150mm lenses

[sknowles]

In determining which 3 lenses I want to start I come across a

question. I'm looking at 90mm, 150mm and 300mm lenses, but notice

there are two different types of 150mm lenses, one with a viewing

angle of 72-75 degrees and one with an angle of 102-105 degrees.

Setting cost aside what are the advantages of each, and if you had to

recommend one, which one? And then adding costs, where the wider

viewing angle one is 2-3 times the costs, would you still recommend it?

[chris_gittins]

First off, I'd say start with one lens and see how it works for you before investing in more. With that in mind, what format do you shoot now and what's your favorite focal length with it? You might choose something which will give you a comparable field of view. For example, I went from a 55 mm in 35 to a 180 for 4x5.

 

With the 150, 72-75 deg coverage should be fine for 4x5.

 

Chris

[chuck_pere]

The wide angle types (102-105) are really 8x10 wide angle lenses. They are bigger and much heavier. Also check those filter sizes. If you use one on 4x5 you will need to use a lens hood to limit coverage to prevent any bellows reflections. I would say that you would only need this type of lens for 4x5 if you need extreme movements and your camera can handle them. The normal lenses (72-75) are what most people use. Lighter, smaller and cheaper. Easy to find used. You can run out of coverage with these and need to be careful with movements. Not sure if you would see a big performance difference between the two types. Unless you have a job for a 150 with more coverage I would stick with the normal type. A small 150 with a little more coverage is the 150 G-Claron. Again I wouldn't get it unless you need it for the coverage or maybe improved closeup performance.

[daniel_jolicoeur]

Take Chris's advice and stick with one lense to start with. You will get many oppinions on which one is best. I started with a 162 optar, and then went to a 210. I prefer the longer lens. I recently had the money to upgrade my older lenses and found a nice 180mm Nikon I couldn't pass up on a secound chance bid offer, at the same time I also found a nice 150mm at a price I could not pass up, both are in prestine condition and I can't part with either. Anyhow I would keep your eye out for one lens to start and get use to that. I have never found myself changing lenses often, I think alot of people have their favorite and pretty much stick with that one even though they have 5 or 6 lenses.

Good luck,

Dan

[troyammons]

I have a 150mm Rodenstock Sironar-N MC that sharp and a good lens that I bought for $400. On a recent trip I used it 90% of the time. 135mm is a slightly wide normal lens.

 

This shot was taken with it. Check out the crop.

 

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/image/36256345

[michael_briggs2]

As Chuck says, the 150 mm >100 degrees coverage lenses are intended for 8x10 and are much bigger and heavier. Taking the Nikon versions as examples, the 150 mm f5.6 Nikkor-W has 70 degrees of coverage and weighs 230 g, while the 150 mm f8 Nikkor-SW with 106 of coverage weighs 1050 g.

So the SW version for 8x10 weighs more than four times as much, and it is a full stop slower to boot. If you saw the two lenses you would immediately know why you wouldn't want to carry the SW unless you really needed the very large coverage.

 

For a 150 mm lens for 4x5, I recommend any plasmat (6 elements in 4 groups) lens from the big four in the past few decades: Fuji-W, NW, CMW, Nikkor-W, Schneider Symmar-S, Apo-Symmar, Apo-Symmar-L, Rodenstock Sironar-N, Apo-Sironar-N, Apo-Sironar-S. The main difference between these lenses is small differences in coverage. The very latest versions (Apo-Sironar-S and Apo-Symmar-L) have the coverage extended to 75 degrees. Most photographers will be happy with any of these. The few who use extreme movements, particularly photographers of architecture, might want to spend the extra money for one of the versions with extended coverage.

 

If you are looking for a good deal, the Caltars from Calumet sell for a bit less since they have Calumet's brand name instead of the manufacturers. The Caltar-S II lenses are relabeled Schneider Symmar-S lenses, while the current Caltar II-N lenses are relabeled Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-N lenses.

 

I too suggest starting with one lens and learning what you can do with it. My "normal" lens is 180 mm.

[christopher perez]

<i>...I too suggest starting with one lens and learning what you can do with it. My "normal" lens is 180 mm.</i>

<p>

Like others here, I started with a just one lens. Mine was a 210mm optic. It suited my needs (which included portrait and commercial magazine layout work) for nearly two decades.

