Focal lengths 210mm and 240mm for 4x5" - much difference?

[clack]

Hello,<p>

I'm looking for a "short long" lens in the range of 210-240mm - longer lenses will probably not be reasonable for my Toyo Field 45A with its non-interchangable bellows of 324mm max.<br>

Now I would prefer the 240mm (as 85mm is my favourite in 35mm), but as far as I have seen, the f/5.6 versions almost always come in #3 shutters and are real glass monsters (i.e Symmar-S 5.6/240) - too much for carrying them around in the field. Another possibility would be a f/9 G-Claron or APO-Ronar, but they are hard to find mounted in a shutter and then quite expensive (at least here in Germany).<br>

In contrary to that, the faster 210mm lenses are available in #1 shutters and seem to be a little bit more lightweight.<br>

Therefore my question: is there any noticable difference between these two focal lenghths? In 35mm equivalence it should be the choice between 70mm and 80mm - not sure if I could distinguish photos taken with those.<br>

What do you think? Regards,<p>

Thomas

[robert fox]

Get a Fujinon A 240 f9 - 0 Copal, AWESOME lens .....

[clack]

Robert, thanks for the hint, but if Clarons and Ronars are hard to come by in Germany, it is almost impossible to find any Fujinon (even Nikkors are very rare). The European (and especially German) LF scene seems to rely on Schneider and Rodenstock only... :-( I've <i>never</i> seen a Fujinon to be sold here, neither new nor used.

[georges_pelpel]

The Nikkor-M 200/8 is also a good choice. Comes with a Copal 0 shutter and is very

light and sharp.

[rob_barker]

You could consider a G-Claron 305mm lens. It should focus fairly close with your camera - closer still if you amake use of a top hat lensboard.

 

I picked up a G Claron new recently from Robert White at a very good price indeed - they may still have stock. Provided you stop down to f22, it's tack sharp and you wouldn't know it's really a process lens.

[ken_lee11]

I love the Fujinon. Small, takes small filters, very sharp, excellent for close as well as distant work. Comes in a #0 shutter. See Kerry Thalmann's review <a href="http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm">here</a>.

 

<p>I just made <a href="http://www.kenleegallery.com/peony6-03.htm">this image</a> with the Fujinon last week.

 

<p>Are you obliged to buy it from within Europe only ?

[john_kasaian1]

Thomas, Robert White still has 240 G Clarons, I think 345 pounds new. Used ones are plentiful on ebay. A great lens!

[clack]

Thanks to all the hints on specific lenses, but my main question was: is there a significant difference in <i>visual effect</i> between 210 and 240mm?

[ralph_barker]

Because of the difference in aspect ratios, you may find the 210mm closer to the feel of the 85mm on 35mm format than you'd think. The 210mm f/5.6 Schneider Symmar-S is one of my most-used lenses for 4x5. While larger than the compact f/9s, it's still reasonably small, and mounts in a Copal 1.

 

Now, if you want a monster, try the 210mm Super Symmar - takes 135mm filters, and weighs in at 2002 grams. ;-)

[bruce watson]

It doesn't seem as if anyone has answered your actual question, which is about the difference between a 210mm and a 240mm lens. The short answer is that there is hardly enough difference to worry with. The film sees, across the long dimension, 32 degrees with the 210mm, and 28 with a 240mm. This, I think, is negligible.

 

Also, my experience is that faster lenses are more important in shorter focal lengths. I find it difficult to work with a 120mm/f8, but easy to work with a 240mm/f9. It has to do with the narrower angle of the cone of light coming from the lens to the film plane, I'm told. So... I wouldn't worry too much about the 240mm lenses, in general, being "slower" lenses.

 

All that said, if you are buying new, then you'll soon see that the manufacturers prefer the 210mm lenses - there are many more of them than other comparable focal lengths such as 240mm.

 

If you are buying used, consider importing one of the Fujinon-A 240mm lenses. Take advantage of the Euro's new strength against the USD. It's a heck of a lens, and very light weight. You can get them used in the USA from several sources, from eBay to Midwest Photo Exchange. Also check Badger Graphics - they had new ones just a year ago! I'm sure that Midwest Photo Ex. and Badger Grapics would both ship overseas also.

[cxc]

I agree with Hogarth that the difference in view between 210 and 240 is small enough that you may give greater weight to other differences, such as speed, size, cost, etc.

 

I am happy with my G-Claron 240.

[Troll]

My favorite 4x5 lens is the 10" (250mm) Tele-Raptar/Optar. It's fast (f:5.6), small (1/200 Rapax shutter), covers 5x7, and only requires about an inch more bellows draw than a standard 135mm lens. It's also sharp, cheap, and frequently available on ebay. And the difference in image size between it and my 8.25 (210mm) Dagor is significant.

[graphicjoe]

Thomas,

 

It's worth noting that the G-Claron is a triple threat lens. It can be used for general photography, high quality macro work, and it also a very good enlarging lens. I use my 150 GC mostly for enlarging, and it does a wonderful job. Highly recommended.

 

The same can be said of the Ronar; it's a wonderful lens.

