2 or 3 lens combo for landscapes

[nicholas_fiduccia]

After 20 years of shooting with 35mm, I am planning to buy my

first 4x5 field camera for landscape photography and would

appreciate help with the lens selection. In 35mm, my favorite

lens combo is 24, 35, 50, and 85mm. My most favorite lens focal

length probably lies somewhere between 35 and 50 since I tend

to use those lenses most frequently. In 4x5, I can see going with

either a 110-180 combo or a 90(80)-150-240 combination. I

understand the 3 lens combo should give me the most flexibility

in framing.

 

<p>

 

Would the more experience landscape photographers care to

comment on which combo (2 or 3-lens) they would prefer and

why. Weight is a consideration for me since I plan on hiking and

backpacking with this equipment. I know that focal length

selection is personal but I would welcome the opionions of

those experienced 4x5 shooters. Thanks.

[edward_kimball]

If I were to pick a three lens combo to cover your likes (according

to 35mm preferences)I would suggest 90, 150 and 210. The 90 is about

the same perspective of a 28, the 150 corresponds to about 40 and the

210 to about 70. You would probably like the 80 and 240 that you

mentioned but these will be huge hunks of glass and extremely

expensive.

[glenn_kroeger]

Nicholas:

 

<p>

 

Since a 120 on 4x5 is pretty close to the equivalent of a 35 (in

35mm), I might suggest an 80-135-240 combo. The 240 Fujinon A is

small, and a 135 can do everything a 150 can with the added benefit

of a wider view, something like a compromise between a 35 and 50 in

35mm. The 135mm Apo-Sironar S has a large image circle and is very

sharp but small.

 

<p>

 

If you don't use your 24 very often, a nice combo is 110-180-300,

with the 300 being very like your current 85.

[kevin_kolosky]

Doesn't Mr. Wisner sell a convertible lens set that might fit your

needs?

 

<p>

 

Kevin

[matthew_runde]

Nicholas,

 

<p>

 

I would suggest that, if possible, you rent or borrow a 4x5 camera

and some lenses. That would probably make it very easy to choose

which lenses you would like to use for 4x5.

[nicholas_fiduccia]

Thanks for the responses thus far! Since I got positive

comments about the 3 lens combo, I'll simply go with three

lenses. I don't think I need 4 large format lenses. Now I'll

address your individual comments:

 

<p>

 

Edward: Is the 150 and 210mm too close? From my calculations

a 150 is equivalent to a 46mm and a 210 is equivalent to a

65mm. If I chose the 210 my next lens down would probably be a

135mm.

 

<p>

 

Glenn, yes 110 -180 - 300 sound like a good spacing. The

camera I have chosen (Ebony 45S) doesn't handle 300mm but I

could probably chose another camera. In 35mm, sometime I

use my 24mm a lot and sometimes not at all. It depends on the

scenery.

 

<p>

 

Kevin, I don't know anythink about convertables. I'll check it out!

 

<p>

 

Matt, I have used a 4x5 in school with a 90mm and 210mm. I

really enjoyed both lenses but I did notice a big hole in the

middle. Do you think I can translate my lens experience in

35mm to 4x5? or do the lenses feel wider? For example, a

90mm in 4x5 is equivalent to a 27mm in 35 according to my

calculations using the long side of the negative. Does a 90 in

4x5 feel much shorter than what a 28 mm would in 35?

[neil_poulsen1]

From your description, it sounds like you enjoy using a moderate

wide-angle. If the 110mm is a little expensive, consider one of

the later 121mm S.A.s. It's single-coated, and can be purchased for

just over $500. For me, next would be 180mm. After that, probably

240mm, like a G-Claron. Inexpensive, and light. I find the 210mm

to be a poor compromise for either the 180mm or the 240mm. It's a

little too narrow for 180mm like applications, and a little too wide

for close-up type work. As for 300mm, there are examples of 300mm

tele's out there that would work on your Ebany.

