I've got a checkbook, and I'm not afraid to use it!

[phillip_woodney]

Greetings everyone. I've been studying the LF postings for quite

some time, but this is my first post. By way of background, other

than a very brief experience with large format in the mid-70's, I've

been an SLR user for 30 some-odd years. I'll be moving to large

format within a few months.

My question regards lens selection. I am becoming cross-eyed trying

to decide, based upon the information here, which lenses to choose

for my first camera. I will be shooting landscapes and occasionally

indoors shooting flower closeups. My question is, given a budget of

approximately $3000 for lenses, which two or three would you choose

for these applications? I do prefer faster lenses because I like to

be on site very early in the morning and want wider aperatures for

ease of focusing. I will be buying new. I will be buying a 4x5

field camera, though I am not certain which yet. I am more concerned

about lenses at this point.

Thanks very much!

 

Phil Woodney

[lawrence_francis3]

You'll get hundreds of answers, all of which will seem grounded in common sense, so here are my reccommendations.

 

Since the diagonal of 4x5 film is 163mm; I would reccommend a 50% lens, a 100% lens and finally a 200% lens. You request: new,fast and I would add lightweight. So my specific reccomendations are as follows: 1) 80mm Schneider SS XL 2) 150mm Rodenstock Sironar S and finally 3) 300mm Nikon M.

 

This package will come in for fewer dollars than you generous $3000 allowance. Additionally you certainly want to look at Kerry Thalman's website for a very professional review of lens selections in the marketplace today.

 

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/lenses.htm

 

That's my two cents worth...goof luck with your selection.

[scott___1]

hey phillip... i understand your condition. i made myself crazy figuring out which lenses to buy, used that kit for a year, then rebuilt it. try not to loose a whole lot of sleep... shop with jim at midwest so you know you're getting a good deal. that way you won't loose a whole lot if you need to sell one of you lenses.<br><br>

 

i started with the following:<br>

110-150-240-300<br><br>

 

then bought a longer lens:<br>

110-150-240-300-450<br><br>

 

then considered selling the 240 and 150 for a 180. didn't like that too much, so i replaced the 240 with a 210:<br>

110-150-210-300-450<br><br>

 

now am looking for a wider lens:<br>

75-110-150-210-300-450<br><br>

 

the point i'm trying to illustrate is that finding the right lens combination is an iterative process, and matching equivalent focal lengths to your 35mm favorites doesn't allways work out.<br><br>

 

if i only want to carry 2 of my lenses, they would be my:<br>

110 Super Symmar-XL<br>

210 APO-Symmar<br><br>

 

3 lenses:<br>

110 Super Symmar-XL<br>

150 Sironar-S<br>

210 APO-Symmar<br><br>

 

4 lenses:<br>

110 Super Symmar-XL<br>

150 Sironar-S<br>

210 APO-Symmar<br>

300 Fuji-C<br><br>

 

my two most used lenses, by a fairly wide margin, are my 110 and 210. if you only wanted to start with two, that would be a good kit that could easily grow to accommadate other focal lengths.<br><br>

 

$3,000 gives you a lot to work with for glass. in real life, there is very little difference in performance between any of the offerings from the big four. however, some lenses that have very good reputations are:<br>

 

Schneider 80 Super Symmar-XL<br>

Schneider 110 Super Symmar-XL<br>

Rodenstock 135 APO-Sironar-S<br>

Rodenstock 150 APO-Sironar-S<br>

Schneider 210 APO-Symmar<br>

Nikkon 200-M<br>

Fuji 240-A<br>

Fuji 300-C<br>

Nikon 300-M<br>

Schneider 305 G-Claron<br>

Fuji 450-C<br><br>

 

again, there is little difference between all new optics. i tested a Schneider 210 APO-Symmar against a 210 Fuji CM-W recently, and they were virtually identical at infinity. Close-up, the Fuji was sharper. The fuji cost a couple of hundred bucks less.<br><br>

 

good luck.

scott

[sanders_mcnew]

Phillip, several observations:

 

1. Fretting over which lens is pointless. In any given focal length, the subtleties of performance differences from lens to lens will be completely overshadowed by variable such as lighting and focus and composition.

 

2. Buying new is pointless. In lenses, newer isn't better. So long as a used lens has not been mistreated, it will perform as well now as it did a hundred years ago. Of my three workhorse lenses, my oldest (a Goerz Dagor) is nearly a hundred years old, and my newest (a Kodak Commercial Ektar) is fifty.