<p>

If you feel the need to burn money, you might consider a 90, 135 (or 150mm), 210 lens combo. Add a 300 as you learn the craft (it tends to be a fairly long focal length).

<p>

But seriously, consider starting with just one lens. A 180mm or 210mm lens is a great place to begin.

[allen_whittier]

I started out with a "triple convertible" lens that gave me 150mm, 180mm and 210mm in a single lens. It was an uncoated Protar VIIb with an 85 degree field of view and cost me 1/3 the price of one modern lens. This was great for starting out and gave me the opportunity to decide how I was going to use lenses before I made a bigger investments. I discovered that I was most at home with 4x5 when shooting inside, and preferred shorter lenses. My Protar is my only lens for it's focal lengths for 4x5 because my usage didn't warrant the investment in better lenses. It's also light weight in the field and performs well. I spent my money on a 121mm Dagor in a modern shutter and two Super Angulons; 90mm and 65mm. I use all but the 65mm SA on my 5x7 also.

 

 

I'd recommend you start with one lens, preferably something that has more than one focal length. There's a wide range of choices. Spending a little more on something in a modern shutter or getting a deal on a lens with bad shutter and sending it to Grimes to be reshuttered would be wise. I don't mind temperamental shutters, but I remember it being frustrating when I was first starting.

[sknowles]

Thanks for the information. I'll add the 72-75 degree lens in the list. As for the list, it's from the 35mm lenses I consistenly use, which are 24-28mm, 35mm, 45mm, 85mm, 50/100mm macro, 135mm, and longer (not considered at this time). This translates to 90mm, 150mm, 300mm, in the initial set, adding the rest later.

 

I'm open to suggestions.

[eric_leppanen]

I see no difference in sharpness, color saturation, etc. between my 150mm Rodenstock APO Sironar-S (used with 4x5) and 150mm Schneider Supper Symmar XL (8x10). The 8x10 lens provides the additional coverage required by the larger format, at the considerable expense of increased weight, bulk and filter size.

 

Unless you plan to shoot architecture and need considerable movements, there's absolutely no reason to use a 150mm 8x10 lens on a 4x5. Only with longer lenses (240mm and above) does it start to become plausible to use common lenses for both 4x5 and 8x10, as only with these focal lengths does the incremental bulk of 8x10 coverage become minimal. A needlessly large and heavy camera kit will significantly detract from its utility, especially for field use.

 

If you still have doubts, I suggest looking at the lens comparison charts at www.largeformatphotography.info and compare the front rise capabilities of various lenses to your expected requirements. For example, my 150mm Sironar-S provides nearly two inches of front rise when shooting 4x5 in portait orientation, which has proven quite adequate for my needs. You typically get a smidge more coverage than the manufacturer's rating since the circle of illumination is larger than the rated image circle, and while the additional area is softer it often is still usable (especially in landscape photography, where the top edge of an image is frequently open sky).

 

I have been very happy with my Sironar-S, but any of the plasmats mentioned in the previous posts would make for a superb 4x5 lens. At 90mm, the Nikkor SW has proven very popular. At 300mm, the Nikkor-M and Fuji-C are probably the most popular modern lenses at this focal length, and have the additional benefit of covering both 4x5 and 8x10. All of these lenses are considered "future classics" by Kerry Thalmann (http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm).

[christopher perez]

<i>...As for the list, it's from the 35mm lenses I consistenly use, which are 24-28mm, 35mm, 45mm, 85mm, 50/100mm macro, 135mm, and longer (not considered at this time). This translates to 90mm, 150mm, 300mm, in the initial set, adding the rest later.

<p>

I'm open to suggestions...</i>

<p>

Seriously, working in 4x5 is nothing like working in 35mm. At least that's the way it is for me. Maybe it will be different for you? If you have the money, then buy what you think you'll use. But be prepared to adjust your lens kit as you go. But if it were me starting all over again, I'd just start with a single 180mm or 210mm lens and see which way my vision in LF lead me.

<p>

Today, even after all the optics and all the cameras and all the thrashing and all the researching on the topic and all the "testing" and all the eBaying, I'd be supremely happy with just a 110XL Schneider and 200M Nikkor for 4x5 work. That'd be it. Forever. Really. :-)

[dan_fromm1]

Chris, have you ever seen or read The Importance Being Earnest? It has a line you should memorize. "I'll wait for you forever, if you are not too long."

