4x5 lens set for architectural work?

[jim_simmons]

I'd be interested in hearing from architectural photographers what

lens set (4-5 lenses total) they'd be looking at if starting from

scratch. I'd like be able to cover the entire spectrum of

commercial, industrial, and residential work.

 

The focal length sets I'm toying around with are:

55-72-90-120-210

58-80-110(or 120)-180(or 210)

 

And how would you prioritize the importance of them in your kit? I

don't want to get more than two at a time, because learning to

master one lens at a time is hard enough. And I'd like to start with

the most important ones in the 72-150 range.

[ronald_moravec1]

Tall buildings really need a very wide lens and then there is not much excess coverage for movement. I am really happy with my 110 XL. It is about the equivalent of a 28mm on 24x30 format, that is 35mm reduced to 4x5 proportion. My 90 SA is very good, but I`m thinking 80 XL is a better fit in focal length. My choice would be 110 XL, any modern 210, then 80XL.

 

If you are coming from 35mm, multiply the 35mm focal length by 4 and pretend 35 is 24x30.

 

When you pick a camera, there is no substitute for long bellows. But then it won`t compress enough for wides. So buy a bag bellows.

[michael_briggs2]

I take photos as an amateur and a significant fraction of the photos I take are architecture exteriors. A pro who also did interiors might have somewhat different advice, perhaps more common use of very wide lenses.

 

The lens set that I have converged on for 4x5 is 72 / 110 / 180 / 270 / 450. The factor spacing between these focal lengths ranges from 1.5 to 1.66. For architecture, my most used lens is 110 mm. The 72 saves the day when one can't get far enough from the building -- its coverage is amazing. But the occasions that demand the 72 mm are less frequent than one might guess -- it might be different for a pro who must get a photo of a building that they have been commisioned to photo. I probably use the 180 mm at least as often as the 72 mm. The 180 and 270 can be useful for showing a building in context from a distance, or for details. I use the 450 rarely architecture details.

 

Almost never while photographing have I wanted a wider lens -- at least for me, lenses shorter than 72 mm are specialized optics. The needs for interior photography might be different.

 

My suggestion is to start with 110 (or 120 ) mm and 180 mm, with an eventual third lens being the 72 mm Super-Anulgon XL, or some 75 mm lens. Lenses shorter than 90 mm are much harder to use, so I suggest getting some experience with other lenses first.

 

For architecture, I second the advice that the camera needs to have interchangable bellows.

 

I don't think the 80 mm Super-Symmar-XL is the best choice for architecture. It has the advantages of small size and light weight, but the older design type of other wide angles (various Super-Angulons, Grandagon and Apo-Grandagon), Nikkor-SW, Fuji-SW) have greater coverage and more uniform illumination. For architecture, in shorter focal lengths coverage leads in importance.

[armin_seeholzer]

Hi

 

I work parttime for a arch mag!

1. I would start with 110 & 72 or 75mm

2. a 210mm and 47mm XL

3. a 300mm + 90mm

4. a 480mm 55mm

The reason for the 47mm XL is because many times they will not pay you for LF shoots only MF so you need a 6x9 cm RFH and then you need many times the 47 XL.

Good luck!

[jim_simmons]

Yes, Armin, I am also evaluating the lens set for its equivalent effect on a 6x9 RF back, so I can see the need for the 47. This is one reason I had the 55 and 58 in my lists. But I suppose you're saying that for interiors, going all the way down to a 47 would end up being needed.

 

I see that my formatting didn't come through very well. I meant to say one set at 55-72-90-120-210 and a different set at 58-80-110(or 120)-180(or 210).

 

From responses so far, I

[leonard_evens]

Like Michael, I am an amateur who does a fair amount of architectural photography. I started with a 90 and a 150 mm lens, but I found I needed something shorter than 90 mm on some occasions. I got the Rodenstock Grandagon-M 75 mm, but in retrospect I think I would have been better off with a Schneider Super Angulon XL 72 mm lens. It has a large image circle and allows for more movement.

 

There will be some occasions where a lens with shorter focal length than 72 mm will be needed to get the top of a very large building in the frame. (I recently encountered that at Millenium Park in Chicago.) But most such lenses have a relatively small image circle, and generally you will need to include quite a lot of foreground in the image, which makes them less useful than you might imagine.