 

3. Focal points shift with changes in aperture settings. So, if you focus wide-open and then stop down, your negative might suffer. A better approach for critical focus is to invest in a loupe and a darkcloth. Of course, for landscapes you will probably be stopping way down, in which case you will have a deep focal plane, and little need to worry about critical focus.

 

Have fun.

 

Sanders McNew

 

www.mcnew.net

[Sandeha Lynch]

Which two 35mm lenses do you use most? You could start from there.

[ellis_vener_photography]

field camera: Arca-Swiss Metric FC; Canham DLC, or the Ebony 45SU.

 

 

Lenses

 

90mm 4.5 Grandagon or 90mm f/4.5 SW

 

120mm f/5.6 Macro Nikkor or 110mm /5.6 Schneider.

 

210mm or 180mm f/5.6 from Rodenstock Schneider or Nikon.

 

300mm f/9 M-Nikkor (all of the 300mm f/5.6 lenses are large and heavy.)

[ellis_vener_photography]

That's the 90mm f/4.5 Nikkor SW

[shawn_kielty1]

Just a thought -- the above advice seems dandy. This probably could be left unsaid. You may want to consider that your lens decisions should impact your choice of camera. If you have a tendency toward longer or extremely wide lenses -- you may want to be sure to get a camera that is cabable of those specific lengths.

[bruce_watson1]

You'll get lots of answers.

 

What works for me is to have lenses that give me 15 degree increments of angle of view. I ended up therefore with this kit:

 

80, 110, 150, 240, and 360 (that last interval is about 10 degrees, but it's bellows limited).

 

I use the widest lenses for landscape only. The 150 for both (it makes a pretty good close focus lens (I'm not into 1:1, but I sometimes get close). The 240 for both (it can make it easy to get those flowers that are farther away, or in clusters). The 360 I don't use much at all.

 

This is really a religious issue, so I'm sure YMMV.

[Aoresteen]

You need to figure out which field camera you will be buying BEFORE you buy a long focus lens. Why? Bellows draw. My Korona 5x7 field doesn't have enough draw to get in close with my 305mm lens. It will focus to infinity but the close focus distance is poor. So for lansacpes with no close elements infinity focus is fine. Close shots of a flower with the mountians in the background might be a problem.

 

WA and normal lenses should be ok. It's the long ones that may be a problem in this regard.

[rayfc]

Phillip / All,

 

Same here... I was a 35mm and 645 user for 25 years then, embarked on my life-long desire to do LF about 3 years ago. Here's how things have settled-out with me.

 

 

There are three lenses that cover all my outdoor needs. Two were purchased on eBay a few years ago with an average cost of around $375 each.

 

90mm Caltar-W II

 

135mm Apo-Sironar-S (purchased new with Shen-Hao camera kit).

 

210mm Caltar II-N

 

I use all of these lenses equally and all produce outstanding results (if and when I do my part properly). Others have offered great advice... Used lenses are just fine; watch eBay and carefully select the seller or, purchase used from any one of many, reputable on-line dealers.

 

I too started to analyze the technical aspects of lenses to increase my overall understanding. You want lenses that are multi-coated, have an acceptable image circle and have a decent angle of coverage. A clean and accurate shutter is very important. "brand-name" lenses and/or shutters made in the past 25 years will serve you well.

 

The Sironar-S lens is very high-end and has great technical specs. The other two were selected after hours of painstaking reasearch of image coverage and angle of coverage data. Technically, they are a cut above average but, are not as good as the Sironar.

 

In reality, when looking at a printed picture, I cannot tell the difference in sharpness, contrast etc. between the lenses. Sometimes I wish the 90mm had a little more coverage but, I've only seen cutoff/vignetting after nearly full rise lens movement with chrome films. -Good enough for me!

 

 

If you plan to do indoor flower close-ups, a macro lens might be worthy of consideration. Standard-use lenses typically reach their optimum sharpness at minimum subject distances at/around 20 times their focal length (i.e. 2-4 meters). Close-up flower photography will put you outside the optimum sharpness range. Close-ups with standard lenses also requires you to have very long bellows so, keep that in mind as you select a camera.

 

Been there, done that... 1:1 or near 1:1 LF photography with standard lenses is lackluster. If I were to buy another lens, it would be a macro of some sort.

 

Good luck. I hope you get over the initial hump quickly and painlessly.

 

 

Regards

[sknowles]

<p>Some excellent answers. I'm in the same position as you, I've spent the last year researching cameras and lenses for moving to 4x5 format. I've gone through several iterations on lenses (some posted here) and I'm still not done, which means whatever I lenses I buy will change as I work with my 4x5 camera (due in April).

