4x5 Budget Lens

[Dan Fromm]

I just read this thread from top to bottom. If I were the OP and wanted a 210 mm +/- lens that covered 4x5 I'd go to ebay, search for (203mm, 210mm) in lenses, narrow the selection to camera type = large format, and order by delivered price. Then I'd buy the least expensive lens in shutter that seemed to be in good order. I limited the choices to "buy it now."

The winner was a 210/5.6 Fujinon-W in a Copal #1 Electronic, $150 delivered. After that, a 210/5.6 Fujinon-W in Copal #1, with fungus, $163 delivered. 210/5.6 Convertible Symmar in Copal Press #1, so-so. 210/5.6 Nikkor-W in Copal #1, $179.

I also looked for (ektar, optar, raptar) 203mm. The winner was priced at $175 BIN . If I bought it, I'd plan on having the shutter overhauled. 203/7.5 Optars and Raptars (same lens, branded by Graflex and Wollensak respectively) are less common than 203/7.7 Ektars; old hands on graflex.org insist that they're functionally equivalent. Same design type, too.

OP, you're going to have to look for yourself. You can't go wrong with a 210/5.6 Fujinon-W, Nikkor-W, Sironar, or Symmar or with a 203 Ektar, Optar or Raptar. Just make sure that you get a lens in good condition in a good shutter. Don't cheap out and get a lens in barrel or on a Sinar board.

 

[saman13]

I just read this thread from top to bottom. If I were the OP and wanted a 210 mm +/- lens that covered 4x5 I'd go to ebay, search for (203mm, 210mm) in lenses, narrow the selection to camera type = large format, and order by delivered price. Then I'd buy the least expensive lens in shutter that seemed to be in good order. I limited the choices to "buy it now."

The winner was a 210/5.6 Fujinon-W in a Copal #1 Electronic, $150 delivered. After that, a 210/5.6 Fujinon-W in Copal #1, with fungus, $163 delivered. 210/5.6 Convertible Symmar in Copal Press #1, so-so. 210/5.6 Nikkor-W in Copal #1, $179.

I also looked for (ektar, optar, raptar) 203mm. The winner was priced at $175 BIN . If I bought it, I'd plan on having the shutter overhauled. 203/7.5 Optars and Raptars (same lens, branded by Graflex and Wollensak respectively) are less common than 203/7.7 Ektars; old hands on graflex.org insist that they're functionally equivalent. Same design type, too.

OP, you're going to have to look for yourself. You can't go wrong with a 210/5.6 Fujinon-W, Nikkor-W, Sironar, or Symmar or with a 203 Ektar, Optar or Raptar. Just make sure that you get a lens in good condition in a good shutter. Don't cheap out and get a lens in barrel or on a Sinar board.

That’s some good information.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but are all 210 f/5.6 plasmats all about the same size irrespective of brand? I’m wondering because I recently bought a Pressman D and I’ve read some places that these lenses will fit, others that they will only fit if you modify the front standard. Not sure if i’ll go with a modern 210 plasmat for my first lens even if it does fit; I’d like to be able to fold the camera with the lens mounted. Maybe a 150 would do the trick.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Looking for a nice budget friendly lens for a Intrepid 4x5 Camera. Was looking for something that would be suited for portraits. Had been considering around a 210mm lens but open to suggestions. Thanks

the 210mm f/5.6 Nikkor is excellent but keep in mind, 210 is a bit short for 4x5 portraits; the 300mm f/9 is inexpensive and a good focal length for portraits.

 

[darinwc]

the 210mm f/5.6 Nikkor is excellent but keep in mind, 210 is a bit short for 4x5 portraits; the 300mm f/9 is inexpensive and a good focal length for portraits.

The intrepid may non have a belowsb long enough to focus a 300mm lens at portrait distances. 210mm is a safe bet. Remember at close distances the lens will effectively be a 250 or 300mm lens.

 

[Ian Grant]

Hey Ian, isn't Tessar German for portrait?

Triotar would be the CZJ translation of the Cooke Triple Series II often sold as a Portrait lens. Rodenstock Geronar's are the last LF Cooke Triplets and Multi Coated.

Tessar and type lenses are interesting, I used to avoid them, then had a love hate relationship with them, now I just use them knowing what to expect from them, they don't let me down. That's experience and there is no substitute, you can read books less accurate Internet posts but what do you trust

My Tessar lenses are not my "best" lenses in terms of overall sharpness at wider apertures but they are very capapble lens and at f22 indistinguishable from later Plasmats.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

I just read this thread from top to bottom. If I were the OP and wanted a 210 mm +/- lens that covered 4x5 I'd go to ebay, search for (203mm, 210mm) in lenses, narrow the selection to camera type = large format, and order by delivered price. Then I'd buy the least expensive lens in shutter that seemed to be in good order. I limited the choices to "buy it now."

