90mm or not

[Terry Breedlove]

I just ordered a Chamonix F1 4x5 should be here within a week. I have a 210 and a 135 lens neither one are great lenses but I am thinking about buying a 90mm. If I do I want a fast one because I tend to shoot early in the morning and my eyes need all the help they can get when focusing. I have been thinking though about maybe buying a Nikkor 150mm and then I could also get a Nikon 210mm for just about $100 more than a 90mm F 4.5. On 35mm I am very used to shooting and love the 35mm focal length so maybe the 150 would be close enough to that to make me comfortable. Hell of a lot cheaper but I don't mind paying the money for the faster 90mm if it would be way better. Just rambling on out loud i guess.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I just ordered a Chamonix F1 4x5 should be here within a week. I have a 210 and a 135 lens neither one are great lenses but I am thinking about buying a 90mm. If I do I want a fast one because I tend to shoot early in the morning and my eyes need all the help they can get when focusing. I have been thinking though about maybe buying a Nikkor 150mm and then I could also get a Nikon 210mm for just about $100 more than a 90mm F 4.5. On 35mm I am very used to shooting and love the 35mm focal length so maybe the 150 would be close enough to that to make me comfortable. Hell of a lot cheaper but I don't mind paying the money for the faster 90mm if it would be way better. Just rambling on out loud i guess.

the 90 is a good choice for 4x5.Of course, you get more wide-angle from a 75 or 65mm but then your bellows must allow for the movement. the 90 with a recessed lens board was the better choice for me.

 

[jimjm]

Terry -

The 150 would be pretty close to a 50mm equivalent in 35mm format, so that might not be wide enough for you.
You'd want to look for something in the 110 to 125 range if you like 35 lenses in 35mm format.
90mm lenses are really plentiful, and it's my favorite 4x5 lens for landscapes and architecture. It's about a 28mm equivalent.

 

[jeffreyg]

There are two 90mm SW Nikkor lenses. One is f4.5 and the other is f8. They both have the same covering power. The Nikkor 135mm and 150mm are both f5.6 and the covering power is less than that of the 90mm. I have a Nikkor 120mm f8 and have no trouble focusing. I wouldn't compare the large format to 35mm since it's totally different shooting experience.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[wiltw]

Terry -

The 150 would be pretty close to a 50mm equivalent in 35mm format, so that might not be wide enough for you.
You'd want to look for something in the 110 to 125 range if you like 35 lenses in 35mm format.
90mm lenses are really plentiful, and it's my favorite 4x5 lens for landscapes and architecture. It's about a 28mm equivalent.

The only thing 'equivalent' between 50mm in 135 vs. 150mm in 4x5 is the common use of that only by the common convention as 'normal' for the format. In reality the two are scarcely equivalent.
50mm is not even equal to the 135 frame's diagonal measure, which is 43mm, but exceeds it by 16%!
150mm is the 4x5 image area's diagonal (assuming wrongly about 90mm short distance of frame)

In the below, note how poorly #2 matches #1, yet #4 very closely matches #3 in the vertical area framed (the 135 format at 1.5:1 being 'overly long' compared to 4x5 format 1.25:1 because #3 and #4 are

1. 50mm on 135 format sees a frame area of 14.3' x 21.5' at a distance of 30'
2. 150mm on 4x5 format sees a frame area of 20' x 25' at a distance of 30'
3. 24mm on 135 format sees a frame area of 30' x 45' at a distance of 30'
4. 93mm on 4x5 format sees a frame area of 32' x 40.5' at a distance of 30'

If you set up 24mm on 135 and 93mm on 4x5 and aimed at a floor-to-ceiling vertical distance, they are much more similar.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

Thanks guys. Yea I know comparing them isn't so easy I got used to that when I bought my Hasselblad but I was only thinking roughly. I was dividing 150mm by 4 and coming up with 37.5mm 90mm by 4 would be 22.5 I read somewhere that is about as close as you can get to comparing 4x5 with 35mm. After reading your responses and really thinking about it I am going to get the 90mm f4.5 probably a Nikkor. I live near the HoH Rain Forest and everything is so tight and grown in here with Trees everywhere. I think with a good wide I should be able to correct the trees converging and get a decent straight image. Plus on the beaches I would like to get in close to the rocks and use a long open shutter for the water.

