4x5 lens dilemna, 2 lenses but not quite happy with one of them

[john_latta]

My area of interest is backpacking and hiking in order to do mountain

landscape photography. I had been considering getting into 4x5 and

after buying Jack Dykinga's book I was sold. Because weight and bulk

are concerns, I purchased a Wista DXII and a Nikkor 210/f8 lense last

August. After my research I decided that I could handle backpacking

with my 4x5 and 2 lenses. With my 35mm photography I really like the

24mm wide angle lens's ability to take in the foreground (in focus)

and a background subject. So I purchased a Nikkor 75mm because most

people compare it with a 24mm lens in 35mm format. I was

dissappointed to find out however that it's images "feel" more like

that of a 20 or 17 mm in the 35mm format. It seems like there is

just too much film to "fill up". It's probably because the 4x5

format is more like a square than 35mm films 1.5:1 aspect ratio which

is almost like a strip.

 

If you want to get a good foreground in with the 75mm do you have to

almost be right on top of what ever it is you want in the

foreground...sometimes working on your hands and knees?

 

Now I am considering my options since I am somewhat dissappointed

with the 75. One option would be to replace the 75 with a 90.

Another option would be to keep the 75 and purchase a 110 or 120.

 

I was hoping that some of you might have some suggestions that might

help me with my decision. Thanks in advance!

[james___]

I like my 90/f8. It gives me the look I like in wide format. It depends on what you are after.

[Troll]

Crop.

[upscan]

John: You tell us you are new to 4X5. Like most photographers, you are bringing to it extra baggage from the old medium, which you are best to do without. The new medium offers possibilities that do not exist in 35mm. To profit from them the techniques are different. If you liked Dykinga's work, look at the photographer from whom Dykinga learned that style, the greater master, David Muench. The 75mm is David Muench's favorite lens. Look at his book "Plateau Light" where he divulges the lenses and other techniques used to get those photographs. Thus far it seems you like the results but not the means. It is not your 75mm that you do not like, it is your approach, which is quite understandable as you are new to 4X5. I do not mean to disparage you, on the contrary I sympathize with you and am sure that with practice your lenses will gain in your estimation as you learn how to use them. Throwing money at lenses will not get you the results you want. Throw more money at film instead and your lenses will get better and better. With best wishes.

[neil_poulsen1]

If 35mm cameras had the same rectagle ratio as 4x5, then a 24mm lens would correspond to a 90mm lens on 4x5. (For example, if you regularly enlarged to an 8x10.) So, try a 90mm. While some people use a 75mm effectively, like David Muench, I find that even a 90mm is little too wide for my usual needs.

 

After that, I'll bet you expand your two lenses to three. I couldn't imagine trying to do 4x5 on only two lenses. Too much cropping and you lose the advantage of carrying all that 4x5 stuff around. How about a 150mm and a 210mm. The 150mm are lightweight, and 210mm lenses exist that are also lightweight. (e.g. a 210mm MC Geronar?) On your Wista, you can get decent closups with the 150mm, and you still have plenty of length left with a 210mm.

 

Thinking about weight, how heavy is your darkcloth? I was packing around even more weight when it dawned on me that my large darkcloth consisted of two layers of thick (allbeit, opaque) cloth. It weighed almost as much as any two lenses that I carried. I found some lightweight cloth at a fabric store that was still opaque. Two layers of it were ideal for both keeping out light and for weight.

[gene m]

Slow down John. Slow down.

[darin_cozine]

I'm also new to 4x5 work, and I just purchased a 90mm f8 SK super-angulon. I compared the field of view to my canon 28mm lens and the Angulon was a bit wider horizontally. Vertically it was substantially wider than the canon due to the 4x5 format being more square.

 

I havent had the chance to take any shots with it yet, since I just lost my job and am low on cash :(

-but hey i have lots of time to read forums now!

[bruce watson]

Basically, I agree with Julio. The more you try, the more you learn. An old cliche, but a true one.

 

Here's another way to look at lenses though. Think about the angle of view that the film sees through a lens. Mathematically, it's:

 

view_ang = 2*artctan((format_dimension/2)/focal_len)

 

Personally, I find it convienient to think of how much angle I want the film to "see" and then pick the lens accordingly. My ideal set of lenses would give me increments of 15 degrees. Starting at 90 degrees, they would be 60mm, 78mm, 104mm, 145mm, 224mm, and 456mm.

