A good standart lens for 4x5... help the beginner :)

[eumenius]

Hello friends,

I always wanted to be able to fully control the perspective and sharpness, so I buy an Omega 45D right now. Well, my question is very simple - dear friends, which good and not too expensive standart lens can you recommend to me? One of APUGgers suggested me to buy something from 210/5.6, but I think it's a bit too long... what focal length should have an all-in-one standart lens, 150, 180 or 250? I plan to shoot almost everything with my LF camera - portraits, close-ups, landscape, architecture etc., so I want to have one good versatile lens, allowing movements etc. What can you recommend to me, so I would be able to find and buy it?

Cheers from Moscow,
Zhenya

 

[bobfowler]

I have both a 180mm Rodenstock Sironar and a 210mm Sironar-N as "normal" lenses for 4X5. Both are nice glass, but I've never been good at saying "OK, I'll keep this one and get rid of the other". Nope, I'm an equipment whore, so I wind up with more lenses than sense...

Seriously though, choice of lenses is very personal. A lot depends on how you shoot as much as what you shoot. Some people aren't comfortable with the slightly longer focal length of a 210 as a "normal", others think 150 or 180 is too short.

 

[bobfowler]

I should have mentioned...

You say you want to shoot "almost everything with my LF camera - portraits, close-ups, landscape, architecture etc." You're not going to be happy doing all that with ONE lens. For portraits, you'll probably want something in the 10" (250mm) range, for architecture you'll most likely want a 90mm wide angle, and your "normal" lens for closeup work.

FWIW, I just bought a 300mm f/4.5 Industar-37 from an ebay seller in the Ukraine for very little money. I'm planning on putting it in front of a Packard shutter and using it for portraiture. My current 305mm lens (an f/9 APO Nikkor) is too slow and much too sharp...

 

[eumenius]

You say you want to shoot "almost everything with my LF camera - portraits, close-ups, landscape, architecture etc." You're not going to be happy doing all that with ONE lens.

FWIW, I just bought a 300mm f/4.5 Industar-37 from an ebay seller in the Ukraine for very little money. I'm planning on putting it in front of a Packard shutter and using it for portraiture. My current 305mm lens (an f/9 APO Nikkor) is too slow and much too sharp...

Hello Bob,

thank you for your advice! Indeed, it should be quite a problem to shoot everything with just a standart lens - but I don'd have enough money at the time to buy the whole set, so I need just a starter. I think 150 or 180mm should do for the beginning - but I don't know what manufacturer to choose, and what's the difference between, say, Sironar and Symmar in terms of picture quality

Old good I-37 - that's the lens I was working with while studying photography in a college, in early 80s. Funny enough, there exists a matching leaf shutter for it, with six blades and times up to 1/30, synchronized with flash. This lens is not bad at all, has fine bokeh and it's quite reasonably sharp - I shot 18*24cm portraits with it, and they were just beautiful. Also I did groups of, say, 60 with it - and every detail was there! That's a good precision made fast Tessar, and definitely a good barrel lens in all senses. Have fun with it

Zhenya

 

[jmdavis]

The Raptars and Optars are older but can be good coated optics at bargain prices. Where you are you might look for some of the Karl Zeiss lenses from the former GDR.

My first 4x5 lens was a 135 raptar that would occasionally stick. A good cleaning helped it dramatically. I liked the 135 focal length so well that when I traded that camera and lens combo I picked up a 135mm Nikor. These days my 4x5 bag has a f8 fuji 90mm, a f5,6 135mm Nikor, and a f5.6 210mm Schneider. The 135 is still my most used lens.


Mike Davis

 

[blanco_y_negro]

I find the 210mm convenient for portraiture.

 

[Amund]

Find a Fujinon 150mm in good condition, amazingly sharp lens. Even wide open.

 

[MikeS]

You might consider looking for an older 135mm Symmar lens. The older convertible kind, it converts to a 265mm and would be perfect for portraits that way! 135mm is just slightly wide on a 4x5, and many people like the look. Of course you could also find a 150mm symmar, but I think it converts to a 365 or so, a bit long for portraits, but worth a look.

