4x5 bargain lenses?

[Joshua_G]

Browsing this forum, few similar questions were asked, however, I didn't manage to compile a useful list from the replies I saw.

After some 30 years of photography, I ventured recently a 4x5 Plaubel with Schneider Claron 150/9. The main drawback of this lens I see so far is its relative small max aperture.

However, I'd like to have a list of good lenses (good sharpness and good contrast), which I may get for up to about $300 each. I'm not sure I'll be able to manage lenses without inner shutter mechanism.

 

[david b]

There are quite a few sub-$300 lenses available. Look for Schneider Symmar-S 150mm and 135mm.

 

[Joshua_G]

Thanks.

I believe that for 4x5 150mm is considered normal. How does 135mm considered?

Also, how about wide angles and tele lenses?

 

[Nick Zentena]

Basically anything from 135mm to 180mm is more or less normal. Some would argue 120mm to 210mm.

Telephoto means a telephoto design when you're talking about LF. Most long lenses are not telephotos designs. If you have enough bellows you don't need the telephoto design and likely don't want it either.

Many normal lenses are in the sub $300 range.

Long lenses in big shutters also can be cheap. Learn the names of the off brand but good lenses. Calumut for years has rebranded various lenses. The 300mm Orbit I bought is a Symar-S.

Cheap wide lenses are harder but some do exist.

 

[david b]

I am a fan of 135-180-210.

You should be able to find great examples for $300 or less, each.

 

[JBrunner]

Schneider Symmar-S 210 5.6 in shutter can be had for $2-300 if you are patient. Also some of the little Optars, Ektars, and Raptars found mostly on old press camera boards are suprisingly good for the money.

 

[Joshua_G]

You should be able to find great examples for $300 or less, each.

Any specific names? (I believe not all sub-$300 lenses have very good optics).

 

[jovo]

The Rodenstock Geronar lenses are among the least expensive decent modern lenses available. They are triplets, and rather simple, but perform well. When I twice inquired here about them, I couldn't get anyone to criticize them in answer to my question about whether I needed a 'better' lens. There is also a Caltar version made by Rodenstock, but I can't remember the designation. In a Copal shutter, they are available in 90, 150, 210 and 300mms as I recall. I have the 210. The 150 and 210 are easily to be had for less than $300. I'm not sure about the 90 and 300.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

The Rodenstock Geronar lenses are among the least expensive decent modern lenses available. They are triplets, and rather simple, but perform well. When I twice inquired here about them, I couldn't get anyone to criticize them in answer to my question about whether I needed a 'better' lens. There is also a Caltar version made by Rodenstock, but I can't remember the designation. In a Copal shutter, they are available in 90, 150, 210 and 300mms as I recall. I have the 210. The 150 and 210 are easily to be had for less than $300. I'm not sure about the 90 and 300.

I have 210 and 300mm Geronar's, which perform just fine for me. I use the 300mm on 5x7 with ample movements.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Joshua, trundle over to http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/ and read the lens FAQs and articles. Visit www.graflex.org and do the same. Then go to www.ebay.com and look at closed auctions in lenses, film camera lenses, large format and in film cameras, large format to get an idea of what the things actually sell for.

Reflect a while about what you want to accomplish. Use your camera and the one lens, decide whether you want shorter, longer, ... And then you'll be able to buy somewhat intelligently and won't squander too many of your hard-earned shekels.

Who knows? You may find the view camera way of being uncongenial.

 

[joneil]

Actually your 150mm G-claron is an excellent lens, I would not rush to replace it until you try it a bit.

All G-clarons are F9, which makes them darker to focus on the ground glass than your average F5.6 lens. However for guys like me who backpack and do a two or three hour walk with our 4x5 gear, those small F9 lenses are highly desirable due to thier small size and relative light weight.

I own two g-clarons (larger sizes than the one you have) and would not trade them for the world. Try it out, you may like it.
joe

 

[ragc]

150mm Rodenstock Sironar f1.5 (normal 4x5) on a Copal
210-370mm Schneider Kreusnach Symmar f5.6-12 convertible (long 4x5, normal 5x7) on a Linhoff
150mm Fuji Fujinon f6.3 (normal 4x5) on a Seiko
305mm Nikon Apo-NIKKOR f1.9 barrel lens (long 4x5, slight long 5x7)

All the above I've bought on eBay, all less than $150.00, in excellent condition. Patience is the key word. Older lenses can be had even cheaper.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Schneider Symmar convertibles are usually very good values. They are single coated modern lenses in good shutters with normal filter sizes.

A little more expensive, but usually a little better, are Caltar II-N lenses, which are multicoated Rodenstock Sironar-N's (and maybe there's a Grandagon or two in there), rebranded for Calumet.

 

[genecrumpler]

When you start looking at lenses for 4x5 and larger, you should be looking even closer at lens diffraction tables and probably less at make and price. At f22, the resolution of ANY lens(($10-to-$10,000) can be no better than 61 lp/mm. I have collected 4 lenses for 4x5 so far and none of then is faster than F6.8. Weight is the most important lens specification for me. I'm 66 yo.

Something to think about!!