 

[Two23]

I'm using the Nikon 90mm f4.5 on my Chamonix and like it a lot. I shoot it at night, usually with big monolights. (I photo trains with it.) Nice lens, but only you can decide if it's the right lens for you. My next widest lens is a Rodenstock 135mm which fills the gap between 90mm and 180mm very well for me.


Kent in SD

 

[Dan Fromm]

150 mm lens on 4x5:

Horizontal angle of view: 67°; equiv focal length on 36 mm: 27 mm

Vertical angle of view: 53°; equiv focal length on 24 mm: 24 mm

Diagonal angle of view: 80°; equiv focal length on 43 mm: 26 mm

I don't see the point of wrangling about exactly what focal length on 24x36 is equivalent to 90 mm on 4x5.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

150 mm lens on 4x5:



I don't see the point of wangling about exactly what focal length on 24x36 is equivalent to 90 mm on 4x5.

Well I don't see anyone wangling anything. Some of us are new to LF (ME) and just trying to learn and asking questions is the best way I know of to do that. I appreciate everyones replies they help a lot.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

I'm using the Nikon 90mm f4.5 on my Chamonix and like it a lot. I shoot it at night, usually with big monolights. (I photo trains with it.) Nice lens, but only you can decide if it's the right lens for you. My next widest lens is a Rodenstock 135mm which fills the gap between 90mm and 180mm very well for me.


Kent in SD

Thank you I can't wait to get mine and start shooting. I like the 135mm I have as far as focal length it would be nice to have both the 90mm and another 135 or a 150. That is probably what I will do buy the 90mm now and the 150 mm later. My 135 can't take filters so I need something that can. Plus I read that it is not a very highly rated lens. I was wondering if the 90 mm f 4.5 is heavy for the light weight Chamonix ? Does it support it firmly ?
?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Thank you I can't wait to get mine and start shooting. I like the 135mm I have as far as focal length it would be nice to have both the 90mm and another 135 or a 150. That is probably what I will do buy the 90mm now and the 150 mm later. My 135 can't take filters so I need something that can. Plus I read that it is not a very highly rated lens. I was wondering if the 90 mm f 4.5 is heavy for the light weight Chamonix ? Does it support it firmly ?
?

What 135 & 210 are you using? Pretty much all 135s & 210s are pretty good on 4x5 if used at optimal (f16 & deeper) apertures. I'd get a 90mm f8 Super Angulon or similar to try out the focal length - if you need the speed for focusing (& can put up with the weight), then look for a f4.5 or similar faster glass. My own tastes tend towards 90mm, something in the 125-135 range, 180-ish & 240-ish sort of ranges on 4x5 for various not terribly interesting reasons.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

What 135 & 210 are you using? Pretty much all 135s & 210s are pretty good on 4x5 if used at optimal (f16 & deeper) apertures. I'd get a 90mm f8 Super Angulon or similar to try out the focal length - if you need the speed for focusing (& can put up with the weight), then look for a f4.5 or similar faster glass. My own tastes tend towards 90mm, something in the 125-135 range, 180-ish & 240-ish sort of ranges on 4x5 for various not terribly interesting reasons.

The 135mm is a Wollensak, Rapax F4.7 The 210mm is a Caltar-HR f 6.8 Both are in very good shape and I have them on Toyo monorail.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The 135mm is a Wollensak, Rapax F4.7 The 210mm is a Caltar-HR f 6.8 Both are in very good shape and I have them on Toyo monorail.

I think you'll be surprised by the Wollensak - tight to the format (no movements) but otherwise at f16 & onwards you'll probably be surprised how good it is - particularly if you're not making massive prints. Don't dismiss it till you've tried it. It takes a push on 'series' filter adapter I recall.