The winner was a 210/5.6 Fujinon-W in a Copal #1 Electronic, $150 delivered. After that, a 210/5.6 Fujinon-W in Copal #1, with fungus, $163 delivered. 210/5.6 Convertible Symmar in Copal Press #1, so-so. 210/5.6 Nikkor-W in Copal #1, $179.

I also looked for (ektar, optar, raptar) 203mm. The winner was priced at $175 BIN . If I bought it, I'd plan on having the shutter overhauled. 203/7.5 Optars and Raptars (same lens, branded by Graflex and Wollensak respectively) are less common than 203/7.7 Ektars; old hands on graflex.org insist that they're functionally equivalent. Same design type, too.

OP, you're going to have to look for yourself. You can't go wrong with a 210/5.6 Fujinon-W, Nikkor-W, Sironar, or Symmar or with a 203 Ektar, Optar or Raptar. Just make sure that you get a lens in good condition in a good shutter. Don't cheap out and get a lens in barrel or on a Sinar board.

I don't doubt those BIN prices at all, I can see similar. However it's possible to do better, all of my 203-210 lenses have been inexpensive, cheapest was a 303mm f7.7 Ektar in a Prontor SVS at £7 (less than $10) in excellent condition, a second 203mm f7.7 Ektar in a #1 Graphex Compur (very late US version) was way under $100 bought off this forum in near mint condition with a sticky shutter, (2 mins to fix), and my 210mm Symmar S was only around $150, again off this Forum and in great condition.

My other 210's were equally as cheap, a 210mm f4.5 Tessar is arounf £50 ($65), it's uncoated but I bought it for an old 7x5 camera, the other two were pairs of cells, a 210mm f6.8 Geronar, and a 210 f6.3 Osaka (Congo) Commercial, but I had a few spare shutters.

What I'm saying is with patience you can get good lenses at a Budget price. I would go longer that a 240mm for prtraits with a 5x4 camera for practical reasons, a 300mm lens needs full bellows extension with many cameras and there's often not enough extension to focus tightly closer up, in addition with that muck extension cameras are less stable and more prone to vibration etc.

Ian

 

[John Wiegerink]

That’s some good information.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but are all 210 f/5.6 plasmats all about the same size irrespective of brand? I’m wondering because I recently bought a Pressman D and I’ve read some places that these lenses will fit, others that they will only fit if you modify the front standard. Not sure if i’ll go with a modern 210 plasmat for my first lens even if it does fit; I’d like to be able to fold the camera with the lens mounted. Maybe a 150 would do the trick.

The Fujinon 210mm f5.6 "L" that I have is a Tessar and the reason it is fairly small compared to my Symmar-S 210mm f5.6, but it you want real small then get the 203mm f7.7 Ektar. JohnW

 

[Dan Fromm]

That’s some good information.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but are all 210 f/5.6 plasmats all about the same size irrespective of brand? I’m wondering because I recently bought a Pressman D and I’ve read some places that these lenses will fit, others that they will only fit if you modify the front standard. Not sure if i’ll go with a modern 210 plasmat for my first lens even if it does fit; I’d like to be able to fold the camera with the lens mounted. Maybe a 150 would do the trick.

No. Abolutely not. To find dimensions, look at manufacturers' catalogs. Here's a link to a list of links to lens makers' catalogs and other sources of useful information: http://www.largeformatphotography.i...to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses

Thinking of useful information, photrio.com's LF forum isn't the best anglophone LF forum. The US LF forum (largephotograpy.info/forum) is much better. IMO the best of all if a francophone forum, galerie-photo.info. Its parent site galerie-photo.com has a very good collection of articles. But you have to read French to get much benefit from galerie-photo.

The Pressman D is a nice camera, in some ways better than the equivalent Graphic. But for my money Graphics are preferable because of better support, better availability of Graflok backs and larger lens throats.

 

[JADoss23]

Thanks for all of the info. Been very helpful! I was being patient and browsing the auction site and got a good deal on a Caltar II 210 with Copal 1 in good condition. Will probably keep browsing for another lens with a wider focal length but no rush since I'm still waiting on my intrepid! This thread has been a wealth of knowledge!

 

[Alan Gales]

Thanks for all of the info. Been very helpful! I was being patient and browsing the auction site and got a good deal on a Caltar II 210 with Copal 1 in good condition. Will probably keep browsing for another lens with a wider focal length but no rush since I'm still waiting on my intrepid! This thread has been a wealth of knowledge!

