suggest lenses for Horseman 45FA

[david_hartman1]

I'm looking to buy a Horseman 45FA and could use some advice on lenses. I have my eye on

the Schneider 110XL and would maybe go as wide as 90mm from time to time. I'm using the

camera for a variety of applications but am a little concerned about how well these wider

lenses work with the camera- I've read a few things on this and understand the limitations

with movements, but would like more advice. Any comments or suggestions about the

Schneiders or other lenses that work well with this camera? The more info. the better.

Thanks.

[daniel_kreithen1]

I would strongly suggest your first lens purchase be small enough to fold up inside the camera. After all, what's the point of buying a very nice, small, light camera like the 45FA and carry around huge lenses? I would take a look at the 135mm lenses, which are a good all-around focal length while still being small enough to fold into the camera. The Rodenstock Sironar-N is actually smaller than most in this focal length and takes 40.5mm filters. Or the Sironar-S is somewhat larger and gives slightly more coverage.

 

You won't get much in the way of movements with a 90mm lens, is my guess, given the body design. If you're after a Super Angulon, I would also consider the equivalents in other brands as well, unless there's something compelling about the particular choice (for example, the 110XL is a unique focal length, etc.).

[sam_crater]

The first thing is to watch the outside diameter of the rear element which can't be more than about 63mm to go through the hole. Lenses with 60mm rear thread are OK but that leaves out the faster 90mms. See

 

http://www.horsemanusa.com/lens_list.html

[sam_crater]

Actually very few 4x5 lenses fold up inside the camera. The 135mm Sironar-N is one that does and a very good choice.

[ilkka]

Buy one lens to start with, but before deciding what it is, plan what other lenses you are likely to buy. You mentioned 110 or maybe 90. If you really want that 110, then I would suggest a 150 or 180 instead of the 135 to start with. If you will eventually get a 90 instead, then 135 or 150 would be a good first lens. To have both 90 and 110 is of course possible, but in my opinion they are a bit too close. I started with a 150 and ended up with 90 and 300 as well.

[warren_j]

Hi David,

I typically use a 90/8 SW, Rodenstock 135 Sironar N and the 210 G-Claron. Occasionally the 75/4.5 also-need to drop the bed. 65/4

Nikkor also usable with a little more difficulty.

 

Warren Clark

[michael_briggs2]

I don't know this camera specifically, but I agree with the advice that 90 and 110 mm lenses seem too close to be worth carrying. Perhaps if you were a professional architectural photographer, but otherwise these focal lengths are very close, and don't seem worth the effort to me. I like to space my focal lengths apart by x1.5 or x1.7, or perhaps slightly closer for wide angles.

 

I think it is a good idea to start with one or two lenses. The 110 mm is a good choice. This is a moderate wide angle -- a focal length that I find very useful. It's still a very general purpose lens.

 

From 110 I'd step down to 72 or 75 mm and up to 180 mm, for a good focal length progression, but I can't comment on how these lenses work with the 45FA.

 

If you decide that you want a 90 mm lens as your widest lens, than an alternative series might be 90, 135, 210 mm.

[stewart_s]

I have a Horseman 45FA, and I have used a Super-Angulon 90mm/f8 at full movements. There is a bit of light falloff in the corners at full rise or fall, but not what I would call vignetting.

[steve_swinehart]

I've owned an FA since 1992, and use the following lenses: 75mm, 110xl, 135, and 180. I disagree that the 135 is too close to the 180. I like the 135 and probably use it as much as the 180. When you get to the short lenses like the 75, you will have to drop the bed and raise the front standard in order to keep it out of the image.

[jim_rhoades]

Being a long lens guy I never thought I'd have much use for a Horseman. I bought one on a whim thinking it would be a good camera for hiking. Now I find it's my most used L/F camera. Very sturdy, tough, light and fast to use. My standard lens kit is: 135 Sironar N, 210 f/6.8 Caltar compact and a 300mm Fuji tele. The Sironar fits inside. I've also used a 90mm Optar f/6.8, Ektar 203 f/7.7 and a 150mm f/5.6 Schneider Xenar folded inside. All are great hiking lenses. It will handle a Rodenstock Grandgon 90 f/6.8 and Germinar 240mm. I haven't tried anything bigger. Don't be mislead by the limited bellows and movements. It is a wonderful camera.

 

Have you used L/F before? If not, when you see how dim a 90mm is you will be in for a shock. Research will show the most advised lens for a Horseman FA or HD is the 135mm Sironar N. Being a user I am a believer. Start with the 135 N.

[david_hartman1]

Thanks for all the advice to everyone who posted. I guess what I really want to know at this

point is if anyone has had experience using the Schneider 110XL on the Horseman 45FA and

if there are any drawbacks other than not being able to fold up the camera. Otherwiswe I

guess I'm looking for suggestions on lenses that are a good alternatives to the newer (also

bulky and expensive) Schneider XLs- coverage, sharpness and fall off are concerns as I like to

print from a full negative. Thanks again for commenting.