 

Clearly, you can't hit the numbers exactly since manufacturers don't make these exact lenses. You can come close, however. Your 75mm gives you close to 75 degrees of view angle. Depending on where you want to go, it could give you the basis for a nice set of lenses.

 

As for me, right now I'm using a 110mm, 150mm, 240mm, and 360mm (that's all the bellows draw I've got). Next up is something in the 75mm range, when I can justify the cost (sigh...). My choices, however, may not apply to you at all. YMMV.

 

As Julio said, the only way to find out what works for you is to burn lots of film. It's the only way to get experience, and experience is the only thing that gives you a basis for deciding what you want.

[david_brown1]

John,

 

One of the great things about view cameras is the ability to control the plane of focus; with the right amount of downward front tilt you can keep both the foregroung and background in focus with even your 210. When doing landscapes, 75 is a bit wide for my tastes. I am more likely to use a 90, and the bulk of my landscape work is with a 135 or a 300.

 

You have noted that the aspect ratio is working against you here; as others have said, don't be afraid to crop.

 

By the way, are you the John Latta I used to climb with in Spokane?

 

- Dave

[John Crowe]

I just finished explaining, in the Canon FD forum, the rewards of creating a well composed superwide angle photograph. Until you develop the patience for the 75mm why not buy a used 90mm f6.8 lens, extremely lightweight, compact, and inexpensive. For future reference because you cannot really compare focal lengths between the two formats I divide the 4x5 format by 4 to get the approximate 35mm equivalent. Therefore the 75mm = 19mm. By this calculation my 65mm SA that I love would be 16mm. In fact it is not quite as wide as my 17mm but has more "volume" than my 17mm because of the added top to bottom distance.

 

Getting back to the 75mm superwide. My 17mm in 35mm format and the 65mm in 4x5 are my favorite lenses in landscape work for their ability to provide a breathtaking image when composed effectively! I have posted in the "gallery" a couple of images using my cheap 90mm and this summer I am looking forward to the challenge of working with the 65mm SA.

 

I too will reiterate another's comment, "slow down" and best of luck!

[jonathan_bundick]

John,

 

Some very nice shots with the 90mm Raptar.

[john_latta]

Hi Dave,

 

Yes, we went to Mt. Athabaska together a few years back. It's a small e-world! What are you shooting? Check my profile on photo.net and send an email.

 

Wow this forum is fantastic. I am really enjoying reading everyone's ideas. Thanks again.

 

Maybe it takes a little more thought/effort to compose with a 75mm as compared with a 90mm.

[jim_galli4]

John, I agree with YOU. My 75 was my second LF lens and remains my least used. Here's something to try though that I have enjoyed. Take a dark slide and cut a section out of it that leaves a 2X5 area exposed. You can fit 2 2X5 exposures on a single 4X5 sheet and the aspect ratio is fabulous for some things. A true pano aspect, and you lose all of that foreground that's not needed.

[leonard_evens]

You are right that the crucial point is the difference in aspect ratios. That affects not only the angle of view but the way you frame your pictures in the first place. In the long dimension, the ratio is about 3 1/3. In the short dimension, the ratio is about 4. So a picture taken with a 3 1/3 x 24 mm = 80 mm lens would have the same long angle of view as your 24 mm lens in 35 mm, but of course it would extend further in the short dimension. A picture taken with a 4 x 24 = 96 mm lens would have the same short angle of view as your 24 mm lens, but it wouldn't extend as far in the long dimension. And of course you could use anything in between 80 and 96 mm to provide some sort of compromise. So your 75 mm is definitely "wider angle" than your 24 mm lens in 35 mm, but how much depends on how you are framing the pictures.

 

In particular, if most of your pictures were taken in landscape orientation, you will definitely see more in the short dimension.

 

I also much admired the pictures in Jack Dykinga's book, but I find I have a hard enough time with my 90 mm lens. I feel I am just now beginning to learn how to use it. One thing you will notice he avoids is large amounts of empty foreground. Even with relatively extensive camera movements, that can be hard to avoid with a wide angle lens. Dykinga makes use of the near-far principle. He almost always has some focus of interest in the near foreground separated by space from objects of interest in the background. He also is very careful to arrange to frame the scene so that he avoids typical wide angle "distortions".

 

If you keep working at it, you will learn in time how to use a 75 mm lens in 4 x 5, but it is my guess that you will now have greater luck with a longer lens, e.g., 90-100 mm. However, it is likely that if you trade in your 75 mm lens, the time will come when you will regret it.