-Mike

 

[John_Brewer]

Zhenya

You could look at Schnieder Symmar convertables, perhaps a Symmar f5.6/150mm which will 'convert' to by removing the front cell to a f12/265mm. For specs look here http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/symmar/

J

 

[Charles Webb]

All posts so far are in my opinion very good. When the press camera was king 127 mm, 135mm, and 150 were said to be normal lenses for 4x5. I personally prefer a longer lens, perhaps 180mm, to 250mm especially for head and shoulder work. Longer is even better by my standards. For general photography work, I would most likely look for something in the 150mm to 210 mm. Most of my lens are very old, many Wollensaks and Schneider, Fuji, etc. I prefer a coated lens to uncoated for general scenics
commercial illustrations and most photography. However in the late 1940's I was exposed to soft focus with a Pinkham Smith lens and have been hooked ever since. At a down time in my life I sold the Pinkham and ever since have been trying to find another. I have tried most everything out there, but cant find another lens that will even come close to producing an image like the P&S......Follow the recomendations that have already been posted, you can't go wrong! Good luck.........Charlie........

 

[John Kasaian]

203 f/7.7 Ektar, 162mm Wollensak, 150mm f/9 G Claron, 120mm Angulon

Any and all are 'keepers'

 

[Marv]

You'll definately cast a broad net when it comes to "standard' favorites.

I shot my first 12 years with a 135 Graphex Optar on a Speed Graphic. I got to know that focal length pretty well, started to "see" in that focal length, and it served me admirably.

After aquiring a Zone VI 4X5 with a 210 APO Symmar I still shot the 135 half the time. Add a 90 (used 20% of the time), replace the 135 with a 121 (used 30% of the time) and add a 180mm (used 30% of the time) along with the 210 (used the rest of the time), I finally landed on the 180mm as a "standard".

Why? I think because it was in the middle and fit a lot of my photography. I shoot in and into the woods along the river alot and it gave me the look I wanted. It also was a view point to start from to see if I need to go wider or longer. I have a 150 on "loan" from a friend, but between the 121 and 180 it just never gets used, I guess I don't "see" in that focal length.

If I had to pick a favorite, I would choose the 121. If I was to choose one that was the best overall for covering a range of situations it would be the 180. I could do 99.9% of what I want with those two with few compromises. Good luck and I hope this helped.

 

[Flotsam]

My trick is to use a 150mm.
Outside for landscapes it makes a nice somewhat wide angle that I find approximates a 40mm on a 35mm for scouting purposes.
When doing still lifes or portraits, I use a 6x7 rollfilm back allowing me convenient distance and perspective and enough coverage to allow even the most extreme movements without concern.
If I ever have the spare cash and nothing better to spend it on ( :rolleyes: Yeah, Right) I'll think about buying a 210mm and lensboard but this has been working really well for years.

 

[waynecrider]

It really a personal thing. Since most people come to LF via another format, I'd transpose your favorite smaller format lenses to LF ones via the many tables around. As concerns a do it all lens, I'd say give up on that idea unless you go with a convertible lens. I personally prefer something shorter that will give me better dof, but then I shoot alot around the city and many times it's architecture.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I would decide if I am a wide shooter or a long shooter. For a wideaphile go 135mm and for a long go 180-210.....and if you are not sure, get a 150! Almost anything from the big names will be pretty good or more likely superb. Symmars/Sironars/Modern Xeanrs, Nikkors are all great.

 

[Ole]

It really a personal thing. Since most people come to LF via another format, I'd transpose your favorite smaller format lenses to LF ones via the many tables around.

I used to think so too, until I took a look at my LF shots: with a 5x7" camera, my most used lenses are 165mm, 90mm and 240mm. In that order. With 35mm camera I use mostly long lenses, and was really happy when my wife loved the 28mm WA lens I'd hardly used since I found it too wide for my taste.

 

[Troy Ammons]

I tend to shoot wide, so I think for me a 135 or 150 would be the most used lens. Personally I would recommend a super sharp 150mm normal lens to start.

Depends on what you shoot though. For portraits you might want a longer lens.

