A new step in my journey - 4x5"

[Vieri Bottazzini]

Hello everyone,

I am Vieri and I just got back into analog photography after too long a hiatus. I used to shoot medium format and 135, but this time over - after decades of digital - I decided to go bigger and went for 4x5". To give you an idea of where I come from, I have been using Phase One since 2020, with an Arca-Swiss Rm3di and lately an Alpa STC with tilt adapter, both with an IQ4 Achromatic.

I set off to put together a kit, and started with a Chamonix 45F-2, a camera I loved; however, I missed geared movements. So, with the help of the amazing people at Arca-Shop in Germany, I put together an Arca-Swiss F-line camera to my specs (a sort of hybrid camera between a F-Classic, an F-Metric and the field variations of these), to keep it as small and light as possible.

As far as lenses, my requirements were: good wides and ultra-wides (which I love), keeping the kit as small and light as possible but with the fastest and sharpest lenses as possible. Easy, right?

It took me months of research, months to find the actual lenses around, but I managed to find pretty much all I needed. I then tried out quite a lot of different options, and ended up with: Rodenstock 55mm Grandagon f/4.5, Schneider 80mm Super-Symmar XL f/4.5, Schneider APO-Symmar 150mm f/5.6, Nikon Nikkor-M 300mm f/9.

Along the way, I tried and loved the Schneider 47mm Super-Angulon XL, I was extremely impressed by the Nikkor-SW 75mm f/4.5 S, which I almost kept instead of the Schneider 80mm (and I would have on optical performance alone, but the Schneider was close enough and it's so much smaller and lighter), I loved the Nikkor-W 150mm f/5.6 S, the Nikkor-W 210mm f/5.6, and the amazing Schneider Super-Symmar 110mm XL. I still have all these, although I am not sure I will keep them all.

As film, I tried quite a few film / developer combinations, and for my aesthetics I am pretty settled on Ilford FP4+ souped in D-23 or Pyrocat HD. I will keep some Fomapan 100 Classic to shoot in foggy situations, and Delta 100 for lens testing and when I need that clinical sharpness.

What do you think of this kit / film choices?

That's it for now! Looking forward to this new part of my photographic journey, and to spend more time around here. Best regards,

Vieri

 

[lobitar]

Thank you very much for this interesting overview! In my opinion the lens list is both impressive and reasonable, I doubt you can hardly escape being happy with both the practicalities and the results. I don't know the newer Arca's, only have a couple of elderlies (especially a cute 6x9 Arca with the low number of slightly over one hundred). Thanks again for sharing and happy shooting!

 

[Vieri Bottazzini]

Thank you very much for this interesting overview! In my opinion the lens list is both impressive and reasonable, I doubt you can hardly escape being happy with both the practicalities and the results. I don't know the newer Arca's, only have a couple of elderlies (especially a cute 6x9 Arca with the low number of slightly over one hundred). Thanks again for sharing and happy shooting!

Hey lobitar, thank you for your comment, glad you found that my lens selection makes sense! About the Arca, the beauty of the current offer is that it's all modular and pretty much everything works with everything else - that made it very easy for me to put together a custom camera that works for what I need. Would love to see your vintage Arca though!

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[Pioneer]

Enjoy your trip. Your lens set and camera should work out just fine for what you need

I shoot a 135/235 Convertible Symmar and a nice little 150/4.5 Carl Zeiss Tessar on my little 4x5 Intrepid. I chose the Intrepid and lenses because I needed a kit that was easy for me to carry into the mountains. I am very happy with both lenses and that little convertible Symmar is loads of fun. We will be looking forward to hearing how things work out for you. Don't forget the pictures.

 

[lobitar]

Hey lobitar, thank you for your comment, glad you found that my lens selection makes sense! About the Arca, the beauty of the current offer is that it's all modular and pretty much everything works with everything else - that made it very easy for me to put together a custom camera that works for what I need. Would love to see your vintage Arca though!

Best regards,

Vieri

I'm somewhat incapacitated right now on account of the flu; but soon as possible will try to post a pix of the small arca. / lop

 

[abruzzi]

Hey lobitar, thank you for your comment, glad you found that my lens selection makes sense! About the Arca, the beauty of the current offer is that it's all modular and pretty much everything works with everything else - that made it very easy for me to put together a custom camera that works for what I need. Would love to see your vintage Arca though!

