4 X 5 camera

[johnnywalker]

Well, I just got myself a Toyo D45M, with two lensboards (1 WA), two bellows (WA and normal), extra rail, a few film holders, and a lens shade. Now I have to find myself a lens. On reading about these, it seems some lenses do not have a wide enough coverage so that the camera can do its full range of tilt and shift etc? How does one know? I'm going to be looking for a 150 - 180 mm lens in the $2-300 or even less if I can get away with it. Any suggestions? I'm going to have to take my time with this, since my photo budget has had the green weiner for a while. My wife wants a second dress.
Thanks for all the help and knowledge everyone.
Cheers,
John

 

[Jeremy]

The Fujinon-W 180mm f/5.6 lens has a coverage of 305mm. I picked up mine from keh.com for $265.

 

[Graeme Hird]

Go to http://www.largeformatphotography.info/ and scroll to the bottom of the page. You'll find a plethora of technical information on LF lenses there.

Cheers,

 

[mark]

There is good stuff out there is you are patient. My 180 convertible symmar was just over 200 even after the necessary CLA. Contact Jim Galli. Ebay signature tpahjim I think. His lenses are good and reasonable. My 210 Komura was very reasonable. Heck I landed my 300mm dagor in a barrel, for under 100 dollars. Have yet to use it though. Have some patience and it will pay off.

 

[Bob F.]

On reading about these, it seems some lenses do not have a wide enough coverage so that the camera can do its full range of tilt and shift etc? How does one know? Cheers,
John

There are a number of places online to get lens info:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenseslist.html
http://www.f32.net/Services/Equipment/Lenses/lensspecs.html#90

Rodenstock data here: http://www.butzi.net/rodenstock/rodenstock.htm

Data on old Schneider lenses here: http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/ and current lens data here: Dead Link Removed

Fuji data here: http://members.aol.com/subgallery/


Some test results here if you need to compare two different lenses: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html


Cheers, Bob.

 

[rbarker]

. . . My wife wants a second dress.

A second dress? What in the world for? Does she plan on being in two places at once? Next thing you know, she'll want a pair of shoes, too! (lol)

Congrats on your acquisition, John. As to a lens, the resources that Bob F. listed will be a big help. There are a several comparison charts on the www.largeformatphotography.info page that list the more modern lenses in table format. But, don't discount older lenses from Kodak, Wollensak, etc. - many are great performers, and can often be found at bargain prices. Data on older lenses can be sketchy, but you can usually do a search and find forum threads discussing coverage and so forth.

 

[Ole]

... Now I have to find myself a lens. On reading about these, it seems some lenses do not have a wide enough coverage so that the camera can do its full range of tilt and shift etc? How does one know? I'm going to be looking for a 150 - 180 mm lens in the $2-300 or even less if I can get away with it. ...

Of course, in addition to all the exellent links above, you can just ask here

If the lens is very old, as well as German, I have all the data.

A cheap decent 150mm lens for 4x5" is the old Schneider Symmar Convertible 150/256mm - I just sold mine for about $140. Most 150mm lenses have ample coverage, the exception is tessar-type lenses which tend to have a bit less coverage than other types. But they're wonderfully sharp, and have sufficient coverage for some movement. Just not "full pretzelisation".

 

[Laurent]

Are all Symmar convertible ones ? The ones I usually see in ads and stores in France are just referred to as "Symmar", sometimes "APO Symmar", but never convertible !

 

[mark]

I had the same question a few months ago and....As was explained to me some jackass at B&H "Of course they are not. if they were convertible they would say convertible and no one uses the second focal length anyway because they are not sharp and useless! Now are you going to buy something?"

I guess the A$$ was saying that no, in fact, they are not all convertible. And I did not buy anything.

God I hate talking to the folks at BH on the phone.

 

[JackRosa]

Best 4x5

Check out the Eboby SV45UE or SV45U with asymmetric tilts & swings. IMO, the best 4x5 folding camera in the market.

 

[Ole]

Are all Symmar convertible ones ? The ones I usually see in ads and stores in France are just referred to as "Symmar", sometimes "APO Symmar", but never convertible !

Only the old ones, called "Symmar" with no postscript, are convertible. There is Symmar, Symmar-S, Symmar-L, APO-Symmar, Super-Symmar... Only the plain Symmar was intended to be convertible. The compromises made to give usable (not "good") sharpness with rear element only made the sharpness of the whole lens slightly lower. So in the next "incarnation" Schneider decided to drop the convertibility.

This has the advantage to "bottom-feeders" like me that the convertibles are very cheap on the used market, since "everybody knows" they are not sharp and the "conversion is useless".

They are sharp enough for all practical uses. Even converted they are sharp enough for most practical purposes.

The main reasons I sold my Symmar 150/265 is that (1) I have 4 other 150mm lenses, and (2) I always bring my 240/420 Symmar as well. So I have no need for the 265mm focal length, and I needed to cut down on the choises in 150mm.

 

[mark]

As a bottom feeder myself I really appreciate the cheap prices. That guy was a real jerk.

Ole,
Why do you have 4 150mm lenses? Just curious.

 

[Laurent]

Thanks for the info. Looks like my first LF lens will be a Symmar then, as I saw a few at really affordable prices in a shop.