 

[dphphoto]

What was your format before? And what lens did you use most in that format?
Rather than get into specific lens recommendations, I'd say to figure out what lens works best for you in 35mm (if you can narrow it down to one lens). Then multiply by 3 to convert to 4X5.
I use 120mm, 210mm and 400-tele lenses. That roughly doubles the focal length from lens to lens (o.k, so maybe it should be a 240mm in the middle.) So buy one now, and another when your budget allows. I'd say a 210mm to start with, and a 135mm or so later (1st one for portraits, 2nd one for landscape). And buy lots of film. Dean

 

[dphphoto]

Incidently, my very first 4X5 was an Omega D. I learned a lot using it. Dean

 

[eumenius]

Dear friends,

I am very indebted to you for such a wealth of useful information! I did a quick search in Moscow's shops for a standart lens, and there I did find either full crap or very pricey crap Or something like Tele-Arton 180/4, looking big but covering 6*9 frame

So I have to look for the lens I need in another place - let's begin from APUG. I will post an ad in Classifieds - maybe someone has a spare good lens for me?

Cheers,
Zhenya

 

[Kayus]

all-in-one standart lens, 150, 180 or 250? I plan to shoot almost everything with my LF camera - portraits, close-ups, landscape, architecture etc., so I want to have one good versatile lens, allowing movements etc. What can you recommend to me, so I would be able to find and buy it?

Cheers from Moscow,
Zhenya[/QUOTE]



Twenty years ago, at Brooks (Institute of Photography) they recommended the use of 210mm lens for 4x5"(are they still teaching LF?). During 3 years there, we shot "literary everything" from basic table top, still life, industrial, macro, "zoom effects", automotive, portraiture, children, architecture with just that 210mm lens. Of course personal preference is decission factor, but you CAN shoot everything with just one lens! Knowing how to use it to the most is more important, I think.
Hope this will help.

Kayus
Dead Link Removed

 

[Troy Ammons]

all-in-one standart lens, 150, 180 or 250? I plan to shoot almost everything with my LF camera - portraits, close-ups, landscape, architecture etc., so I want to have one good versatile lens, allowing movements etc. What can you recommend to me, so I would be able to find and buy it?

Cheers from Moscow,
Zhenya

If you want a 2 lens setup that is super sharp go for a G-Claron 150 and a G-Claron 210 or 240. The downside is they are F9 lenses. I use a binocular viewer, so I can see to focus even stopped down.

Add to that a Nikon 90mm lens later and that should about do it.

Also I liked the Rodenstock, 150mm Sironar N-MC lens a lot but IMO the G-Claron 150 is a bit sharper.

Just another note. The G-Claron 240mm lens will also cover 8x10.

 

[Troy Ammons]

Oh, a all in one standard normal lens would be a 135 or a 150mm lens.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

You will bet a much bigger IC with 150s than 135s in the main. You might also prefer a longer focal length for portraits. If you do do portraits I would be tempted by a 150 or 180 5.6 allrounder. Fast, sharp, common and useable for everything. A 150 Sironar S or 180 Sironar/Symmar L would give big IC, fast aperture, great performance all in one.

I personally dont see the need to be confined to one lens when there are so many cheap, great lenses out there. I would get a 120/135 AND a 210 to be augmented by a 90mm and a 300 when the money/desire is there. One lens cannot do everything and you would be very much better off not spending too much on one super duper lens and getting two instead. My convertible 135/235 symmar was super as was my 210 Sironar N/203 Ektar etc etc. Two of these would be far more use creatively than one shiny expensive Sironar S, for example.

Tom

 

[removed account4]

You might consider looking for an older 135mm Symmar lens. The older convertible kind, it converts to a 265mm and would be perfect for portraits that way! 135mm is just slightly wide on a 4x5, and many people like the look. Of course you could also find a 150mm symmar, but I think it converts to a 365 or so, a bit long for portraits, but worth a look.

-Mike

Zhenya

You could look at Schnieder Symmar convertables, perhaps a Symmar f5.6/150mm which will 'convert' to by removing the front cell to a f12/265mm. For specs look here http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/symmar/

J

i would echo both mike and john's suggestions.


- john