Congratulations on your new lens! If you later find you don't like it you can always sell it for close to what you paid and buy another. I've tried out lenses myself and later sold them and bought another to try. There is nothing like testing a lens yourself. Any small amount of money that you may lose, just consider a cheap rental fee.

So you like a wealth of knowledge? Here you go!

http://www.largeformatphotography.info

Scroll down to see the lens section. LFPF is a great forum for large format. We would love to have you if you would like to join.

 

[saman13]

No. Abolutely not. To find dimensions, look at manufacturers' catalogs. Here's a link to a list of links to lens makers' catalogs and other sources of useful information: http://www.largeformatphotography.i...to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses

Thinking of useful information, photrio.com's LF forum isn't the best anglophone LF forum. The US LF forum (largephotograpy.info/forum) is much better. IMO the best of all if a francophone forum, galerie-photo.info. Its parent site galerie-photo.com has a very good collection of articles. But you have to read French to get much benefit from galerie-photo.

The Pressman D is a nice camera, in some ways better than the equivalent Graphic. But for my money Graphics are preferable because of better support, better availability of Graflok backs and larger lens throats.

I’m actually a member of LF forum, along with graflex.org. Great information over there, but I prefer the way this site is laid out.

I’m also trying to decide on my first lens right now, and with everyone having a different opinion on what the best “normal” focal length is between 135, 150, 180, and 210, it’s making the choice hard. But, I guess I should just get whatever one comes along at the best price and if I don’t like it, sell it later. I saw a good deal on a 180, but that seems to kind of be in no man’s land.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I’m also trying to decide on my first lens right now, and with everyone having a different opinion on what the best “normal” focal length is between 135, 150, 180, and 210, it’s making the choice hard. But, I guess I should just get whatever one comes along at the best price and if I don’t like it, sell it later. I saw a good deal on a 180, but that seems to kind of be in no man’s land.

Best? Silly idea. Normal focal length for a format is the format's diagonal. For 4x5 that's 150 mm. Whether you'll find that another focal length pleases you more for more shots than 150 mm will is for you to find out by trying. All the thinking and dreaming and asking other people's opinions in the world won't answer the question. Buy a lens and use it. If the focal length you buy first doesn't satisfy, well, you'll know more than you do now.

FWIW, I shoot mainly 2x3, normal focal length 100 mm. I have lenses from 35 mm to 900 mm that cover the format. I use ~ 100 mm most. But that's me, not you. There's no reason why you'll like best what I like best.

 

[Ian Grant]

The Caltar II lenses are excellent

Thanks for all of the info. Been very helpful! I was being patient and browsing the auction site and got a good deal on a Caltar II 210 with Copal 1 in good condition. Will probably keep browsing for another lens with a wider focal length but no rush since I'm still waiting on my intrepid! This thread has been a wealth of knowledge!

You don't say whether it's the Schneider or Rodenstock version but that doesn't really matter as both are superb lenses

Going wider a 150mm is the typical "normal" lens for 5x4 but another option would be a 135mm and maybe a better choice alongside a 210mm as it's touch wider. With 35mm (and 120) I prefer a decent step change between lenses so 19mm, 28mm, 50mm, then a 70-210 zoom usually used around 90 That's just my way others would prefer a 35mm lens in between.

My main normal lens has been a 150mm for the past 40+ years, not always then same one as I have a few, but I sometimes use a 135mm Caltar II-S (Symmar S) with my light weight kit.

I’m also trying to decide on my first lens right now, and with everyone having a different opinion on what the best “normal” focal length is between 135, 150, 180, and 210, it’s making the choice hard. But, I guess I should just get whatever one comes along at the best price and if I don’t like it, sell it later. I saw a good deal on a 180, but that seems to kind of be in no man’s land.

A simple answer is look what lenses came as the normal standard lens and it's usually 150mm, then think what standard lenses came with 35mm & 120 cameras and they are the equivalent of a 150mmmon a 5x 4 camera.

Then think what you'll use the camera and lens for, where I shoot landscapes a 180mm as a standard lens would be useless, but excellent for table top or portrait work. That's why my 203mm/210mm lenses get rare use, but when they do I get excellent mages. My 150/135mm lenses get the most use then my 90mm, followed by my 75mm m or 65m, the longer lenses get the least use. But hey I shoot portraits with a 45mm on my Mamiyan645's we are all different.

Ian

 

[saman13]

All good advice. Thanks, y’all.

 

[Alan Gales]

I’m actually a member of LF forum, along with graflex.org. Great information over there, but I prefer the way this site is laid out.