 

<p>

 

I know that others do, but I don't find too much application in

landscape for a 90mm. I think it's too wide. 90mm is the most used

for architecture, but for me, not for landscapes.

[matthew_runde]

Nicholas,

 

<p>

 

It sounds like you have more experience in 4x5 than I do. I don't

know about the comparison of 24mm in 35 and 90mm in 4x5, but I

currently use a 150mm in 4x5 and it isn't nearly wide enough for my

purposes (urban this-and-that).

 

<p>

 

Depending on what you want to do with your photographs, you may be

able to use a wide lens and then crop the image, but of course it

would be better to have your favorite lens to begin with.

[jean_marie_solichon1]

Hi Nicholas,

in my experience the 4x5 equivalent of 24 in 35mm is a 75. This is my

most used wide angle. Then I have a 120 Super Symmar (equivalent to

35 in 35mm)my absolute favourite. And if you only want 3 lenses that

would be a 200 Nikkor M, very small, light and sharp. 75, 120 and 200

this is my suggestion.

Jean-Marie

[lars ake vinberg]

Nicholas,

 

<p>

 

When I moved up from 35mm to LF I noticed that one reason I liked

superwide 35mm lenses was the DOF. With tilt, this is less of an

issue, near-far compositions work well with a moderate wideangle in

LF.

 

<p>

 

Since you will take the equipment for hiking/backpacking, a starting

point could be one moderate wideangle in the 120-150 range that is

compact and light, in case you want to take one lens only. Then add a

wide lens and a moderate tele. In 35mm terms, perhaps 24-35-85. Best

regards, Åke

[robert_eaves1]

I carry three lenses in my backpack, mounted on boards, that seem

to handle all of my landscape and nature needs. They are a Rodenstock

90mm/6.8, Nikkor 135mm/5.6, and a Rodenstock 210mm/5.6. I purchased

all of these lenses used on Ebay. All were mint+ condition, and

didn't break the bank compared to new lenses.

[kerry_thalmann2]

Nicholas,

 

<p>

 

You didn't mention what camera you will be using. Some lightweight cameras may limit your ability to use longer lenses. So, keep that in mind.

 

<p>

 

For backpacking I generally take either three or four lightweight lenses. My three lens set consists of 90mm, 150mm and 240mm. Specifically, 90mm f6.3 Congo WA, 150mm f6.3 Fujinon W and 240mm f9 Fujinon A. These lenses are all extremely light and compact. Just about any current 150mm intended for 4x5 use (not the 150mm Super Symmar XL, for example) will be reasonably compact and light (but the 150mm f6.3 Fujinon is absolutely tiny). The 90mm Congo has limited coverage, but is a LOT smaller and lighter than any other current 90mm lens. The 240mm Fujinon A is the longest non-telephoto ever offered in a Copal #0 shutter. It is very small (52mm filters) and light (less than 10 oz.) and a wonderful performer. Highly recommended in this focal length.

 

<p>

 

My four lens set consists of the same 90mm WA Congo, 135mm f5.6 APO-Sironar-N, 200mm f8 Nikkor M and 300mm f9 Nikkor M. This is a very versatile lens set. All are quite compact and light, multicoated and in modern Copal shutters. The 135mm APO Sironar-N is also sold by Calumet as the Caltar II-N (identical lens, made in the same factory, just different name and Calumet provides the warranty). The Caltar labeled lens is generally less expensive than the identical Rodenstock - especially when Calumet has them on sale (currently on sale for $419.99). Also, if you ask at the time of your order, Calumet will include a free lensboard and mounting for any Cambo or Calumet camera (this includes Zone VI and Calumet Woodfield XM - which is basically a re-labeled Tachihara). This makes a good deal even better on these Caltar lenses.

 

<p>

 

In any case, if you are specifically interested in lightweight lenses, you might want to check out:

 

<p>

 

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

 

<p>

 

This is the lightweight lens section of my large format pages. It includes discussion of the lenses I mentioned above, along with several more lightweight lens options.