 

[genecrumpler]

PS-All four are in newest copal shutters. This is also important, if you plan to repair your shutters in the future.

 

[davekarp]

You should be able to get a modern 210mm f/5.6 lens for close to $1 per mm lately. These include some really good lenses, like Caltar II-N (a modern multicoated Rodenstock), Rodenstock Sironar and Sironar-N, Fujinon NW, Nikkor W, etc. It is almost unbelievable the quality available in this focal length at such low prices.

My 210mm Plasmat is a Caltar II-N. I paid just a hair over $200 for it. I also have a 180mm Fujinon W (single coated) with perfect glass but some scuffs on the shutter and barrels that I purchased for $100.

With patience, you can get good deals on many focal lengths, but it seems to me that the best deals are in the 210s.

 

[highpeak]

You can look for Caltar IIN lens on ebay. I have 150mm, 210mm. They are all multi-coated and very sharp, and both has max aperture at 5.6.
The price is cheaper than big name brand.

Good luck.

Alex W.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

180mm lenses generally are good values, just because they are not as popular as other focal lengths. 90-150-210 is a fairly common set, so 180, which is a normal lens for 5x7", just doesn't attract as much demand. 90-180-360 would be a nice spread.

The 360/5.5 Tele-Arton is another lens that is somewhat underrated. It has more coverage than the more popular Tele-Xenar of the same focal length and is sharper, but it's also a bulkier lens--not particularly heavy, though, thanks to its aluminum barrel.

 

[w35773]

Actually your 150mm G-claron is an excellent lens, I would not rush to replace it until you try it a bit.

All G-clarons are F9, which makes them darker to focus on the ground glass than your average F5.6 lens. However for guys like me who backpack and do a two or three hour walk with our 4x5 gear, those small F9 lenses are highly desirable due to thier small size and relative light weight.

I own two g-clarons (larger sizes than the one you have) and would not trade them for the world. Try it out, you may like it.
joe

I will second this, I have a 150 G-Claron and love it. I compensate with a fresnel screen under my GG.

 

[John Kasaian]

I'll agree that the 150 G Claron is a peach. If what you need is one that opens wide and performs the ubiquitous 127mm f/4.7 Ektar is sharp and contrasty for under $100, but it won't give you any movements. The 203m F/7.7 Ektar is a sweet lens as well with loads of wiggle room on a 4x5 sometimes for less than $200. Theres 215mm Ilex and Caltars to consider too.

 

[Skorzen]

The three lenses that I have established as my kit all fit into the sub $300 catagory. The big money lens is my SA 90mm that I paid $250 for. I paid $150 for my 150mm fuji w (6.3 not 5.6) and the best bargain of the bunch IMO my 203mm Ektar for $60 (not well labeled on ebay). If you are looking for bang for your buck I have seen a couple of these go for $100-$130 recently which even if it needs a CLA is a pretty good deal.

 

[Harrigan]

Fujinon lenses are some of the best available imo and also quite inexpensive. Have you ever read anyone complaining about fuji lenses? I have not but now that I said it certainly someone will. Anyway you could easily get quite a few fujinon optics under 300 bucks. 125, 135, 150, 180mm fujinon w lenses for example. I would also take a single coated fujinon over a convertible symmar any day of the week hands down.

Personally I have had several of these convertible symmars and found them to be noticeably softer, and lower contrast than several other lenses in their range. Using the rear component alone exacerbates this look. Some people prefer it but I do not. However I have seen quite a few nice images other people have made with them.

I have used a 210 geronar for quite a few images and even though it’s a simple inexpensive 3 element lens I find the images produced very sharp and contrasty. These are great lenses for their price and are multicoated and mounted in excellent shutters. I have only used the 210mm, here is a sample image made with one in close up range to 4x5 trans film. Keep in mind this is a jpg and the original is damn sharp. I paid $300 for this lens maybe 10 years ago, today I suspect they are even less expensive.

 

[Joshua_G]

Thank you very much to all who replied. I learned much, especially concerning brands and models I should look for.

I am a fan of 135-180-210.

I believe all 3 focal lengths are considered normal. Correct?

Joshua, trundle over to http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/ and read the lens FAQs and articles. Visit www.graflex.org and do the same. .

Thank you very much. Most useful info.

Who knows? You may find the view camera way of being uncongenial.

Well, it's aint my first experience with LF …

Weight is the most important lens specification for me. I'm 66 yo.

Thanks, I'm only 2 years behind you … not to mention the back aches …

PS-All four are in newest copal shutters. This is also important, if you plan to repair your shutters in the future.

Thanks. Very useful info.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Joshua G wrote "
Quote:
Originally Posted by david b View Post
I am a fan of 135-180-210.
I believe all 3 focal lengths are considered normal. Correct?"

135 mm is a long normal for 3x4, 127 mm is actually normal for that format.

180 mm isn't normal for any widely used format.

210 mm is normal for 5x7.

150 mm is normal for 4x5.

 

[Joshua_G]

150 mm is normal for 4x5.

Thanks, 4x5 is what I use. However, if my arithmetic is right, considering diagonals length, for 4x5, 120mm should be the equivalent of 50mm in 136 format – or is the extra focal length takes into consideration movements ass well?