I'm a 35mm shooter. If I convert correctly, a 240 would be equivalent to a 75, would you see an issue in having this as the first (and only, for a while) lens ? I intend to do mostly landscapes.

 

[Ole]

Ole,
Why do you have 4 150mm lenses? Just curious.

Sheer coincidence

I started out with the 150/265 Symmar and a 135 Planar - they came with the camera when I bought it. Then I sold a 210 APO-Lanthar and bought a 150 APO-Lanthar and a 210 Xenar (and a 120 Angulon) for the money. Then I got a good deal on a Voigtländer Bergheil 9x12cm camera, which came with a 150 Heliar. While trying to get more film holders for this, I suddenly got a Rodenstock plate camera with a 150 Eurynar. Only the APO-Lanthar and the Heliar see much use.

Then when I had sold the Symmar, I bought an "old shutter" on e*ay because it came on a Technika board. Turns out there was a 150/3.5 Xenar Type D in the shutter - still cheaper than a new Technika board.

So in the "normalish" range (135 to 180) I have one 135mm, four 150mm, one 165mm, one 180mm.

 

[rbarker]

. . . So in the "normalish" range (135 to 180) I have one 135mm, four 150mm, one 165mm, one 180mm.

So, does that make you more "normalish" than the rest of us, Ole?

 

[Ole]

So, does that make you more "normalish" than the rest of us, Ole?

With emphasis on the "-ish", perhaps? I didn't mention the long and short, utralight or ultra-heavy lenses... I'll refute any accusation of "normality" by listing my LF lenses by focal length: 90,90,120,121,130,130,135,150,150,150,150,160,165,180,210,210,210,8½", 240,300,305,13¾", 360, and 23". Coverage from 9x12cm to at least 11x14"

 

[rbarker]

. . . 90, 90, etc., etc. ETC.

What? No super-wides?

My LF list would be 65, 90, 90, 110, 150, 150, 210, 240, 300, 12", 360, 16 ½", 450, and 600. I feel kind of half-glassed in comparison.

 

[rogueish]

90,90,120,121,130,130,135,150,150,150,150,160,165,180,210,210,210,8½", 240,300,305,13¾", 360, and 23".

!! !!

Brother, can ya spare a lens...

 

[BradS]

Thanks for the info. Looks like my first LF lens will be a Symmar then, as I saw a few at really affordable prices in a shop.

I'm a 35mm shooter. If I convert correctly, a 240 would be equivalent to a 75, would you see an issue in having this as the first (and only, for a while) lens ? I intend to do mostly landscapes.

Yeah that's about right. The rule of thumb seems to be multiply the focal length of a 35mm lens by three to find it's equivalent in 4x5. So, 240mm is to 4x5 as 80mm is to 35mm. Whether or not, the 240mm lens would be suited to landscapes on 4x5 is, I suppose, entirely up to you.

 

[mark]

With emphasis on the "-ish", perhaps? I didn't mention the long and short, utralight or ultra-heavy lenses... I'll refute any accusation of "normality" by listing my LF lenses by focal length: 90,90,120,121,130,130,135,150,150,150,150,160,165,180,210,210,210,8½", 240,300,305,13¾", 360, and 23". Coverage from 9x12cm to at least 11x14"

Can I show my wife this list as a way and say:
"See, he has more than me, I need to catch up."

 

[johnnywalker]

My new Toy

My Toyo D45M arrived today. Just as described on ebay. Now I have to find a lens for it and buy some film. And a loupe. And a dark cloth. And a bigger tripod. I think I'll have to make do with contact prints for a while. The ground glass was dirty (as it turned out) but Satinsnow talked me through the cleaning on the chat line. The camera has kind of a retro beauty about it. Something like myself.
Anyway, I think I'm really going to enjoy this. I'll probably just go to one of the APUG sponsors for film unless some Cdn members have other suggestions.
Incidently, I decided to go with the rail camera because if I ever make it to "old enough to stay inside" I can use it for still lifes (lives?) and nudes
It doesn't feel that heavy, although of course I haven't carried it any distance.
Thanks for all the help and suggestions.

 

[Ole]

Congratulations, johnnywalker! I'm sure you'll have lots of fun with your new camera - and some exasperation, too. Just remember that any mistake you make, every other LF'er has done before. Consider it a learning thing. I certainly never thought I'd ever forget to close the shutter and stop down the lens before puuling the dark slide - until I'd done it

What? No super-wides?

Depends on film size - 90 is pretty wide on 5x7", as is 121 on 18x24cm... If I need more field of view, I simply use bigger film!

 

[Nick Zentena]

And a bigger tripod. I'll probably just go to one of the APUG sponsors for film unless some Cdn members have other suggestions.
Incidently, I decided to go with the rail camera because if I ever make it to "old enough to stay inside" I can use it for still lifes (lives?) and nudes
It doesn't feel that heavy, although of course I haven't carried it any distance.
Thanks for all the help and suggestions.

This Canadian suggests either J&C or Freestyle depending on the film you need. Overall it'll work out best.

I'm pretty happy with the Giottos 9180 tripod I got. Must be the cheapest tripod with the specs it has.