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[chris_gittins]

Following up on what Chris Perez wrote, I've had several "If I knew then what I know now moments." Would I have gotten that 210 Symmar-S knowing that 95% of my shots are taken either straight on or with very modest tilt? A 200 Nikkor-M would probably give me all the coverage I need and is significantly lighter and more compact. (If anyone has a line on one, I'm looking for a 200 Nikkor-M.) The Symmar is a great lens and I got it for next to nothing, but it might not be the best tool for my needs and there's no way I could have predicted that without pushing my 180 Nikkor-W first.

 

Also, to echo Chris's comments, I compose very differently with 4x5 than with 35. In large part it's the inverted image, but size matters too. Roughly matching the field of view of my favorite 35 mm lens was a good place for me to start, but 4x5 took on a life of its own once I got started. I bought a 90 mm Angulon because I thought the focal length would be a nice complement to my other focal lengths. It's a nice lens but I never use it. I just don't see things in that FOV. Conversely, I think I really like 210 for what I'm doing now but I never would have guessed that two years ago. I had to do a lot with my 180 and 150 before reaching that judgment. Bottom line, if you go all in on three lenses at the start, I suspect you're more prone to having a "If I knew then..." moment. That's something to consider before shelling out significant bucks for good glass.

 

Chris

[michael_briggs2]

Scott, mathematical conversions between the formats just don't work exactly. Somehow focal lengths that mathematically should be the same "feel" different. As Christopher says, you will probably find that your photography is different in 4x5 than it is in 35 mm. The other reason is that there is no single mathematical conversion because the 35 mm and 4x5 have different aspect ratios: should the focal length conversion be based on the ratio of the lengths of diagonals or of the long sides? (The short sides seem least pertinant.) So I suggest using your experience in 35 mm as a guide but not expecting an exact correspondence.

 

Popular focal lengths for "normal" in 4x5 are 150, 180 and 210. My guess is that most people become attached to whichever they first used. The format diagonal of about 153 mm suggests a 150 mm lens as normal. In the past 210 mm has been popular because it allows significantly larger movements. This would have been particulary true when tessar designs were commonly used rather than plasmats -- tessars have less coverage than plasmats. Today with the use of plasmat designs there is less need for the coverage of a 210 mm and 180 is an excellent choice. Again, you will probably like whichever of these you choose.

 

My choice was a 180 mm and today I have converged on 72 / 110 / 180 / 270 / 450 as my lens set for 4x5. I use the 180 most frequently and the 110 mm second most frequently. If I had to carry only two lenses these would be the two.

[r_hofland]

IF you can afford it, the latest Apo designs offer huge coverage in a relatively compact design and extremely high sharpness as well! The latest 210mm units now cover 8x10 film and the others also cover much larger areas giving more even illumination and greater potential for exaggerated camera movements. The same goes for the latest wide-angles and telephoto designs, but the cost is substantial since you will likely be buying them at a premium compared to older units- even if used.

 

The one lesson most of us have learned is that you ought to plan ahead whenever possible. I started with 35mm many years ago and migrated first to 4x5 then to 120mm, 5x7 and 8x10. I'd now like to get an 8x20 someday and do contacts with that (the ambitious can even convert their cameras to projectors for even larger images).

 

My advice is to try for lenses that cover more than what you are using today. 5x7 is a fading giant with fewer and fewer film choices but still my favorite visual perspective. 5x8 looks to be an alternative using 8x10 holders with some sort of masks in place, or cutting the film and using old 5x8 plate film holders.

 

With all of this in mind my lens selection has evolved to trying to always cover 5x7 and mostly be useable with 8x10 as well. Any of the common 300mm lenses will cover 8x10 but struggle with larger formats, while even a modern 150mm Apo "normal" would need to be racked out to provide even coverage on 8x10 film. My planned 8x20 investment will necessitate a few new lenses such as long or wideangle process Nikkors which will also work quite nicely with the 8x10 but they will also be too heavy to include for regular use deep in the field (but the light and very compact Schneider G-Clarons are justifiably very popular with the backpackers). Perhaps this is why it seems the VLF photographers often are highly mobile SUV adherents.