Best regards,

Vieri

I ended up with the Arca Swiss as my favorite camera. I currently have 2.5 Arcas—a 141/141 4x5 F-metric, a 110/110 6x9 F-classic, and when I bought the F-classic it came with a 171 4x5 back with a 171/110 tapered bellows. I love how configurable it is—the only better is Sinar—and still relatively compact and light. I started with the 6x9 setup, and converting it to 4x5 worked great, but I bought the 141 setup to eventually add a 5x7 and 8x10 setup.

Your lenses look like a great list. I tend to be a bit more budget, and I also like experimenting which older lenses. Here is a bit of a gap between 80 and 150, but I don’t usually shoot terribly wide, so I’ll frequently use a 120mm or 135mm as my wide, and a 180mm as my next step up.

 

[Vieri Bottazzini]

Enjoy your trip. Your lens set and camera should work out just fine for what you need

I shoot a 135/235 Convertible Symmar and a nice little 150/4.5 Carl Zeiss Tessar on my little 4x5 Intrepid. I chose the Intrepid and lenses because I needed a kit that was easy for me to carry into the mountains. I am very happy with both lenses and that little convertible Symmar is loads of fun. We will be looking forward to hearing how things work out for you. Don't forget the pictures.

Hey Dan, that sounds like a fun kit to use! I looked into the Intrepid when I got my Chamonix and I was almost going for it but then I preferred the 45F-2. I'll definitely keep the forum posted, and pics will definitely be coming - next year when I am back home!

I'm somewhat incapacitated right now on account of the flu; but soon as possible will try to post a pix of the small arca. / lop

Sorry to hear that, be well soon and we are looking forward to the pic as soon as you are feeling better!

I ended up with the Arca Swiss as my favorite camera. I currently have 2.5 Arcas—a 141/141 4x5 F-metric, a 110/110 6x9 F-classic, and when I bought the F-classic it came with a 171 4x5 back with a 171/110 tapered bellows. I love how configurable it is—the only better is Sinar—and still relatively compact and light. I started with the 6x9 setup, and converting it to 4x5 worked great, but I bought the 141 setup to eventually add a 5x7 and 8x10 setup.

Your lenses look like a great list. I tend to be a bit more budget, and I also like experimenting which older lenses. Here is a bit of a gap between 80 and 150, but I don’t usually shoot terribly wide, so I’ll frequently use a 120mm or 135mm as my wide, and a 180mm as my next step up.

Hey abruzzi, that looks like a great list of gear. Yes, the Arca are extremely flexible in modularity and configurability, I looked into Sinar but decided to go the AR route instead.

About the lens lineup, that is so personal - lenses is how we see and represent the world - that there is just no right or wrong there. The beauty of LF is that you can use a zillion lenses, with a zillion different looks, and while there definitely is a difference between their prices, even the unicorns are fairly affordable compared to any modern zoom... which is great if one wants to experiment without breaking the bank!

I am more of a wide-angle shooter, with my digital Phase One kit I shoot the 23mm (16mm FOV equiv.) for 80% or more of my work, then the 40 (27mm FOV eq.) for about 10% and the 90mm for about 5%... Moving to 4x5" I tried and replicate something as close as possible to that in terms of focal length, while keeping everything small, light and optically as good as possible. I think I'll use the 55mm and 80mm for most of my work, so I am not worried much by the 80-150mm gap, but again that is just me - I know I am weirdly attracted by the way wides and ultra-wides see the world, and that it's something not for everyone!

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hello everyone,

I am Vieri and I just got back into analog photography after too long a hiatus. I used to shoot medium format and 135, but this time over - after decades of digital - I decided to go bigger and went for 4x5". To give you an idea of where I come from, I have been using Phase One since 2020, with an Arca-Swiss Rm3di and lately an Alpa STC with tilt adapter, both with an IQ4 Achromatic.

I set off to put together a kit, and started with a Chamonix 45F-2, a camera I loved; however, I missed geared movements. So, with the help of the amazing people at Arca-Shop in Germany, I put together an Arca-Swiss F-line camera to my specs (a sort of hybrid camera between a F-Classic, an F-Metric and the field variations of these), to keep it as small and light as possible.

