new inexpensive lenses for 4x5 field camera

<p>When I was involved many years ago with large format photography, you could buy brand new Schneider 90mm or 210mm for under $500 each.<br>

Those days have gone away. Although there seem to be lots of used lenses out there, is there any source for new old inventory for 135mm or 150mm lenses that might have been discontinued (new old inventory,for example)?<br>

If not, is there someone like Congo or Geronar still making and selling new less expensive 135mm or 150mm view camera lenses that might work on a 4x5 field camera?<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>I would think the market is small enough that most LF lenses are NOS anyway; probably produced in batches. I doubt you'll find new lenses any cheaper.</p>

<p>Hello !<br>

A while back, when Nikon announced they stopped making LF lenses, one could buy remaining stock at a good price. I wonder if it is still possible ?<br>

As far as I know the germans have discontinued the simpler Xenar or Geronar lenses.</p>

<p>"is there someone like Congo or Geronar still making and selling new "<br>

Geronar was not the name of a lens manufacturer. It was the name of a lens series made by Rodenstock. Unfortunately the Geronar, the Apo Ronar and the Apo Sironar-N series are all out of production. The Apo Sironar-S series is the only general purpose lens line currently in production at Rodenstock today.<br>

The main reason why the Geronar and the Apo Sironar-N were discontinued was cost. The cost of workers, raw material, manufacturing of these lenses became so close to the costs of the S that it made no sense to continue to manufacture lower performing lenses that would have to sell for nearly the same price as the S.</p>

<p>There seem to be good ranges of lenses new from Schneider, Rodenstock and Fujinon, and a couple from Cooke.<br>

Robert White has those anyway.</p>

<p>How the prices compare would be another matter, depending how long ago many years was.<br>

Some of the fujinon e.g. 135 and 150 are below £1,000, allowingf or inflation and exchange rates, I'm not sure how that would compare with $500.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/products.asp?PT_ID=382">http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/products.asp?PT_ID=382</a></p>

<p>Yamasaki "Congo" lenses: http://www.cosmonet.org/congo/index_e.html</p>

<p>The last update was 2009, but you can e-mail and see if they still make lenses.</p>

<p>I bought three Congo lenses directly from the manufacturer about 10 years ago (Wide 90, Commercial 180 and Tele 300). I still have the 90 and sold the others. I regret selling the 180, because it was a fabulous sharp little lens (Tessar design). The Tele 300 was poor in every respect.<br>

Some say Yamasaki have no quality control, so a not-so-good example may slip through from time to time.</p>

<p>Generally speaking, at a given focal length, Congo lenses have smaller image circles as their Schneider, Nikon, Fuji, Rodenstock counterparts.<br>

I own modern (from new to 25 years old) lenses from all 4 major manufacturers mentioned above. In practical use, there's no real difference in lens quality and performace between manufacturers or between new and used lenses. Again, generally speaking.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Given the cost of LF Film, why bother with a cheap & inferior lens? In contrast to lenses for smaller formats where focusing gears can develop problems, used LF lenses are typically in great shape (except for maybe a CLA of the shutter). There is really no need to buy new if you are on a budget.</p>

<p>Mike is right, there are tons of used lenses for sale. Many of them are in perfect condition. I've bought 4 or 5 of them in the last few years. The best place I have found to look is in the for sale section of largeformatphotography.info You have to join up, people ar required to post pictures and set a price, there are many knowledgeable people there who can help you choose, etc.<br>

Lenny<br>

EigerStudios<br>

Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing</p>

<p>Thanks Bob S. you are always on top of stuff like that. Schrader, there are may used high quality lenses out there that deserve to be considered.</p>

<p>Lynn</p>

Don't leave out the Caltar lenses.

 

They are private labled Rodenstock and Schneider lenses. The majority on eBay appear to be Rodenstock versions.

 

They run about 20% less than the comparable manufacturer badged lenses.

