brent_hutto1

I've read this thread with interest because I'm researching a similar question. What can a 28mm do that a 24mm won't do almost as well? My shortest lens is a 50mm prime and now I want to add something wider. I'm hoping to get by with a single wide-angle prime lens so it will either be a 24mm f/2.8 or a 28mm f/2.8 (Pentax manual focus). My thinking is that (since I usually shoot negatives) if the 24mm is too wide and I can't get any closer I could always crop. Of course that ignores the difference in perspective.

In the book "Capturing the Landscape with your Camera" by Patricia Caulfield (cf. http://www.photo.net/comments/one?comment_id=5795) I notice that she uses a 20mm wideangle often and 24mm and 35mm from time to time but almost never 28mm. I like that book because it reflects my own favorite subjects, landscapes and nature closeups. Many of her closeups use the 20mm wideangle, although even more of them are made with longer Macro lenses. In general, what does shooting a closeup with, say, a 20mm lens accomplish compared to using a 50mm or 100mm Macro lens for the same shot?

Field cameras (new) seem to start around $1,500 (cf. Toyo 45AX) but

when you factor in a couple of lenses, tripod, film holders and

accessories the overall ratio of cost is less than 2:1, I suppose.

And of course, if the monorail is so heavy you never take it anywhere

it's no bargain at any price.

<p>

Given that a field camera is more reasonable to tote than any monorail

could be, that still leaves the question of how limiting will less

movements be for scenic, nature and landscape work. For instance, the

Toyo 45AX has only 8 degrees of left and right swing (versus 30

degrees for the Toyo monorail) and a rise/fall range of 44mm, front

only (versus 80mm for the monorail). I guess those limitations would

have the side effect of making something like a CalTar 150mm f/6.3

with only 180mm of image circle more attractive, no?

No one seems to have contributed a Toyo 45CX review to this forum yet. It appears that it is a viable alternative to the thoroughly reviewed Calumet Cadet with a few differences: Heavier (9 pounds vs. 5 pounds), More Movements (Rear Shift, for instance), Slightly More Expensive ($549 vs. $399) and perhaps a tiny bit sturdier construction (but maybe not, it has a lot of plastic).

<p>

I'm trying to get a sense for how much difference a twice-as-heavy camera body makes if you want to lug a monorail camera around in the great outdoors. On one hand, 9 pounds is pretty heavy. On the other, by the time you add up an eight-pound tripod, two-pound head, lenses and accessories you're getting over 20 pounds either way the proportional difference isn't that great.

<p>

Also, as a beginner (less than beginner, actually) I can't get a sense for what 80mm of rise front and rear versus 60mm of rise front only or 30 degrees of tilt (Cadet) versus 45 degrees (45CX) means in terms of typical nature, still-life and landscape "art" type photography. My guess would be that 30 degrees tilt each way is a lot for most purposes but that 60mm vertical freedom on front only is more likely to be a restriction. But I'm just guessing.

<p>

And if anyone has a 45CX and would like to review it, I'm sure it would be a useful addition to the forum.