As far as lenses, my requirements were: good wides and ultra-wides (which I love), keeping the kit as small and light as possible but with the fastest and sharpest lenses as possible. Easy, right?

It took me months of research, months to find the actual lenses around, but I managed to find pretty much all I needed. I then tried out quite a lot of different options, and ended up with: Rodenstock 55mm Grandagon f/4.5, Schneider 80mm Super-Symmar XL f/4.5, Schneider APO-Symmar 150mm f/5.6, Nikon Nikkor-M 300mm f/9.

Along the way, I tried and loved the Schneider 47mm Super-Angulon XL, I was extremely impressed by the Nikkor-SW 75mm f/4.5 S, which I almost kept instead of the Schneider 80mm (and I would have on optical performance alone, but the Schneider was close enough and it's so much smaller and lighter), I loved the Nikkor-W 150mm f/5.6 S, the Nikkor-W 210mm f/5.6, and the amazing Schneider Super-Symmar 110mm XL. I still have all these, although I am not sure I will keep them all.

As film, I tried quite a few film / developer combinations, and for my aesthetics I am pretty settled on Ilford FP4+ souped in D-23 or Pyrocat HD. I will keep some Fomapan 100 Classic to shoot in foggy situations, and Delta 100 for lens testing and when I need that clinical sharpness.

What do you think of this kit / film choices?

That's it for now! Looking forward to this new part of my photographic journey, and to spend more time around here. Best regards,

Vieri

Your film choices are reasonable. I have also settled on Ilford films. We can be glad,they're still supporting us. For processing chemicals, I prefer to mix my own from bulk(always fresh and never more than I need).

 

[GLS]

What do you think of this kit / film choices?

Welcome!

Lens choices all seem solid and should serve you well. I have several of them myself; most recently the amazing SSXL 110 (don't sell it). I know you said you have the Nikkor 210, but you might want to consider the Fujinon A 9/240 as a smaller/lighter alternative to fill the gap between the 150 and the 300.

FP4+ and Pyrocat-HD is a magical combo in my opinion, especially in large format. Delta 100 is also a solid choice. You might consider T-Max 100 as well.

No colour film for you?

 

[Vieri Bottazzini]

Your film choices are reasonable. I have also settled on Ilford films. We can be glad,they're still supporting us. For processing chemicals, I prefer to mix my own from bulk(always fresh and never more than I need).

Hey Ralph, thank you - yes, I love what Ilford / Harman is doing to keep film alive. Fomapan is doing a good job as well, and so is Adox, whereas I don't particularly think Kodak is wise with their current policies and pricing, but what do I know, right?

As far as chemicals, I do mix my own as well - for D-23 you have to anyway, since it's not available anymore, and for Pyrocat I do as well (I used to use 510-Pyro back in my previous run with film, but think Pyrocat is a bit better / easier to work with). The only ready-made developer I use is FX-39, which works well with Delta 100 when I use it for lens testing (gives a bit extra sharpness which helps to evaluate things).

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[Vieri Bottazzini]

Welcome!

Lens choices all seem solid and should serve you well. I have several of them myself; most recently the amazing SSXL 110 (don't sell it). I know you said you have the Nikkor 210, but you might want to consider the Fujinon A 9/240 as a smaller/lighter alternative to fill the gap between the 150 and the 300.

FP4+ and Pyrocat-HD is a magical combo in my opinion, especially in large format. Delta 100 is also a solid choice. You might consider T-Max 100 as well.

No colour film for you?

Hey GLS,

thank you for the kind welcome! Glad you found my lens lineup sensible, and thank you for the Fuji 240 recommendation, I'll look into it.

I am more of a wide-angle shooter, though, with my Phase One kit I had the 23mm, 40mm, 90mm and 180mm, and I used them respectively for 80-85%, 10-12%, 5-7%, 0% of my work every year. So, if that will hold with 4x5" as well - which is not a given, since in my experience different formats inspire different kind of shooting and lens choices - I think I'll be more likely to bring back the 110mm to add more options in the wide-angle range than to look for something in between the 150 and 300mm. What I could easily see the 240mm doing, on the other hand, is replace the 300mm for a sort of 55 - 80 - 110 - 240mm lineup, sort of a "wider" version of the 55 - 80 - 150 - 300mm I currently use. I'll do these four months of shooting, and reassess when I'm back home with a clearer idea of how the gear will respond in actual use in the field.

