a lens you can obtain the equivalent of a longer focal length by cropping and enlarging more, although of course there is a limit to how much you should do that and still have the advantage of the larger format.) I would guess something in the range 110-135 mm, but it is really a matter of personal choice.

 

One way to estimate what you would find most appropriate, without first buying the lens, is to cut out a 4 x 5 frame from cardboard and try viewing various scenes by holding it different distances from your eye. Exceot for closeups, that distance would be the focal length. If you measure in inches, multiply by 25.4 to get mm. This is good practice anyway and useful after you get your equipment. You should pretty quickly get an idea of what would be best for your current needs.

Actually the 135mm lens is by far the most usual starter lens for 4x5. If you're only going to have one lens get the 127 or 135. You can always crop a negative, but you can't always step back for a wider view if you start with a longer lens.

The answer to your question is difficult to answer definitively for you since we all have preferences as to focal lengths that we use. I find as I review my photographs that I am more prone to a slight telephoto...210mm in the case of 4X5. The second most used lens that I have is 120 mm. I don't own a 150mm and have no interest in one. I do have friends that love the wide lenses. And while I own a 90mm, the only time that I really use it is in architectural studies. I guess the best thing to do is to review your images. Determine the lens that you use most commonly and then convert that to the equivalent length in 4X5. I hope that this helps. Good luck and have fun.

 

Regards,

 

Donald Miller

If yoy haven't already got a camera, let me recommend the Super

Speed Graphic with the 135 Rodenstock f/4.5 lens. This

self-contained metal camera has plenty of front standard

movements that will get you started, plus nice features like

revolving back, built-in rangefinder, electronic shutter release,

etc.

 

These can still be found on the used market in the $400-$600

range in great shape (the were the last of the Graphic series

cameras) and will be a good back-up or hand-held 4x5 to have

no matter which direction your LF tastes lead you in the future.

 

Another alternative if you budget is tighter is a Crown Graphic

(the top rangefinder models are newer) with a 127 Ektar or 135

Xenar, both of which are good performers in b&w. These older

wooden Crowns don't have as many front movements, but can

often be found in good working condition for around $150

including lens.

 

Good Luck!<div></div>

This <a href="http://www.painted-with-light.com/html/technical.html">table</a> shows the focal lengths for formats ranging from 35mm to 8x10 - based on the diagonal of the film format.

 

<p>Personally, I use a 150mm f5.6 Rodenstock APO Sironar-S as my "normal" lens. It's small, but superb.

 

<p>You might find these links to be helpful:

 

<p><a href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html">This one</a> shows lens tests.

 

<p><a href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/kit.html">This one</a> gives some recommendations based on size, weight, cost, and performance - especially if you want to move around with your equipment.

 

<p><a href="http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm">This one</a> is just very instructive.

David, a Super Speed is certainly one that I'm looking at. My only concern is since it has no back movement, can I eliminate the distortion on a tall or large building?

For what you shoot, I'd start with a 135--it will give you more room to experiment with movements than a 127, but it's a slight wide angle.

 

Some people say go with the approximately equivalent focal length to what you use in your current preferred format, but that equivalence is hard to judge when the shape of the frame is different, and I think that most people tend to go a little wider as they move up in format, because a larger piece of film can actually render all the detail that a wider lens can take in.

Alex, Welcome to LF! What camera will you be using? The 127 Ektar is a great lens for Speed & Crown Graphics which have limited movements. If you were to mount one on a (4x5)field or monorail though, you'd quickly run out of coverage if you needed much in the way of movements. The 127 Ektar, if that is the lens you're referring to, has many advantages on a hand held press camera, but for architecture you might want a lens that will provide more of an image circle. The 135 WF Ektar would be an attractive alternative, perhaps a 120 Angulon for an even wider view. For longer a lens, the razor sharp f/9 210 G-Claron in a modern Copal shutter would be hard to beat, as well as the 203 Ektar (especially if you prefer the slightly more "gentle" look of old Ektars) Good Luck!