 

I occasionally use my G-claron for table top photography even though it does not have a shutter. I keep the light level in the room very low and use powerful strobes for the exposure. When ready to expose the film, I bring the illumination in the room to the lowest possible level, take off the lens cap, and trigger the strobes. It works well for me.

 

cheers,

 

Joe S.

[ellis_jordan]

I have both Rodenstock 210/4.5 in Compound and C.Zeiss Jena Tessar 250/4.5, barrel lens without a shutter. Of course there is substantial difference in viewing distant objects, and in depth of field.

 

All the technical data you will get when you call Schneider, 49/0671/601 0.

 

You can get Tessars in the Eastern Europe for 30-50$ a piece. They are oustanding, the sharpest lens among 6 lenses I have, all top quality older, and even the recent apos.

[armin_seeholzer]

Hi Thomas

 

It would be nice if you would tell us for what use.

For portraits it would make a difference more then for landscape but not a big one anyway!

I'm a fan of the 210mm APO Symmar but for portraits I can also switch to the Imagon 250mm or the 300mm APO Ronar but I prefer my 6x7 Bronica.

The 210 Symmar would be a good choice because of covering power 305mm the new L version even more, the Ronar at 240 has only a diameter of 212mm the 240 G-Glaron has a stated diameter of 298 mm wich is very conservative but it is only single coated and could you give flare problems against or almost against the sun!

Good luck.

[michael_briggs2]

For longish lenses for 4x5, i.e., focal lengths from 210 mm and up, it would seem that 30 mm wouldn't make much difference. However, I have had the opposite experience with 270 vs 300 mm lenses. For years I carried a 300 mm lens and frequently found it to be slightly too long, so that I was forced to switch to a significantly wider lens that included more than I wanted. I have found the 270 mm focal length more useful.

 

If in doubt, it is probably better to buy the shorter focal length rather than longer, because if you have included more of a scence than you wanted on the film, you can always crop. Conversely, if your lens and vantage point included less of the scence on the film than you wanted, it can't be brought back. Unless you are making huge enlargements, 4x5 will easily support modest cropping without quality loss. It is best to compose your intent on the film, but this isn't always possible, e.g., a street or river may prevent "zooming" with your feet.

 

Thomas, you don't say what lens or lenses you currently have. If your primary lens is 150 mm, this might be a reason to select the 240 mm focal length, because 210 mm is rather close to 150 mm.

[lacey_smith4]

I think, yes, there is a difference, not huge, but up to only you to decide. I have a 210 and a 240 (the g-claron), and I like the g-claron, though I do like the f5.6 light view on the 210 as well. The angle is not hugely different, but a little (maybe you should look for a 270 g-claron),or a longer lens in a tele-version (for your not-too-short bellows), if your main purpose is tight portraits.

 

Remember, if you compare same aspect ratio for 8x10 enlargements (4:5 -> 1:1.25, for 24:36 mm negs you crop down to 24x30 mm negs for 8x10 enlargement), the 35 to 4x5 aspect ratio is exactly 4. So, in effect, the 210 is quite close to a std 50 mm 35mm lens, if you are used to 8x10 enlargemetns, the 240 only a 60mm lens, and the 270 a 68mm lens. This is far shorter than the usual conversion factor you used. In this real-use scheme, a 38 mm is "normal" for 35 mm, and the std 50 is mildly long. The 60 mm length is hardly a short telephoto, but the 58s and 60s of past and present have been used for portaits well. Just keep your subject distance to 6-8 feet or more. Omn 4x5, the nyou can crop, if need be.

 

But, wait, as many of us who have moved around in formats know, what is classic in 35 may not be the same in 4x5. That is, the old rule of minimum 85mm for head shots with 35 mm seems magically more flexible in 4x5 -- in addition, the likelihood of you doing the exact same compositions goes down, and you are more likely to do a more generous head and shoulders cut, or even a 2/3 - 3/4 length. I think a 210 gives somewhat minimally big noses in close up, the 240 a bit less big-nose. But, both are acceptable.

 

 

finally, think about distances, and your available space. the longer your lens & the bigger your format, the further away from the subject you need to be (in general). That is, if you are starting in confined spaces, a head and shoulders or 2/3 body shot requires you back up a bit with the longer lens. View cameras need room behind them for you to move, as well.

 

Now, another reason I got the 240, besides angle of view and much smaller size than my 210 Sironar -- the 240 offers a lot of movements,with an image circle twice a 4x5 negative. Some of the higher end 210s do indeed have a lot of movement, but most affordable ones are barely up to 5x7 coverage, which means relatively small 4x5 movements.

[scott_jones2]

I am in your boat. I use the Toyo VX 125. I went for the 240 to get the longest reach possible, but pay for it in lot of weight. The visual difference isn't that much and if weight is important don't get the 240. I work from a car so no problem...

 

http://www.ScottJonesPhoto.com

[raul_casal]

i will tell you a way you?ll compare more or less ,

if you get a 35mm camera with standar zoom 35-105

you prove take with 63mm and 70mm

[ole_tjugen]

Sometimes the difference is too small to worry about - but other times, I wish I had yet another focal length between 210 and 240.

 

If I were to choose only one, I would pick the shorter one (which does not mean I won't keep my 240mm Symmar!).