I love FP4+ and Pyro, and while I was more of a 510-Pyro user for smaller formats, with 4x5" I found Pyrocat HD to be magical. T-Max 100 is so overpriced in my local that I'd be hard pressed to pick it over Delta 100 - it's like twice as expensive! I hope Kodak will come to their senses with their pricing, but until then I am afraid Ilford it is.

No colour film, I am doing exclusively B&W for the last couple of years and intend to keep doing so for the foreseeable future

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[otto.f]

Very nice equipment. I have only one doubt: the 75 was for the widest I found practical and it was already a bit too much. I can imagine that Arca has better movements than my Linhof Kardan but still, I wonder what you visualize to create with the 55mm.

 

[Vieri Bottazzini]

Very nice equipment. I have only one doubt: the 75 was for the widest I found practical and it was already a bit too much. I can imagine that Arca has better movements than my Linhof Kardan but still, I wonder what you visualize to create with the 55mm.

Hello Otto,

thank you for your comment. The logic behind my lens choice was to try and replicate, to an extent, what I loved - and was used to work with - with my Alpa STC + Phase One IQ4 Achromatic kit. I am a wide-angle lover, and on the Alpa & IQ4 my most used lens is, by far, the 23mm. The closest focal length to that in 4x5" would be something in the neighbourhood of 53-54mm (although not an exact match, of course, due to the different ratio).

So, I tried out the Schneider 47mm Super-Angulon XL and the Rodenstock Grandagon-N 55mm, and I decided to settle with the 55mm for now. I will give this lens a good workout during my next stretch on the road (Sept - Dec), and see if I'll need to revisit my choice after that.

Hope this helps! Best regards,

Vieri

 

[Donald Qualls]

Wow. I have a 50 mm for my RB67, and that's a lot of wide even on 6x7 or 6x9 cm 120. The widest lens I've used on 4x5 is a 105 mm (triplet, barely covers at f/16 or smaller and focused to 12 feet hyperfocal); I've got a 90 mm Angulon but haven't yet gotten it mounted on a lens board (and I'm not sure what my Graphic View II will look like with that mounted and focused).

 

[GLS]

My widest lens on 4x5 is the SK Super-Angulon XL 5.6/72. I don't use it all that much as my tastes tend to longer focal lengths. Sometimes very useful though, especially for architecture with that massive image circle.

 

[_T_]

I could see myself using a lens that wide pretty frequently if I had the space to make it work.

When i shoot portraits I try to keep the lens at about the same distance away from the subject for head and shoulders shots and upper body shots so that the perspective doesn’t shift and make the sitter look like a different person from one pose to the next. I do this by changing from a 180mm to a 90mm.

If I wanted to do the same thing for full body poses something like a 47mm would be exactly the thing.

 

[Vieri Bottazzini]

Wow. I have a 50 mm for my RB67, and that's a lot of wide even on 6x7 or 6x9 cm 120. The widest lens I've used on 4x5 is a 105 mm (triplet, barely covers at f/16 or smaller and focused to 12 feet hyperfocal); I've got a 90 mm Angulon but haven't yet gotten it mounted on a lens board (and I'm not sure what my Graphic View II will look like with that mounted and focused).

My widest lens on 4x5 is the SK Super-Angulon XL 5.6/72. I don't use it all that much as my tastes tend to longer focal lengths. Sometimes very useful though, especially for architecture with that massive image circle.

I could see myself using a lens that wide pretty frequently if I had the space to make it work.

When i shoot portraits I try to keep the lens at about the same distance away from the subject for head and shoulders shots and upper body shots so that the perspective doesn’t shift and make the sitter look like a different person from one pose to the next. I do this by changing from a 180mm to a 90mm.

If I wanted to do the same thing for full body poses something like a 47mm would be exactly the thing.

Lens choice is one of the most personal things in photography, so much of the final look and mood of our images depends on it. Sometimes, of course, circumstances dictate it - e.g., for architectural photography in limited spaces - but that aside, it makes sense that we each are drawn towards different focal lengths, and different actual lenses for each focal lens too.

I only do landscape photography, and for my work wides and ultra-wides are a must. That doesn't mean I never use longer lenses, of course, but when I explore a location I tend to "see" the possibilities and compositions that would work with wider lenses rather than longer ones. As strange as this might sound, I tend to work in weather that suits wider lenses, too.