If you are planning to shoot architecture, you will need a large image circle (you will level the camera to keep your verticals straight, and compose your picture using shifts). The 127's will not have big enough image circles. There are short lenses with big image circles, like the famous Schneider 110 Super Symmar, but they are expensive. Any 210 will have a big image circle, but will require a greater stand-off distance, which in many cases will be impracticable. 150's are good compromises. They have good sized image circles and allow you to work at a reasonable distance for some kinds of architectural work. (You should realize that for a lot of architectural work only a wide or superwide with a big image circle will do the job).

 

The 150 is a very useful landscape lens, though it is roughly equivalentto 45 mm in the 35 mm world. Note that you can get near objects to "loom," and thus create something of the wide angle look, by using back tilts with the 150.

 

My own first lens was the 150 Rodenstock f 5.6 Apo Sironar S, optically an absolutely terrific lens.

David and John, you bring up a good point, which, being a newbie, I hadn't thought about. I've been leaning towards a monorail. Seems like most of the old Graflex and Calumet views I see have a 127mm. Still, if I could get by without the rear movement, a Super Speed Graphic is very attractive, as David Haynes suggested. Thanks for the input from everyone so far. This is helping me make an informed choice. Seems like LF'ers are the most helpful community in photography.

I was concerned about lens length too (not to mention what camera), I went with a Crown Graphic with a 135 Schneider. It's a good focal length for me and I'm happy (so far) with the camera. Oh yeah, I shoot all black and white. It has all the movements I need, though I thought I wouldnt need them, but the first photo I took I had to use use them.

Alex,

 

I just started with LF a few weeks ago myself and have a 135mm lens. I have no regrets at all about this focal length. Indeed, many charts that describe equivalent focal lengths for various formats exist but, until you actually use the lens, there is no way to know if you will like it. So far, I have done close-ups of lone subjects as well as traditional landscapes. The nice thing about a slightly wide lens is that DoF is overall, much more forgiving.

 

Like you, I wish there were a more definative way of selecting a focal length. Trial and experience seem to be the best way. I think it's easy to get into the "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" mindset... If that's the case then, no matter what lens you have, you'll always want a different one. Too bad the things cost so darn much... That's life.

 

Regards

Alec,

 

I started out on LF some years ago with the same sort of photographic interests as yourself using an old 90mm Schneider Angulon (28mm equivalent focal length) on a MPP mk 6. The type of lens you get and the camera you buy are related questions as you will find the older press type cameras and the Linhof type technical cameras cannot take the bigger lenses especially wide angles.

 

In my view a wide angle lens around the 90 - 135mm length would probably suit your needs best to start.

 

In the Schneider range the wide angle lenses to look at are the Angulon and Super Angulon. The older 90mm Angulon is cheap and quite a reasonable lens but the outer image circle get progressivley softer so movements are restricted. The 90/8 Super A gives a much bigger image circle and is probably the best value. It has been in production for 40 years or more and the older ones are now quite reasonable. Some older ones come in a #00 shutter which is a pain to use so look for a #0 shutter version. The f8 S/A is quite dim so you will need to use a fresnel or bright screen to make life easier. 120mm Angulons and Super / A are also available. The S/A comes in a f5.6 version but you need to check whether the lens is not too big to use with the camera.

 

The 135mm Xenar is often found on starter kits but although this is a nice lens it has almost no movements onto 4x5. The Symmar range has a bigger image circle for its focal length so a 135mm Symmar might suit you though you would be restricted as to what architetural pictures you could take as the image circle and hence the available movements are less than with the S/A.

 

Details of old and new Schneider lenses can be found on the Schneider website at :

 

www.schneideroptics.com/info/

 

Anyway good luck !

hi alex -

 

if you do a lot of architectural and landscape work, you might

consider getting something wider than 127 or 110mm, you might

consider getting a 90mm wollensak raptar, or 3 1/2 " wollensak

exwa ( both can be found on ebay for not very much $$). these

lenses would be like a 30mm on a 35mm camera. i shoot

architectual stuff pretty often ... with a speed graphic and a rail

camera. my first lf camera (speed graphic) came with a 127

tominon in a press shutter. it has a pretty good size image circle

and slightly wide. it wasn't a bad choice for a first lens, but if i

were to do it again, and pick a "first" lens myself - it would

definately be a 90mm. it is the lens that i use more than any

other when i am shooting architectural stuff ...