[christian_olivet]

I too jumped to 4x5 from 35mm. It is quite a different thing. I was

never satisfied with my 35mm shots. I did not know hot to

translate what I saw into a meaningful print. I believe that

shooting large format has taught me photography. The fact of

working with large cameras with the consecuent large price for

materials made me want to slow down and learn. Learned how

to make a sharp shot by using the camera movements. I also

learned about composition. I love seeing upside down! I became

more careful with exposures and I learned how to use my lens. I

use a Schneider 110XL. No to wide, not to long. You cannot

cover every possible subject with it but I can venture to say that

experience teaches a lot and you became very aware of what to

shoot and what not to. In 35mm. you just shoot everything you

see because in one hour and $7 you get prints back. At least I

did and so millions of people. But us want quality right? Nothing

will get you better negatives or color positives in the field like a

field camera does. Just give it a little time and please make all

the mistakes you can and have fun doing it.

If you feel your vision is more accustomed to 35mm instead of

shooting 4x5 you might want to try 5x7. I feel that aspect ratio

better suited to ladscape.

 

I think it is all very arguable. The best thing is to shoot and see

what your feelings try to tell you.

 

Have great fun!

[wieslaw1]

I have been using 55mm, 58mm and 65mm wide angles with 4x5 and do not have any problem in obtaining the composition I need. Actually prefer the shorter focal length. But before I come here I have perfected my 18mm and 24mm shots with a 35mm format.

 

Christian - I disagree with you entirely.

The quality of a photograph, and I do not mean the quality of printing process, has nothing to do with the size of the equipment used. More 35mm-photographers produced better, and socially more important work than the LF guys.

 

One of the myths is that getting bigger is better - a shortcut to producing a �better� photograph with perhaps sloppy technique in the smaller format.

True, there are a number of outstanding LF copyist, some in the cyberspace, who, although make first class prints, are unable to produce a good photograph. Fine art photography is more than sharpness, color or tonal rendition. It is the picture content which counts.

 

Since you now learned to discriminate (compose, etc.) the surrounding you like to photograph with LF, I suggest that you return to your abandoned 35mm and apply the discipline you have learned . You won't be disappointed.

[dave schlick]

keep the 75 if you can afford it.. when you get a 6x9 back it will be a "normal?" or little wide lens with lots of movement...keep going and dont look back.. good luck dave......

[ling_z]

John,

 

Take a look at Schneider Super-Symmar 80XL, I believe it is close to 24mm wide angle lens in 35mm photography. I own both 80XL and 110XL, and I am quite happy with them.

 

Here is a useful website FYI: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/kit.html

[nicholas_fiduccia]

John,

 

I think you should keep the 75mm and get another lens to "fill in

the hole" in your lens lineup. If you get a 110, 120, 125, or even

135 you will have a nicely spaced lens lineup. Each lens in the

75-125-210 combo is spaced by a factor of ~1.7, a very nice focal

length spacing for large format. Fuji makes the CMW 125/5.6

lens and it has a good reputation. Jim at Midwest photo carries

these for $600 or so.

[jerald_brodkey]

John, Two suggestions: Why don't you rent a lens of different

focal length to see if it is really what you want....? Secondly I would suggest you buy or make a viewing filter such as Zone VI

used to sell and AA used to recommend? In that way you can compose

the picture before doing all the setup of camera etc. It focuses your

mind on the picture at hand rather than the mechanics of obtaining it....You may find it helps to "fill up" the film..

 

Jerry

[paul_owen]

John, I know what you mean!! Its a real shock when you process your first sheet exposed with a wide lens!! There is son much space!! BUT, hangfire!! LF is a different beast to any of the smaller formats. I love wide lenses, my fave being a 65mm. There is a certain skill needed in filling the frame with a LF shot....PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE is the answer!! It is VERY misleading when comparing LF to smaller format lenses..." a 65mm should equal an X in 35mm" - truth is, IMHO, LF lenses are much wider than their 35mm equivalents. First time I used a 110XL, I was surprised!! VERY wide! But now I'm used to using the 47XL and the 65, the 110 is more like it "should" be!! DON'T SELL THE 75 until you've exhausted playing/shooting with it and know that it REALLY isn't for you. My advice - Try getting on top of foreground interest and see what the results are like.