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[Donald Qualls]

I wouldn't consider very wide lenses very suitable for portraiture and such due to the perspective effects. Whatever body parts are closer to the lens get magnified. This is why an 85 is better than a 50 (and that better than a 35) for portraits in 35 mm

 

[GregY]

I wouldn't consider very wide lenses very suitable for portraiture and such due to the perspective effects. Whatever body parts are closer to the lens get magnified. This is why an 85 is better than a 50 (and that better than a 35) for portraits in 35 mm

Agreed, I like the Karsh, Avedon et al approach to not wildly affecting perspective in portraits.

 

[_T_]

The perspective effects you mentioned are not an effect of the lens but of the distance from the subject. You will get the same distortion with a long lens that you would get with a wide lens if you position them at the same distance albeit with a narrower field of view.

So if you wanted to have the same level of distortion in headshot as you do in a full body you would simply keep the camera at the same distance.

Of course this would mean you need two different focal lengths

You could of course use the same longer lens for everything and move the camera position back but then you would get two different levels of distortion and the person might look radically different from one shot to the next due to the shift in perspective.

 

[_T_]

I only do landscape photography, and for my work wides and ultra-wides are a must. That doesn't mean I never use longer lenses, of course, but when I explore a location I tend to "see" the possibilities and compositions that would work with wider lenses rather than longer ones. As strange as this might sound, I tend to work in weather that suits wider lenses, too.

Best regards,

Vieri

Shooting ultrawide landscapes on 4x5 takes a level of dedication to the craft that most, including me, don’t have.

The amount of hiking I’ve had to do to get the camera in position for a wide shot is no joke. I don’t think I could do all that while lugging a bunch of LF gear if I tried, and I’ve been hiking and climbing my entire life.

 

[GregY]

The perspective effects you mentioned are not an effect of the lens but of the distance from the subject. You will get the same distortion with a long lens that you would get with a wide lens if you position them at the same distance albeit with a narrower field of view.

So if you wanted to have the same level of distortion in headshot as you do in a full body you would simply keep the camera at the same distance.

Of course this would mean you need two different focal lengths

You could of course use the same longer lens for everything and move the camera position back but then you would get two different levels of distortion and the person might look radically different from one shot to the next due to the shift in perspective.

All that is true, but having shot 4x5/5x7/8x10 for years....i've never found a place in my needs for a 47mm. I would choose a very different set of lenses than what Vieri chose..... or anyone trying to switch over from the lenses in their 35mm kit.

 

[Vieri Bottazzini]

Shooting ultrawide landscapes on 4x5 takes a level of dedication to the craft that most, including me, don’t have.

The amount of hiking I’ve had to do to get the camera in position for a wide shot is no joke. I don’t think I could do all that while lugging a bunch of LF gear if I tried, and I’ve been hiking and climbing my entire life.

Hey _T_, I can definitely see the point! My bag weighs under 10kg with camera, 4 lenses, accessories and 6x film holders, and that is about the same weight as my Alpa 12 STC with Phase One Achromatic kit and 4 lenses, so while not ultra-light, my new 4x5" kit is something I am very used to, in terms of the weight.

I am currently lookign into non-camera hiking bags, to shave off a kg (2 pounds) or perhaps even more, which my back will definitely appreciate

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[otto.f]

Hello Otto,

thank you for your comment. The logic behind my lens choice was to try and replicate, to an extent, what I loved - and was used to work with - with my Alpa STC + Phase One IQ4 Achromatic kit. I am a wide-angle lover, and on the Alpa & IQ4 my most used lens is, by far, the 23mm. The closest focal length to that in 4x5" would be something in the neighbourhood of 53-54mm (although not an exact match, of course, due to the different ratio).

So, I tried out the Schneider 47mm Super-Angulon XL and the Rodenstock Grandagon-N 55mm, and I decided to settle with the 55mm for now. I will give this lens a good workout during my next stretch on the road (Sept - Dec), and see if I'll need to revisit my choice after that.

Hope this helps! Best regards,

Vieri

Thanks, I trust you will come up with good work again!

 

[Vieri Bottazzini]

Thanks, I trust you will come up with good work again!

You are very welcome Otto, and thank you, I'll do my best!

Best regards,

Vieri