 

<p>The suggestion to start with what are the equivalent lenses you use in 35mm photography is where I started and have finally gotten back to when I buy the lenses in the near future. The conversions aren't exactly the same so you may have to compromise up or down with the availability of lenses. You might want to vist a pro shop and have them show you the different lenses. Some will set up a camera to view them and see the difference with 35mm (equivalent length) lenses.

 

<p>Some of the lens company have Web site to get an overview and the details for their lenses (see

<a href="http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/links.htm">Kerry Thalmann's Web site</a>).

 

<p>The problem as I've seen so far with buying faster lenses is size and cost, and the possibility they may not fit the camera, eg. Schneider Super-Angulon XL 5.6/90mm with its large rear element. And several of the faster lenses are expensive new, and will likely bust your budget very quickly.

 

<p>Good luck, and keep us (or me through e-mail) posted on your progress. I would like to hear what you learn and decide.

[phillip_woodney]

Gentlemen,

Thanks so much for the responses. Some of them illustrate very plainly that I have a lot to learn about large format. A couple of people suggested asked which lenses I use most in 35mm. My favorite lens is a 20mm 2.8 Nikkor. I also love my 105m macro. I seldom use anything longer than a 135. I prefer to compose by moving closer if necessary. As to my camera choice, it's difficult to say specifically... but I am not, at least at this moment, considering any extremely wide or long lenses. I am leaning toward a few lenses in the 90-240 range, if that's what it takes for the landscape and close shots I've mentioned. A macro lens would be wonderful, but I might have to wait a bit for that.

 

Phil

[rj]

I use three lenses, 90mm f8 nikkor, 150 rodenstock sironar-s, and a nikkor 300m. Relatively lightweight and cover just about everything I need. If I was going to get another lens, it would be a 450 fuji or a 450 nikkor, it would fit on my camera with extention to spare (I use a monorail). I would love to get a Canham dlc or the 5x7 version of the same camera, but money is relatively tight, so no go.

 

You mentioned getting faster lenses for ease of focus, you might want to instead look at getting a brighter focusing screen and save money (and weight) on the lenses. Just a thought. Good luck

[nicholas_fiduccia]

Hi Philip,

 

I think you are wise to research the topic of lens selection so

carefully as this may help you save money over the long run. At

the same time, don't go overboard and make lens selection a

carreer.

 

What has helped me is to try an select a set of lenses that are

well-spaced and cover your range of focal length. The way to

make sure your lenses ar well spaced is to ensure the ratio of

the focal lengths of each successive pair in your set is not too

big or too small. For example, the set I have chosen is the 75 -

110 - 180 - 300 combination. You will find that the focal length

ratio between consecutive lenses in the set is between 1.6x and

1.7x. I think this is near ideal. Someone, earlier on in this thread

mentioned to use a 75 - 150 - 300 combination. I think this can

be usable too but the disadvantage here is with this set, the

photographer may come across a situation in which he needs a

focal length which falls midway between two of the lenses in his

set.

 

In summary, the choice of successive focal lengths is a

compromise between having to carry a large number of closely

spaced optics and a smalller number of more widely spaced

optics that may not be as convienent to use because of potential

"holes" .

 

The two combinations that I considered are 90-150-240 and

110-180-300. Since you really seem to like wide angles, a 90

may not be wide enough, so perhaps a 75 - 110 -180 - 300 will

work well for you. Good luck and welcome to the family.

[ole_tjugen]

I'm probably the wrong person to give advice here, as all my lenses are old...

 

What you like in 35mm and what you will like in 4x5" are not necessarily the same. I never liked wide-angle before I started using LF.

 

Trying to decide on a set of focal lengths is like trying to describe the colour blue to a blind person. I suggest you start off with a few second-hand lenss, see which focal lengths you like, and only THEN get new lenses that fit your style.

 

I have lenses in all focal lengths from 90mm to 23" (90, 121, 135, 150, 6", 165, 180, 210,240 , 10 3/4", 300, 360, 420, 18", 23"), and I'm often surprised by which ones I choose to use. Most of the time I bring only two or three lenses - most frequently 90, 121 and 150mm (4x5"), or 121, 165 and 240mm for 5x7" and 8x10".

[brian_ellis16]

Too bad you're buying new, used lenses are often better for someone buying large format lenses for the first time. When you buy used you leave yourself room for non-costly mistakes since you should always be able to sell the used mistakes for what you paid for them. When you buy new you're likely going to take at least a 20% loss when you try to sell your mistakes. And believe me, no matter how much research you do you will make a mistake at some point in time.

