nikon large format lens is it good?

[danny_mcguiness]

<p>Hello all, I am really interested in large format, i am currently shooting medium format and i love it, and i find large format so facinating, instead of getting into digital i decided to get into film and i am so happy i found photo.net, so i can get info and advice from fellow photographers, well my question is, i am getting a toyo view 45cf and i need a lens, i am looking for a wide angle lens because i shoot city scapes and landscapes, i currently have a mamiya m645 with a 35mm wide angle, what kind of lens would you recommend, i like to stay between 300-400$ range. I see allot of lenes on ebay and i want to know what is good, i saw a nikon nikkor w 150 5.6 is that considered a wide angle?</p>

[steve_hamley]

<p>150mm is normal on 4x5. As an approximation, double the MF focal length to get the 4x5 equivalent; so 70mm would give you roughly the same field of view as 35mm on 645. So look for a 65mm to 75mm lens.</p>

<p>Cheers, Steve</p>

[vick_vickery]

<p>As Steve said, 150mm to 160mm is considered "normal" on the 4x5; the most commonly used wide angle is 90mm. I use a 90mm and a 65mm on mine with both 4x5 film and 120 roll film in 6x7 and 6x9 formats. Keep in mind that new users of view cameras usually find wide angle lenses somewhat hard to focus on the ground glass...it takes a little practice and a good loupe.</p>

<p>The Nikon LF lenses are excellent; I personally have lenses made by Schneider, Rodenstock, Ilex, Wollensak, Graflex, and Kodak and find them all to be quite usable...condition is probably more important than brand.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>The 150mm Nikkor (and most competitors) is a pretty good lens. The one I had a heck of a time with is the 135mm Nikkor W. It was really soft, but some people swear by it.</p>

[eric rose]

<p>It seems to me you are not interested in what a "mormal" lens is. For something wider the Nikkor 135mm is a wonderful lens and can be had fairly cheaply. Also a Schneider 90mm SA would be within your budget. The 90mm is like using a 24 to 28 mm lens on a 35mm camera. If you go much wider the price starts to climb.<br>

I too use mainly WA's on 35mm gear and MF and I thought that was the way I would lean when I started shooting LF again. I find now I shoot mainly 210mm and 300mm. Naturally if I get into something tight then the WA's come out. If that's the look I want.</p>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>Many people complain about the 5.6/135mm W LF lens. Too soft, low resolution. I know there was a variation in quality, but mine is just fantastic. If you focus it on the spot and stop down 2 f stops it is an excellent lens. It's the only Nikon lens I have for LF, the rest are Rodenstock lenses. Compared to my Rodenstock 5.6/100mm there is no difference in sharpness or resolution. <br>

Why should the Nikon LF lenses be different compared to the 35mm camera lenses? Nikon is a very good lens manufacturer, so I don't see any reason to reject these lenses.</p>

[tom_monego]

<p>Nikkor has a good reputation for its LF lenses, unfortunately they have stopped making them. But a 150 is a good place to start, but if you want to have WA a you can probably find a 90mm f8 is OK f5.6 is better but bigger, Caltar, Fuji, Nikon, Rodenstock, Schneider are all good lenses. The lens to stay away from is the older Angulon f6.8, just not up to the quality of the newer lenses. Some like it because it is very small though. Get much wider and your bellows can get in the way while doing movements, so a special bag bellows is needed.<br>

A problem with LF wide angles is that they don't have even illumination across the film, falls off to the corners, not to be confused with sharpness falling off. There is a special center dot filter to compensate, but they can cost as much as a used lens. <br>

Good luck<br>

Tom</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Here with mostly press cameras ones normal here is often considered abit shorter 120mm to 135mm.<br /> <br /> RE; Toms worry about the lowly 90mm Angulon; "The lens to stay away from is the older Angulon f6.8, just not up to the quality of the newer lenses."<br /> <br /> The 90mm F6.8 old Angulon here covers 4x5 with no/little/nil room for movements; my old 12cm Angulon F6.8 allows some shifts; it covers about a 5x7 plate. My sample of old 1950's 90mm F6.8 Angulon is Excellent; it even works well with my 35 and 50 Megapixel scan backs too; that are just a 7x10cm scan area. It is overkill of the can back(s) The 90mm F6.8 Angulon here is best at F11 to F22; mine I tested was in the 60 + line pairs per mm in the central region; and in the 40's at the far corners as measured on film. With a scan back I can get the focus spot on and often use it faster; say F11 to F8. I only paid 50 bucks for the tiny gem.<br /> <br /> **Because there are some duds probably due to dropping; old age and lens element separations is probably why Tom gave the grave dire warning about 90mm Angulons; your gas mileage may vary :).<br /> <br /> How short a lens you need depends on what you are doing.<br /> <br /> If you are use to using a 35mm on 645; that 150mm Nikkor is about twice as long for a 4x5; thus one is talking more in line with a wazoo 75mm or 90mm lens for 4x5; not a 150mm at all.<br /> <br /> look at it this way; if one has a 6x4.5cm size and doubles it; one has 12x9cm; ie 4.7x 3.5 inches.<br /> <br /> As a back side of an envelope swag; a 35mm for 4.5x6 is like a 70 mm for a piece of film twice as big on one side. ; thus oen gets say the 75mm lens that Steve mentioned above for 4x5" film.<br /> <br /> A 150mm Nikkor on a 4x5 would sort of like be a 70mm on your Mamyia in angular coverage; maybe you can or cannot live with only shooting 1/4 of an object.<br>

<br /> It is even worse with the common photography school starter LF kit; they use a 210mm alot to control costs. One learns movements on a 4x5 view camera and the ropes.</p>