There is a huge glut of the most common studio-sized LF and MF lenses circulating in the used marketplace for around $.20 to dollar of what they cost new, even in mint condition. There's very little good reason for a consumer to buy a new LF lens nowadays-- not if shooting with film. One would be hard pressed to find a 210mm f/5.6 Rodenstock Sironar N/Caltar IIN or Sinaron S that's sold used for much more than $200 in the past few years. (These are all optically and physically identical to Rodenstock APO Sironar N, BTW). These are uniformly superb lenses with a large 301mm image circle.

<p>Yes Richard and the earlier Caltars were brand new designs by a brilliant new designer/owner of Ilex optical who private labeled lenses for Calumet, and later for B&J, and BBOI. Some of the Caltars were with Seikosha shutters and the larger ones were re-designed Ilexs. All of the B&J and BBOI lenses were in Copal shutters, if you are wondering at my suggestions, I worked for all three companies at one time or another.<br>

Lynn</p>

<p>I think Ivan is on the money. Why do they have to be new. Given the decline in film use and even more so for large format, all sorts of gear is being virtually given away today, if not literally given away. I would venture to say there are enough used lenes on the large format market today to supply the needs of large format cameras for however long film has left, even if another new lens was never made. Sure, a manufacturer could come up with something sharper and better than what's out there. But what's out there is already extremely good and the number of potential customers is so small, why go to the expense of R&D to do it?</p>

<p>I have to weigh in here . . . I have (blush) 9 large-format lenses, only two bought new. I use them all regularly, and I am not easy to please. They range in age from 2007 to 1950. There is no, zip, nada, zero difference between a good one from 1950 and and a good one from 2007. Used as they were meant to be used, of course . . . </p>

<p>" There is no, zip, nada, zero difference between a good one from 1950 and and a good one from 2007."<br>

Shoot into the light and you will see the differences immediately with chrome film. Look at very fine detail at the edges when doing indirect displacements and you will see more differences.</p>

<p>When I saw the "no difference between 1950" lens comment, I had to weigh in as well. I have lenses that are that old, and while very good, the newer lenses and their coatings offer a sharper image with less flare. I have since replaced all of my old lenses with newer variants. I also have to say this: that I use large format for the ultimate in quality. To put second or third rate lenses on a view or field camera is completely defeating the purpose of why I use these cameras. Obviously, everyone has their own quality standards.</p>

<p>Try finding a 47 to 58 mm lens in the 1950s that covered 4x5. Other than some strange thing like a hypergon, which either had a lot of light falloff or needed a fan. Now we have the 55 mm Apo-Grandagon, 47 & 58 mm Super-Angulon XLs. Just some examples of improvements over the years. Maybe more useful... the movements possible with longer lenses of these series.</p>

<p>I too have to respond to that comment.<br />When I started in large format work I read all about old lenses having character and being as good as modern lenses. After buying and selling far too many lenses I came to realise the only advantage of old lenses was the price, and they've lost that advantage these days, with nikkor and fuji multicoated 150 or 210's being available looking like new for $200, and they are in good modern shutters too. I accept a Petzval may have some use making tintypes, it's still too much of a one-trick pony for me and I've only kept one old lens, which is a Wollensak 159mm which I found very sharp on 8x10 and with good coverage, but then I only make contact prints of 8x10, so that probably explains that.<br />Stick to modern second hand lenses and you can't go too far wrong.</p>

<p>While I agree with most of the statements about modern lenses being "better" (however defined), there is one aspect that should not be forgotten with respect to the older lenses -- they tend to be smaller. So, for backpacking (and similar trips where size matters), I would never take my Apo-Sironar S 210 with me. Instead, I use my ancient (1940s) f7.7/203 Ektar, which may not be quite as good, but so much smaller.<br>

Which reminds me, of course, some older lenses are better than others :-)</p>

 

<p>"To put second or third rate lenses on a view or field camera is completely defeating the purpose of why I use these cameras..."<br>

I'm new with LF and looking for a lens, what would be a first rate lens for portraits?</p>

<p>"many years ago with large format photography, you could buy brand new Schneider 90mm or 210mm for under $500 each."<br>

Just how much is that $500.00 equate to today in 2011?<br>

How much was your new car that year? Today?<br>

A good steak? A loaf of bread? A new suit? Your salary? Your taxes? Your house?</p>