[w_t1]

I need to warn you, I bought a the 45FA from KEH in April of 2005 to "supplement" my Cambo monorail and for something "different" than my Calumet Woodfield/Tachihara, you could call it an impulse purchase.... Well, since I got the FA, I've also purchased the hm 6x12 rfh (wont fit on the woodfield), and a 90mm nikon lens, an old linhof viewfinder off ebay, a new technical pack just for the fa, etc, ......I relate to the other poster, buying it on a "whim" and it gets used most often....

 

Otherwise, I'm happy using my 150 schneider that i've had forever, and now the nikon 90.

[sam_crater]

There's really nothing that competes with the 110XL for use on 4x5 with large movements if that's the focal length you want. Maybe the discontinued Super Symmar 120 HM which is said to be very sharp, see Kerry Thalmann's site.

[michael_briggs2]

Just because the XL lenses have the biggest coverage doesn't mean that they are the best choices. Some of the XL lenses hardly ever make sense for 4x5 -- other lenses offer plenty of coverage and are cheaper. On the wide-end, since the 45FA doesn't have interchangable bellows, and therefore no bag bellows, you don't need extreme coverage. Some of the XL lenses won't fit your camera because of the size of their rear lens cells (http://www.horsemanusa.com/lens_list.html as pointed out by Sam).

 

The Super-Angulon-XLs lenses are large and bulky. The 72 and 90 won't fit your camera. The Super-Symmar are small, particularly for the coverage that they offer. You might consider the 80 and 110. The longer focal lengths make more sense for formats larger than 4x5 -- you don't need their coverage for 4x5 so you might as well buy a less expensive lens.

 

If you decide that you want a 90 mm lens instead of the 110 mm SS-XL, an excellent 90 mm is the f8 Nikkor-SW. It is light weight for a wide-coverage 90 mm lens, and has more coverage than most of the f8 versions, and it is of the design type that offers even illumination. If light weight if paramount, there is the 80 mm Super-Symmar-XL, but the illumination won't be as uniform.

[tedharris]

I have owned a 110 XL since shortly after they were available. I used it extensively on a

Horseman FA and it was and still is one of my most used lenses. If I were going to pack

only one lens it would be a choice between the 110XL, the 135 Apo Sironar S and the Fuji

240 A. Most of the time the 110 XL would be the winner. The 135 S only when I wanted

to be light light light.

 

IMO, based on using the camera and lens together for a number of years and a few

hundred sheets of film it is a good choice. The two caveats are that it is neither light nor

small and if money is important you can buy two or three very nice lenses for the price of

one 110 XL. OTOH I do believe it is worth the price.

[michael_briggs2]

To put some numbers on Ted's comments:

 

Rodenstock lists the 135 mm Apo-Sironar-S as weighing 240 g (http://www.linos.de/en/prod/obj_analoge_fotogr.html). I was astounded when I saw the Schneider listing the weight of the 110 mm SS-XL as 740 g, but that turns out to be a mistake. The current on-line datasheet (http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/large_format_lenses/super-symmar_xl/) says 425 g. I weighed mine and got 440 g, including the lens caps (having to do a correction for the lens board). I consider the SS-XL small; it certainly is dense -- not much air inside of it.

 

The weight difference is about 200 g, which is 10% of the weight of the Horseman 45FA (http://www.horsemanusa.com/pd_tc.html) -- plus there are the filmholders, lightmeter, tripod, etc. Selecting the 135 mm Apo-Sironar-S will likely save only a couple percent of the weight of your total setup. But if you save a couple of 100 g on many items, it could add up, and might matter to a hiker.

 

The coverage of the 135 mm Apo-Sironar-S is 75 degrees / 208 mm diameter; of the 110 mm SS-XL, 105 degrees and 288 mm. With the 135 mm lens and 4x5, you can do rise/shift of up to 32/37 mm. This exceeds the direct rise/shift movements listed by Horseman for this camera, so you would have to use combinations of movments to go pass the image circle of this lens. With the 110 mm lens and 4x5, it is close to impossible to run out of coverage.

[jim_rhoades]

Michael gave some weights. I'll add one more. The "N" model is listed as 210g. Kerry has weighted his at 185g. I bring this up because that is the whole point of a Horseman camera. A very well machined field camera that is both small and light. If your going to hump around honkin big lenses you might as well hump a heavy camera with lots of bellows and movements. A lens with three times the movement of the camera does not make sense. You don't really say what your objectives are. A Horseman works great for landscapes, sort of OK for still lifes and may not work at all for extreme architecture. I think of it as a do all camera but I still have a monorail on the shelf.