 

I haven't yet tried indoor architectural photography, but the standard books on the subject say that very short focal length lenses are seldom of any use indoors. Probably nothing shorter than 90 mm is necessary.

[jnanian]

hi jim

 

i have done a fair amount of architectural and site photography since about 1990, mostly

for historic preservation professionals. while i do have a 6x7 back i rarely use it, and

usually shoot full 4x5 sheets. sometimes i shoot 5x7, if i can, but that is not too often

that the client has extra $$ they want to put into the job ... i use lenses from a 65mm SA

all the way to a 210/370 symmar. the most used lens i use is probably the 90 for both

exteriors and interiors, except if i am doing a sectional view, or detail shot, then i use a

longer lens.

 

oh, the lenses i have & use go like this - 65-90-127-135-150-210/370 + i have a

handful of brass and barrel lenses if things get kind of crazy.

 

you can go wrong if you get a 72 & 150 to use right off the bat. if you have a pro-shop

nearby, you can alway rent a few different lenses for a weekend to get the feel for what

they will do and which one(s) might be right for you.

 

good luck!

[henry_a]

58, 80, 110, 150, 180 works for me although on rare occaisions I wish for one long lens, but not often enough to buy one. More often than not I find myself moving closer to exclude things like powerlines, ugly signs, patches of dead grass, etc. from the picture so I tend to work with shorter lenses. I might prefer the longer view but there is often too much garbage in the frame. Where and how you work may be different.

 

The first two I'd pick are the 80 and 110 or maybe a 72 and 110 - this range covers about 70% of my work. The 58, 80 and 110 use the same center filter, which is convenient and saves money. I use the CF often on the 58 and 80. Roll film might have you wanting a 47 but otherwise probably not, the 58 is really wide on 4X5. I sometimes crop wide panos out of a 4X5 sheet shot with a 58, like 6X12 ratio which is pretty useful for big spaces and sprawling exteriors.

 

 

Don't overlook the 150 - it is mighty useful. Like an 80 on a Hasselblad or a 50 on a 35mm camera. Not literally or mathematically, but if you can stand where a 150 works it'll make a nice normal perspective. Which probably sounds too obvious but I think its often overlooked in the quest for drama.

 

The set I have now is perfectly useful for me. If they were stolen tomorrow I'd buy them all the same except the 80 might be replaced by a 72. (probably not, but I would consider it) I could also see either a 72 or 80, a 110 and a 150 working very well as a minimal three lens outfit.

[john_alexander_dow]

At the wide end the key thing is the angle of view the lens can generate and the two widest angles of view are the Schneider 47mm XL and the 72 mm XL

 

I have a 47mm and it does have a bit of movement (you don't need much when the lans is that close to the film plane)

 

I also an 80 mmXL but find I am constantly running out of image circle.

 

Longer lenses tend to have huge image circles anyway.

 

regards

JayDee

[d_g]

start with a 110 xl, ad a modern 150 or 180 (apo symmar L or apo sironar S are the best)

if you main goal is 4x5, then ad later a 72 xl and a 240 Fuji A

If needed, then you will buy a apo grandagon 55 or a 47 xl.

But remenber that will will need expensive center filters also, this is the reason why, i've

skip the 72xl (too large filter) and bought a SA 75/5,6, so my 55 / 75 and 110 share the

same filter (67) !

In order to save money, you can buy a second hand SA 121 MC or a super symmar HM 120

instead of the wonderfull 110, and a regular apo symmar or an apo sinonar N instead of

the L and S.

[jim_simmons]

Well, this is just the kind of advice I was hoping for! I guess the biggest dilemma is choosing between the 80mm XL and the 72mm XL. It's just that the idea of taming a 72's distortions would be harder than for an 80. Then again, you can always crop a 72, and you can't "expand" an 80. As to the advice of picking up a 150, I think I will nab a 150 Symmar S cheap on ebay for around $250 just to have that mild view (normal, as Henry said) that I know so well from the 40mm Summicron on my Leica CL. I agree that this view is good for showing "truthful" perspective without the drama or distortion of other focal lengths.

[d_g]

150 Symmar S cheap on ebay for around $250

considering the total amount of equipment you need, i will go for a sironar S 150 instead

(larger image circle, or at list an apo symmar or sironar N)