 

Your favorite 35mm lens is very little indication of what your favorite large format lens will turn out to be. The aspect ratios of 35mm and 4x5 are different and, more importantly, the camera has a major influence on what kind of photographs you make. Many of us make very different photographs with large format than we did with 35mm. And even if at first there is some correlation, over time your tastes and styles change so that your favorite length lens today may very well not be you're favorite next year or a few years from now.

[ken_schroeder]

Phillip, do yourself a favor and start out with the camera and one lens. The one lens should be a 210. The larger image magnification on the groundglass will assist you in learning basic view camera skills. having more than one lens at the start just complicates things.

[beepy]

Buy used - that is good advice.

<p>

Regrets, I have a few, and this one I choose to mention. There I was picking lenses for my

4x5 camera and not paying a lot of attention to where my head was going and lo and

behold I went on to do some 8x10 work. If I had seriously considered that initially I might

have decided to (1) buy more used lenses and not be afraid of that and (2) when I had a

choice acquired a lens that could cover 8x10 format also - just in case.

<p>

About my only regret.

<p>

I seem to use my 150mm Rodenstock Sironar-S (I think that's what is is:-), and quite like

the 305mm G-Claron people turned me on to for 8x10. Did need to get the longer bellows

for my Arca-Swiss for some close-up work. Really use things like a 90mm or 65mm in

landscape a lot... Oh darn, here's my annotated (missing one) list of lenses:

<blockquote>

Schneider G-Claron f/9 305mm Copal No. 1 (8x10)

<br>

Schneider APO-Tele-Xenar F/5.6 400mm Compact MRC Copal No. 3 (5x7)

<br>

Nikon Nikkor W 240mm f/5.6 Copal No. 3 (8x10)

<br>

Nikon Nikkor -SW 90mm f/4.5 Copal No. 0 (5x7)

<br>

Nikon Nikkor-SW 65mm f/4 Copal No. 0 (4x5)

<br>

Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S 150mm f/5.6 Copal No. 0 (5x7)

<br>

Rodenstock Imagon 200mm f/5.8 Copal No. 3 (< 4x5)

<br>

Nikon Nikkor-SW 120mm f/8 Copal No. 0 (8x10) [Hobo]

<br>

Nikon Nikkor-W 210mm f/5.6 Copal No. 1 (5x7)

[beepy]

My reply got truncated? Eeek.

Finishing up...

<p>

I guess the biggest surprise in switch to large format was how little I have used the

400mm lens. I do landscapes, portraits and still lifes, and I am in what is probably "long

normal" or "wide" most of the time.

<p>

I wish I had bought more lenses used. I avoided early on but my later experiences with

used lenses were pretty good (except for the flaky shutter in the G-Claron - ordered a new

shutter from B&H).

<p>

I met a landscape guy in a workshop who said he bought a 90mm lens as his first lens.

And shot a lot with it until he intuitively understood how the lens handled, what it's view

was, etc. He then added a second lens (and I can't remember which one!). Anyway, it

sounded very Zen-like and practical at the same time. Me, I'm cursed with an equipment

fetish.

[beepy]

</blockquote>

 

Sorry - trying to fix my HTML mistake:-(

[troyammons]

I just went on a trip with a Sinar F1 and 3 lenses. All rodenstock, 90mm Grandagon, 150mm Sironar N MC, and a 300mm Caltar. Out of 100+ 4x5 photos I shot 90% with the 150 and it is very sharp. I never even put the 300 on my camera and the 90 just sat idle most of the time. IMO the Nikon 90mm F4.5 is probably one of the better 90mm lenses you can buy, but I would rather have the F8. Personally I find the 90mm and 150mm cover 99% of my LF needs. I paid $400 for the 150 and the 90mm Nikon should be somewhere around $600-800.

[bruce_watson1]

Something I should add. I used to do the 35mm thing, and used two lenses almost exclusively. Things is, I was handholding, and I could move as needed to frame my shots.

 

LF isn't like that. You aren't going to be moving much. The whole point of LF is to comtemplate what you are trying to do, walk the scene to find your spot, and set up there. You then need the lens that will give you the correct angle of view for your shot. That's why most of us carry more lenses than we did when we were shooting handheld.

 

I think too that I no longer see the same way I did with 35mm. My choice of lenses for LF reflects that - I'm not using 35mm equivalents. I never owned a "normal" lens when I was handholding. Now, my 150mm "normal" lens gets about 1/3 of my shots.