 

john

Everybody has an opinion about this!

 

I use 90, 120, 135, 150, 210, 265, 300 and 360mm lenses...

 

One of the most useful lenses I have is the "slightlywides" 120mm Angulon (not Super) F:6.8. Since it (barely) covers 5x7", it has plenty of coverage for 4x5", whithout being quite as dim as the f:8 SA's.

 

An old 135mm f:3.5 Zeiss Planar is an exellent lens, but could be expensive and difficult to find.

 

In 150mm I have both an Apo-Lanthar f:4,5 and a Schneider Symmar of the old convertible kind. If I were limited to one lens, I think I would start with the Symmar - it is a lot better than many claim when used as a 265mm!

 

210mm is a good medium-normal - again, I use old lenses; in this case a Xenar.

 

Don't think about longer lenses yet; they are either dim or heavy or sometimes both. And they tend to be expensive as well...

I started with a 110mm Super Symmar XL. This lens lives up to its hype, and I still use it about 50% of the time. I think it's an excellent choice if you can carry only one lens with you - it does a great job with landscape, and has a huge image circle and so does a great job with architecture as well.

 

A different way to look at it is, how much of the scene do I want to capture on the film? For example, a 110mm lens captures 57 degrees of the scene (across the 5" dimension of a 4x5 film). In contrast, a 90mm lens sees 11 degrees more, and a 135mm lens sees 9 degrees less.

Alex, you asked about the lack of rear movements and shooting buildings. The answer is that it depends. Front rise will solve a lot of perspective problems, but the catch is that this really only works with reasonably short buildings where you can keep the film plane parallel to the building and wouldn't have bad distortion on a camera without movements. If you want to shoot tall buildings then you will need the back tilt.

 

I have a Super as my second 4x5 and travel camera because when I travel I tend to shoot tons of buildings -- but it is generally 2 or 3 stories from just across the street, so I only need a bit of rise to correct the perspective. I just bought a 90mm to put on it because I tend to shoot on narrow streets with not a lot of room to maneuver.

 

If you basically want a Super but with back movemements, a Toyo might be worth considering (at a heftier price).

 

 

-Jen

We are all guessing that the 127 mm lens is the Kodak 127 mm f4.7 Ektar. If so, I don't think you will find it useful for architecture. It is of the Tessar design, which delivers a high quality image but with modest coverage. It really isn't the design to use for even a modest wide-angle like 127 mm for 4x5. In fact, Kodak specified the maximum recommended negative size as 3.25 x 4.25 inches. These lenses are plentiful because press photographers found them useful for their purposes. You won't be able to use the movements that you will want to use for architecture.

 

For many years my only lens was 180 mm. I choose this over 150 mm for the extra coverage it gives, without going quite as long as 210 mm. There are many choices in 180 mm, one inexpensive choice that is fairly easy to find is the plain Symmar. I got along surprising well with only a 180 mm lens, but there will be photos that you won't be able to take with it. If I were to choose two lenses for architecture, it would be 180 and 90 mm. For the 90 mm, the easiest reasonable price, high-quality wide angle to find would be an older f8 Super-Angulon (look for one in a #0 shutter). My suggestion is to start with either a 90 mm or 180 mm lens, and look for the other when you can afford it.

 

A 135 mm lens might seem like a good compromise, and it might be a good first choice for landscape use, but these lenses don't have much excess coverage and would be limiting for architecture.

This has all been very helpful. I'll start with something between 90 and 135mm. Anyone have a Super Speed Graphic they want to dump? Not any available at the moment on e-bay or the user classifieds. Otherwise, I'll try bidding on one of the view cameras on e-bay.

Alex, FWIW you might want to take a look at www.michelvacciano.com for some example of landscapes done with a super graphic. ---Cheers!

Thanks John, I've got it bookmarked and will look at it this afternoon.

Name (and website) was misspelled. Try:

 

http://www.michelevacchiano.com/

OK, the quest is over. I just got a Graflex View II on e-bay. Three lenses, a 90mm, 135mm, and 210. It might take some cleaning to get everything running, but I can do that. Thanks once again for everyone's help!