The 210 is (I recall) a rebranded Rodenstock Geronar - modern multicoated triplet - again, used at optimised apertures - f16-22 range - it'll be very good indeed, especially if you're only making 3-4x enlargements.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

Thank you :0 Yea I have no plans for very large prints.

 

[Toffle]

I seem to recall that there were some focusing problems with the N-1 using 90mm and shorter lenses. (something to do with the position of the fresnel in relation to the GG?) The issue was discussed at length on the web, and I believe Hugo came up with a fix. I'm sure others here can give a more accurate accounting of the problem... I've got a good memory, but it's short.

That being said, you'll love the Chamonix.

Tom

 

[Terry Breedlove]

I bought the F 1 hopefully it is better than the N 1

 

[Toffle]

I bought the F 1 hopefully it is better than the N 1

Sorry, Terry. I mis-read your OP. (I've been transposing N-s and F-s ever since I bought an N-80 and everyone in Canada referred to it as an F-80. )

I'm sure you will love the F-1

Tom

 

[Lachlan Young]

Thank you :0 Yea I have no plans for very large prints.

I'm a big fan of 16x20 prints (cm not inches!) & for that off of 4x5 you can use pretty much anything...

Also, generally the main reason for getting a plasmat 135mm is if you need the shift capability - & that depends on the sort of work you want to do.

Either way, a 90/8.0 should serve you very well indeed. You might want to check out the Ilex/ Calumet 90mm wide field Caltar as well as the usual Rodenstock/ Schneider/ Nikkor/ Fujinon lenses.

 

[removed account4]

you might also consider a super angulon. usually they aren't too expensive, and usually they offer a good image circle.
don't forget to look into a recessed lens board and bag bellows ( you might need them ) and if you do chrome work, you might
also look at threads regarding your lens' coverage and whether or not you will need a "center filter" so you don't have to worry about dim corners .
the down side ( center filter ) is they slow your lens down by a stop or 2 ...

 

[Christopher Dewey]

I have the Chamonix F1, and lenses in 90, 135, 150, 200, 240 and 300mm focal lengths. 90-135-210 makes a nice set of focal lengths for typical scenes. (That's the set I usually carry, using the 90mm and 135mm most often.) Adding 150mm to that set wouldn't offer a lot of extra value; in situations where you would use it, you might prefer the 135, frame a bit looser, and crop a little if necessary.

I have the Nikkor 90mm f/8, which is very nice, stable in the Chamonix, focuses easily, and allows plenty of movement. The f/4.5 is not quite twice its weight, but I'm confident it would work just as well with the camera. You don't need a center filter with either.

 

[Alan Gales]

I've got a Schneider SA 121mm f/8 lens that feels like a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera to me. A 90 mm lens on 4x5 feels like my 25mm did on my my old Contax 35mm camera.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

You know what I will try the 135mm I have first and see how I like it. Already have it and the lens board so might as well. Yet the 90 mm is calling me pretty strongly. Maybe as Christopher said add the 90mm to my 135 and 210 lenses I already have.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

A funny side note the EMS tracking number that Chamonix sent me was the wrong one. It showed it arriving here and picked up in Everett about 4 hours from here. I sent Hugo a note and he got right on it. I called the Everrett post office and they said it was addressed on the package to that box. The guy that signed for it was named was Dave but he could barely read it and wouldn't give me anymore info. I emailed Huge and told him I think that he gave me the wrong EMS number because I was surprised how quick the camera arrived. Turns out they did and mine is now in San Fransisco headed to me. Hugo was awesome and super quick about finding my camera and giving me the correct tracking number.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

Really the only reason I was thinking about the F4.5 was to make it easy for me to focus, I will never shoot it at that or even close to that. In fact I would prefer the f 8 for the lighter weight to be honest. I seem to stick around f 11 to f 16 when shooting most times.

 

[loman]

Hi Terry.
I happen to have a 90mm Grandagon-N f4.5 MC for sale. I've sent you a PM if you should be interested.