I’m also trying to decide on my first lens right now, and with everyone having a different opinion on what the best “normal” focal length is between 135, 150, 180, and 210, it’s making the choice hard. But, I guess I should just get whatever one comes along at the best price and if I don’t like it, sell it later. I saw a good deal on a 180, but that seems to kind of be in no man’s land.

What Dan is telling you about diagonals is the best answer that anyone can give you. The problem is that when you compare long formats like 35mm to more square formats like 4x5 or square formats like medium format 6x6 things tend to look a bit different to us sometimes.

If you like a 50mm on a 35mm camera then buy a 150mm lens to start with for 4x5. You will most likely be happy with it. If not then sell it and buy a lens slightly longer or wider according to what you want. If you bought right then you won't lose much in selling it and buying another.

Yousuf Karsh shot most of his images with a 14" or roughly 360mm on 8x10. A 360mm on 8x10 is equivalent to a 180mm on 4x5. A 180mm is not a no man's focal length but sometimes preferred over a 150mm as a normal focal length on 4x5, especially for portrait photographers.

The 210mm focal length was hugely popular back in the day for 4x5 monorails where many were used for product photography in advertising. Today the 210 is very popular for portraiture with 4x5 field cameras. Some would recommend a 240/250 or 300mm over 210 but if shooting a field camera you may not be able to close focus longer than 210mm due to lack of bellows draw (For a reference a 300mm lens on 4x5 is similar to a 100mm on a 35mm camera). When I had a 4x5 field camera with 13" of bellows draw, I was at full extension to close focus a 250mm lens at six feet for portraits. I ended up buying an additional monorail so I could use a 300mm lens to close focus for portraits. Today, I own an 8x10 with it's own set of compromises. I've learned to accept compromise.

Good luck to you and I hope this helps your decision.

 

[saman13]

Yes, it does help. I think I’ve decided I’ll be patient and get whatever lens between 135-210 shows up for a good price. If I don’t like it, I’ll pass it along. My 135mm on my Mamiya TLR is my favorite lens in that format, and a 210 is probably closest to that focal length (obviously not exact due to the square format).

I also haven’t ruled out just picking up a cheap 135 optar/raptar to get started. People complain that it doesn’t cover much for movements, but I shoot landscapes, tabletops, and the occasional portrait. A few degrees of front or back tilt is all I really need for those (if any).

 

[Ian Grant]

Don't forget the 135mm f4.7 Xenar in a Compur #0 shutter, or the slightly larger f4.5 Xenar in a Compur #1 shutter, not much room for movements but if you use rise/fall to re-centre when using tilts they are very usable lenses. My experience is they are best at f22 but edge/corner sharpness is a touch softer at f16 and that softness increases at wider apertures.

Ian

 

[saman13]

Don't forget the 135mm f4.7 Xenar in a Compur #0 shutter, or the slightly larger f4.5 Xenar in a Compur #1 shutter, not much room for movements but if you use rise/fall to re-centre when using tilts they are very usable lenses. My experience is they are best at f22 but edge/corner sharpness is a touch softer at f16 and that softness increases at wider apertures.

Ian

If I can find one of those at a comparable price to an optar, I’ll give it a shot.

 

[Ian Grant]

If I can find one of those at a comparable price to an optar, I’ll give it a shot.

Looking at the BIN prices on Ebay for the Optars you have to do a lot of searching to find a decent Xenar at a similar price

They are around though, I can't say exactly what I paid for my 135mm f4.7 Xenar because it came with a second lens a CZJ 165mm f5.3 Tessar both in near mint condition, the Tessar's quite rare in that f5.3 aperture, but I guess somewhere in the $60-$80 range.

I'm a great advocate of using the Classifieds on this Forum, when I wanted to replace my uncoated 135mm Tessar, I placed a wanted advert and was offered a 135mm Caltar-S II (Symmar S) at a good price, it's in excellent condition. Personally I think a modern Plasmat like the Symmars etc are a better option, there's more room for movements they are sharper at wider apertures and can be inexpensive,

Ian

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

For a "get you started" kind of lens that you may like much more than you expect, be sure to peek at listings for "3A Folding Camera" or "2C Folding Camera" and pore through some listings of some old folders with 152mm f/7.7 or f/6.3 or 170mm f/6.3 dialytes that can be easily adapted for use in 4x5 cameras. Yes, they will have a less contrast due to the number of surfaces, but they are very sharp lenses. Take a look at the shutters to see if you can find ones in Ilex shutters.

My main lens for 4x5 is a 152/7.7 "Kodak Anastigmat" dialyte in an Ilex shutter that came from a Kodak 2C that I picked up for about $25 shipped. I have a 170/6.3 coming in a 3A that cost me $25 total as well. I use the 152 far more than my "true" large format Tessar 210/6.3.