Need 4x5 Normal and Portrait Lens Recommendation

[mcblue]

<p>Since I'm pretty happy with shooting using a Rollei TLR with a 75mm lens, I thought my first 4x5 lens should be a normal or slightly-wider-than-normal lens. I saw the following recommended highly:</p>

<p>Rodenstock 150mm f/5.6 APO Sironar-S</p>

<p>But it's really expensive ($1097 at B&H new). Can anyone recommend a comparable normal lens at the 135mm-150mm range that doesn't cost as much? New or used...</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

 

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>There are plenty of excellent lenses available that aren't very expensive. For example, You can pick up a Nikkor 150/5.6 for $340 from keh.com. Even 50+ year old Ektar and Optar lenses are very good. Buy used, and read this first:</p>

<p>http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html</p>

[vick_vickery]

<p>Any tessar-type lens in 150mm would do well for a normal lens; those maned Ektar, Optar, Tessar, Raptar, etc., all cover 4x5 and give good results at at very attractive used prices. A similar length in a Symmar would give you the extra of being a convertible lens with a longer lens available by simply removing the front lens group. A newer lens such as a Symmar-S is not a convertible, but is an excellent performer and stil very reasonable used. The 135mm lenses with the same names would also work well, but have a little less coverage, thus limiting movements somewhat. For a portrait lens, I'd go to something in the 200mm to 250mm range.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>Repeated for emphasis:</p>

<p>"A newer lens such as a Symmar-S is not a convertible, but is an excellent performer and stil very reasonable used. The 135mm lenses with the same names would also work well, but have a little less coverage, thus limiting movements somewhat. For a portrait lens, I'd go to something in the 200mm to 250mm range."</p>

[mcblue]

<p>Thanks for the replies! Robert, I'll look at the Nikkor you mentioned at KEH.</p>

<p>Vick, can you tell me which specific Symmar that would be -- the convertible lens. That might be a good bonus.</p>

<p>I'll probably also look for a portrait lens after the normal lens. I actually have these listed:</p>

<p>Rodenstock 210mm Sironar-N <br /> Fujinon-W 210mm F5.6 <br /> Fujinon-W 210mm CM F5.6</p>

<p>But I think I best look for a 135mm or 150mm first. Thanks again.</p>

[nickc1]

<p>The most easily available 'normal' lenses would probably be the 127mm Ektar/Optar ex press cameras, but a word of caution as, apart from being a little on the wide side, while these are great exmples of the Tessar type they barely cover 5x4, so if any movements are wanted you need to move away from them.<br>

In fact any Tessar type lens has a coverage on the small side for its focal length, so if movements are wanted choose a more modern lens design. </p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the quality of lenses available for little money.</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>That S series has some great lenses. Check my store. I have them new for less. The 150 is great, and so is the 135. For portraits the standard lens is 210, but anything from 150 to 240 is good. For portraits keep at least 3 1/2 to 4 feet from the subject, and you can use a normal lens. I suggest getting the 150 since you really can use it for just about anything, then get a 210 later if you feel the need for it.The N series is not as good.</p>

[golden]

Hi I have a 240 symmar that I use for portraits and my normal is a 152 ektar. I bought the ektar from keh for 65.00. Great lens. My wides are 65,75, and 90. Good luck

[mcblue]

<p>Thanks guys. I think I'll get the 150mm Symmar. I've seen a few around...</p>

[vick_vickery]

<p>Re: Symmar lenses...the convertible Symmars (made by Schneider, by the way) are the older ones without the "-S" added to the Symmar name. Other convertible lenses include Turner-Reich, Cook, some Wallensak, and some Ilex. The easiest way to spot them is that they usually have more than one f-stop scale on the shutter.</p>

[friedemann_pistorius]

<p>I own two Fujinon-W 135/5.6 lenses. The (older) single coated version has a significantly larger image circle than the (newer) multicoated version (228 vs. 206 mm). I made several side by side shots (color slides) with both lenses and couldn't see any difference.</p>

<p>If I'd mix some of my images on a light tabele, shot with lenses from Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon and Fuji, nobody (but me:-)) could tell which manufacturer's lenses were used.</p>

[mcblue]

<p>Thanks everyone for the further clarification and suggestions...</p>

<p>I'm actually getting confused with all the choices. The link from Robert above was actually bit helpful in narrowing the choices down.</p>

<p>Just one more question: Can people tell the difference between a $300 large format lens and a $800 one (both used -- I wouldn't really consider the really new ones priced around $2000).</p>

<p>I'm asking because I don't want to buy "good and cheap" and then not be able to resist upgrading to "much better and more expensive" because it will double or triple the cost (I've made such mistakes in the past).</p>

<p>So I'm raising my budget a little -- but not to the extent of buying those uber-expensive $2000+ lenses. But if a certain newer and more expensive lens is really not much of an upgrade from an older lens at half the price, I wouldn't bother.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

[friedemann_pistorius]

<p>The most significant difference between $300 and $800 lenses is the price :-)</p>

<p>To be serious, what makes the only important difference is what you see on your image, not on the price tag.<br /> Chose a focal length you find helpful for your needs, don't forget to take the desired image circle into consideration, then look for a lens with clean glass and a well functioning shutter.</p>

<p>When I started building up a LF lens line back in 2002, I bought expensive new lenses. A few months ago, I paid ca. $250 each for the 2 Fujinon 135 lenses mentioned in my previous answer. Also, last year I catched a like-new single coated Schneider G-Claron 270mm for $320. All these lenses were manufactured back in the 70's and 80's, but they're every bit as good as my other/newer lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

[mcblue]

<p>Thanks Friedemann. :)</p>

[jil_tardiff]

<p>Marvin, <br>

It might be worthwhile to contact Jim at Midwest Photo ( http://www.mpex.com ) , he helped me (and many others around here) put together my first LF setup and is stellar at balancing price and quality. He tends to have a broad range of LF gear besides what is on the website. I have since purchased from him many times and have never been disappointed, he stands behind what he sells.<br>

No affiliation, just a pleased customer.<br>

And FWIW, I made the same jump as you are making-- it's been a blast on all levels.<br>

Good luck,</p>

<p>JT</p>

[mcblue]

<p>Thanks Jil! I'll try that as well.</p>

[jnanian]

<p>older (chrome barrel) super angulons often times<br /> don't cost very much and they are great lenses.<br /> <br /> there is all sorts of helpful info on the schneider optics website -<br /> age of lenses and coverage, and use ( of convertibles ).</p>

<p>you can easily find good lenses for way less than $2K.<br /> put places like pacific rim camera and equinox photographic on your <br /> places to visit, and if you want vintage portrait lenses jay-tepper sometimes<br /> has a lot of those. he has a bulletproof return policy ( returns full refund, no questions asked ) ...</p>

<p>good luck!</p>