 

<p>

 

Kerry

[wilhelmn]

You're going to find this hard to believe, but your experience in

35mm may have little to do with the lens preferences for 4x5. In

fact, chances are good that after you invest a bunch of money and

time in LF, you'll be back to 35mm within a year. LOL.

[dave_karp]

Nicholas,

 

<p>

 

Based on your 35mm preferences, a suitable 3 lens kit might be as

follows: 75mm, 125mm, 240mm. The 125mm f/5.6 Fujinon CMW (or a used

Fujinon W) is a very good alternative to the Schneider lenses

mentioned by others. I have the older "W" version with 52mm filter

ring and like it very much. My experience and that of others

reporting on this forum is that Fujinons are very good lenses, good

enough to mention in the same breath as Rodenstock, Nikon, and

Schneider.

 

<p>

 

I have not used one, but the 240mm Fujinon A seems to be highly

regarded by everyone who uses it. I have a 75mm f/4.5 Rodenstock

Grandagon-N that I like a lot. If you combined that lens with the

125mm Fujinon CM-W you could use the same filters for both A step-up

ring would let the 240 use the same filters. You should try out a

75mm before you buy. It is quite wide for 4x5, although many

photographers like to use even wider lenses in the 55-65mm range as

well!

 

<p>

 

The more I look at it, the 75 - 125 - 240 progression looks like a

very good lens kit. The 125 really can serve as both your "35mm and

50mm" lens when working in 4x5, and the other lenses are

significantly different from the 125 to make sure that you are not

overlapping in your lens choices.

[edward_kimball]

Nicholas,

 

<p>

 

I had forgotton about the Fuji 240. The 240s that I have seen are

enormous in Copal 3 shutters; completely inappropriate for field

use. I have never used the Fuji but it is well thought of in this

forum.

 

<p>

 

Also, on the wide side I would not go wider than 90 for three

reasons: 1)to go wider than 90 you will need a recessed lensboard and

probably a bag bellows and 2)they are expensive and 3) they are large.

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

Edward, when was the last time you checked the Nikon 65 mm? small,

light and not so expensive......

[nicholas_fiduccia]

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You guys have given me

a lot to think about and it is interesting hearing the thought

process of others.

 

<p>

 

Kerry, I review your website so regularly that I bookmarked it! I

am planning to buy an Ebony 45S but am having second

thoughts as the max extension is only 270mm. I think 240mm

will be enough for me. Thanks for the price leads.

 

<p>

 

A..ke, I do shoot a lot of near far compositions. Your comments

about super wide angles 4x5's not being required as much

make a lot of sense to me.

 

<p>

 

David, thank you for the 120 Fujinon CMW suggestion. I had

missed out on that one since it was so slose to the infamous SS

110 XL. The Fuji is significantly lighter (and cheaper) than the

Schneider and gives me another option.

 

<p>

 

Just to let you know I plan on keeping and using my 35mm

system when I need the weight savings and convienence. I'm

afraid that once I taste the large negative size, there will be no

turning back. Thanks all. I'll let you know what I decide. Maybe, I

should plan for 4 lenses after all! :)

[kerry_thalmann2]

"I am planning to buy an Ebony 45S but am having second thoughts as the max extension is only 270mm. I think 240mm will be enough for me."

 

<p>

 

While 270mm is enough for general landscape use with the 240mm Fujinon A (ftf = 237.9mm for infinity focus), it doesn't allow a lot of extra extension for close focusing. Although I don't do a lot of true macro (1:1), this is my favorite lens for detailed close-ups of rock patterns, leaves, rock art, etc. In theory, this lens is optimized for close-ups (but, in my experience, it is also very impressive for distant subjects). So, with only 270mm of extension, you would be somewhat missing out on the excellent close-up capabilities this lens provides. I can get to 1:1 with this lens on my TK45S, but rarely shoot at such high magnification. I do use it very often on my Toho (390mm max. extension) to shoot in the 1/2 - 1/4 lifesize range. With the Ebony, you could focus reasonably close with an extended lens panel. With a maximum extension of 270mm, you'd be able to focus dwon to about 7 feet with the 240 A. If you could get to 300mm with the aid of an extended lensboard, you could focus to slighty under 4 feet. Not true macro, but probably close enough to your subject for most field applications.

