150mm or 180mm as first lens on 4x5 camera.....and why.

Vaughn said:

Truman Cove, South Island, NZ, 1987

Click to expand...

Is that at the coordinates -42.091285609173276, 171.33909160693509 and that small waterfall in the background?

My first lens was a 135mm Graphex, but I found I preferred a 180mm.

JPD said:

Is that at the coordinates -42.091285609173276, 171.33909160693509 and that small waterfall in the background?

Click to expand...

Yes, it is a small waterfall. I like have something in a photograph that rewards those who take the time to look.

It is just up the coast from the Pancake Rocks (Punakaiki).
Pancake Rocks, NZ, 4x5, 150mm, 16x20 silver gelatin print.

Vaughn said:

Yes, it is a small waterfall. I like have something in a photograph that rewards those who take the time to look.

Click to expand...

Somewhere around here, perhaps?

Looks like a good place for photography. Or screenshots from Google Maps.

Very Nice Vaughn!

I think the OP should grab the 180mm

I started with a new 210 Symmar convertible in the 70s. Added a 65mm f8 Super Angulon to do interiors. Great lens, total b ear to focus. Lost that and 65 film holders in a fire. After that I bought a kit that included 210 and 115 Rodenstocks. Spent real money for a 65mm f4 Nikkor (No Focusing in the Dark) and got a deal on a Fujinon 400.

JPD said:

Somewhere around here, perhaps?...

Click to expand...

What happened to my log? It only has been 35+ years?!!! And there were no footprints there but mine.

I was coming off about 3 weeks of no photographing...a week of that in my tent with the flu, the other two weeks bicycling with the flu. On a six-month photo journey, 3 weeks seems to be a long time to be idle. I was feeling better and tenting in the motor camp at Punakaiki, but not photographically motivated properly. Riding the bike from camp to the trailhead for Truman Cove I came across a dead stoat, run over by a car with its head and one fore leg separated from the rest and undamaged. I took him/her down to the beach and photographed it in various places, rock-climbing, in the seaweed, on driftwood, and so forth...exposed maybe 6 sheets of 4x5. It got me thinking about light and place, and just using the camera again. Then I found the above Truman Cove image (without Mr.Stoat).

PS -- Stoats were introduced to help with the problem of the introduced rabbits to NZ. Of course, the stoats prefer to eat the eggs of the ground birds and other diverse birdlife of NZ...much easier.

Actually, it is surprising to see it still so similar -- they get some major storms along that coast. The next day a storm blew me south, hard wind, hard rain, but all from behind...one of my best days of bicycle riding! Looking at it thru Google -- much has changed, The only way down from up above in 1987 actually came down to the foot of the waterfall. A much more private-feeling beach back then.

So do you like stepping closer or stepping backward better?

There is not a lot of difference. I own a 14" or 360mm for my 8x10 so I bought a 180mm for shooting 4x5.

Ari and I once discussed 360 versus 300 for portraits on 8x10. He prefers the 300 because it is a little less flattening of the model. For landscape the 300 on 8x10 or 150 on 4x5 will give you a slightly wider view.

For most people I think either would do and it's probably more about which focal length you get used to.

Something to consider is what aspect ratio you plan to use for the image, as viewed by the user. Here's what I mean. If you take an image with 1:1.5 aspect ratio (like a 35mm camera) and you plan to display the image in as an 8:10 print, then you are going to need to crop the image, which means that your image is going to look like you used a longer focal length lens. I won't go through the math right now, but the general implication is that, taking the aspect ratio of the final print into consideration, if you want something with an angle of view equivalent to let's say a 85mm portrait lens as used in 35mm, you would need about a 340mm lens in a 4x5 camera. You could get away with a little shorter lens in the 4x5 because you might want to give yourself a little more freedom to crop the image just they way you want it, whereas in 35mm you might want to crop "in camera" taking into account that you are going to shave off quite a bit of the image along the long-dimension in order to make the enlarged 35mm image fit onto an 8x10 print.

I picked a Nikkor 180 5.6 as my first 4x5 lens.No special reson,it just bump out with nice condition and fair price.