 

All I'm saying is, don't think of this as 35mm but bigger. You'll find, I think, that it just ain't so ;-)

[dave schlick]

sounds like from your 35mm choice youl need the schneider 58 xl, make sure your camera you buy will be able to use it.. you may need bag bellows and or receded lens board in your budget.. im very envious of your checkbook.. 58 xl, 90 4.5 nikon, 135-150 rodenstock sirnar s.. i had only the 135 sironar s for many years and its blown me and other photogarphers away on occasion.. i added a 90f8 super angulon and its very hard to focus and compose becouse of the little light on fresnel... for long range i use a mamiya c330 and tlr 250mm lens. it is less expensive for me.. the 4x5 can be unbeliveably wide, kind of like 35mm and is 1 1/4x 1 inch format.. but the 4x5 has the density to back it up, youl be very pleased. good luck.. dave...

[michael_briggs2]

I agree with much of the advice that you have been given.

 

I suggest starting with one or two lenses and learning how they show the world before buying additional lenses. After using the one or two lenses for awhile, you will know whether you want additional focal lengths and in which direction.

 

As the others have said, because the aspect ratios are different from 35 mm to 4x5, and because the style of photography is different, the ratio of the formats diagonals doesn't exactly predict how a 4x5 lens will "feel" compared to your experience with 35 mm lenses.

 

I suggest first getting a normal lens. I used only one lens for many years, a 180 mm. For 4x5, "normal" can mean 150 mm to 210 mm. According to the usual definition of "normal", which is a focal length equal to the format diagonal, normal would be 150 mm. For many years 210 mm has been popular as a first lens, probably because of the increased coverage compared to the 150 mm lens. With the increased coverage of recent plasmat designs, I think that 180 mm is a good compromise. Probably, you will be happy with whichever focal length from 150 to 210 mm that you pick.

 

In the 150 mm to 210 mm range, I don't think you will go wrong with a recent plasmat-type lens from any of the big four. The differences will be subtle. It isn't like 35 mm photographer where a good size print requires a large enlargement of the film, magnifying any faults in the lens. If you decide on 150 mm, one of the advanced plasmat designs may be best because of their increased coverage: Fuji-W and CMW, Rodentock Apo-Sironar-S, Schneider Apo-Symmar-L. For the other focal lengths, all of the plasmats have plenty of coverage: the above, plus Nikkor-W, Apo-Sironar-N and Apo-Symmar. Don't worry much about which of these ... it doesn't make that much difference.

 

For your second lens, I suggest a moderate wide. In the past, 90 mm has been popular, but I prefer 110 mm, or 120 mm. It partially depends on what you select for the first lens -- I suggest a spacing between focal lengths of a factor of 1.5 to 1.7. The 110 works very well with a normal lens of 180 mm. A large majority of my photographs are made with these two lenses, 110 and 180 mm. There is only one 110 mm lens made, the Super-Symmar-XL. It is a fine lens, and popular because of its small size and light weight, but excellent photos are possible with other lenses that you may be able to find cheaper. The 90 mm f8 Nikkor-SW is nice because of its relatively small size and large coverage. Longer than the 110 SS-XL, there are the 115 mm Grandagon-N, 120 mm Nikkor-SW and 120 mm Super-Angulon. All of these lenses are excellent and I would choose based on what focal length best matches your first lens.

 

How big are the flowers for your closeups? As you get closer to 1:1 (image size = object size), macro lenses start to out perform regular lenses. But I don't think you will gain much with a macro lens. First, probably the greatest limitation in taking closeups of 3D subjects like flowers is depth-of-field. You will probably be stopping down so much (e.g., f22, f32) that diffraction will equalize the quality of lenses. Second, I once did an experiment comparing a normal plasmat with a macro plasmat (G-Claron), taking a photograph of a detailed, flat subject at about 1:3. The normal plasmat could only be focused using the central region because the outer portion of the image was fuzzy, but on the negatives, taken with the lenses stopped down to reasonable apertures, the image quality was indistinguisable between the two lenses.

 

If you want the best, the desire to do both landscapes and closeups might be a reason to pick either a Apo-Sironar-S or a Apo-Symmar-L for your normal lens.. Both Rodenstock and Schneider state that these lenses, the latest versions of their plasmat designs, work well for a wider range of reproduction ratios than their previous designs.

 

Instead of buying more than two lenses right away, I suggest spending some of the money on a Polaroid 545 holder and Polaroid film so that you can get some immediate feedback. Its better to start by learning to use one or two lenses well, then acquire additional lenses. Thinking too much about all the choices will only delay your actually using a LF camera for photography.

 

Later, you will know whether you want your third lens to be shorter and longer, and you can browse the forum arhives about lenses of that focal length, or ask another question.