 

<p>

 

The 240 A is a great lens, and a fantastic match for most field cameras (due to the small size and light weight). In addition to general landscape use, if you have enough extension, it can serve double duty for close-up and detail shots. Even if my camera didn't have enough extension for shooting close-ups with this lens, it would still be my choice for general landscape use in this focal length (the 240mm APO Ronar would be a close second).

 

<p>

 

Kerry

[edward_kimball]

Jorge,

 

<p>

 

How does the Nikon SW 65 compare in size to the Rodenstock Grandagon

75mm f\6.8. The calter version is half the price ($1299 vs $659)of

the nikon lens. This lens seems large and heavy for backpacking but

I am use to using a step-up ring to use my 49mm filters.

[dave_karp]

Nicholas,

 

<p>

 

A few ideas:

 

<p>

 

First, don't forget to consider used lenses when you make your

purchases. All but one of my lenses are used, and all are in great

condition. I really like my 125mm, and it cost under $300. It looks

and operates like it was not used before I bought it. If you want to

pick up a fourth lens, this might be a way for you to do so without

making a big (OK - even bigger) hit on your wallet. In fact, don't

reject the idea of a used kit. The vast majority of my large format

gear is used, and most of it looks like it was very lightly used. I

would hate to add up the total cost of my kit, but the total is

significantly lower than if it was all purchased new.

 

<p>

 

Second, a three lens kit would be great to start with (and perhaps

never add to). After you use your camera for a while you will decide

if you need or want to add to it. You don't need a big kit. I have a

friend, a wonderful photographer, who is mostly retired after making

a very good living as a professional photographer. For most of his

career, he worked with only four lenses: 75mm, 90mm, 150mm, 210mm.

 

<p>

 

Third, given the good chance that you might want to add to your kit

(we can't help ourselves), it might be a good idea to consider a

different camera. For example, I started out with a somewhat wierd

collection: 75mm, 90mm, and a 210mm. It became even more imbalanced

toward the wide end when I purchased the 125mm. I went this way

because I do a lot of architectural photography and felt the need for

the wider lenses. However, after a while I found that I really wanted

a longer lens, and ended up with a 450mm! I used that lens quite a

bit recently, and really enjoyed the extra "reach." I think that my 5

lens kit covers all of my needs, and probably will not need another

one. Thank goodness my camera can handle the longer lens.

 

<p>

 

It would be a shame if you bought what is essentially a wide angle

camera, and found that you wanted to shoot longer lenses. I have

heard nothing but rave reviews about Ebony cameras. Perhaps one with

longer extension (more $?) would be a better bet. Of course, every

photographer has a different perspective, and you might think that I

am all wet.

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

Edward here are some comparisons:

first price, The nikkor SW 65 mm is only $820 at Badger and the

Rodenstock is $749, the filter size for the 65 is 67 mm for the

Rodenstock 58mm. Image circle is 187 for the 75, 170 for the 65. The

Nikkor is brighter to focus, but I guess the Rodenstock will have

greater contrast. It is not as expensive as you thought and it is not

as heavy as you think, then again I am sure your Caltar is a lot

lighter if it only uses 49 mm filters.

[edward_kimball]

Hi Jorge,

 

<p>

 

The lenses that require a step up to 49mm are the Rodenstock Ysaron

127mm and the Schnieder Angulon 90mm. I only mentioned the Calter as

an affordable alternative to the Nikon. I can't believe the

difference in price between Badger Graphics and Calumet on the Nikon

lens. I got my price quotes from the Calumet website.

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

Hey Edward, I know I know, after I discovered Badger I wanted to kick

myself a few times because of all the money I wasted buying lenses

from other dealers. Ah well, such is life, live and learn!