Big Lenses

[waynecrider]

While traveling down I17 in AZ yesterday during the sweet light, the landscape of the rolling hillsides and short mountain ranges took on such a beauty that I wished I had my 4x5 and a long lens to capture it instead of having my smaller format and wide angles. I'm wondering for such wide open spaces what focal lengths and or specific lenses you have found approiate to capture such beauty.

 

[Ornello]

While traveling down I17 in AZ yesterday during the sweet light, the landscape of the rolling hillsides and short mountain ranges took on such a beauty that I wished I had my 4x5 and a long lens to capture it instead of having my smaller format and wide angles. I'm wondering for such wide open spaces what focal lengths and or specific lenses you have found approiate to capture such beauty.

The temptation is always to try to include too much. Whatever format you're using, try 50% more focal length than you think you need.

 

[rbarker]

I sometimes use a Nikkor 360T on my Toyo 45AX, which has somewhat limited bellows draw. With the 4x5 adapter I made for my 8x10 double-extension Tachi, however, the 450mm Nikkor M is sweet.

[added afterthought] One drawback with the longer lenses, though is the effect of atmospheric interference being more apparent. Trade-offs, trade-offs.

 

[Ole]

The temptation is always to try to include too much. Whatever format you're using, try 50% more focal length than you think you need.

I find to my great surprise that with larger film, I use wider lenses. In MF my favorite lens is a 150mm, in 4x5" 180mm, 5x7" 210mm, 18x24cm 240mm...

I think the larger negative allows more "significant" detail, in that the resolution of the film allows the detail to resolve out of "clutter".

These thoughts are not well formulated, and in this case at least it's not a result of writing in a foreign language. I know perfectly well what I mean - visually. If I could express it in words I would probably have gone in for poetry instead of photography - the materials costs would be so much lower!

 

[Paul Howell]

I live and shoot in Arizona and find that for 4X5 a 150 and 210 work really well, as noted above the haze makes a longer lens less effective.

Paul

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I find to my great surprise that with larger film, I use wider lenses. In MF my favorite lens is a 150mm, in 4x5" 180mm, 5x7" 210mm, 18x24cm 240mm...

I think the larger negative allows more "significant" detail, in that the resolution of the film allows the detail to resolve out of "clutter".

These thoughts are not well formulated, and in this case at least it's not a result of writing in a foreign language. I know perfectly well what I mean - visually. If I could express it in words I would probably have gone in for poetry instead of photography - the materials costs would be so much lower!

I agree, with my 8x10 these days I often find myself shooting with my 150mm and my 240mm lenses.

 

[roteague]

I primarily shoot at the wide angle side of the spectrum, so I would probably use either my 135 Schneider or my 90mm Nikkor. Only on a rare occasion would I use my 210mm Rodenstock.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

With my 4x5, my favorites are the 55mm Apo Grandagon and 90mm Nikon.

 

[waynecrider]

And here I thought that everyone would come out with all these long exotic lenses. I guess my 203 will be fine and I don't need that 360. Of course, now I guess I need that 8x10 instead. Oh yea.

 

[bobfowler]

I have a 10" Ilex Paragon that I use every once in a while, but it's really a better "people" lens than a landscape lens. The glass I really like for 4X5 landscapes is my 180mm Rodenstock Sironar and my 90mm Wide Field Caltar.

Speaking of the 90mm W.F. Caltar, I've had an email exchange this week with Mr. Lynn Jones, one of the designers responsible for this wonderful piece of glass (and many others). He gave me some pointers on the correct way to focus wide angle lenses (as well as the theory behind it). His explanation on the "focus in" technique has changed the way I look at using my lenses shorter than 165mm.

I put his method to a practical test this afternoon - damn if he wasn't right!

I've been shooting large format for 30 years - you CAN teach an old dog new tricks.

 

[Canuck]

Bob, could you please explain the "focus in" technique.

 

[Graeme Hird]

Yeah, spill the beans mate!

 

[Ole]

Is the "focus in" anything like the Merklinger "focus on far, stop down for close, and forget you ever heard the word hyperfocal"?

If so, I'm all in favour of it.

Graeme, my "tube contribution" was shot that way. All over 5mm fuzz.

 

[Struan Gray]

My lens use gets longer as I go up in format. Most used are: 43 m in 35 mm, 150 mm in 6x6 and 465 mm (18") in 4x5. My 18" is an APO Lustrar in barrel, I would love a Fuji C but the price difference pays for film and food.

I like abstractions and being able to cut a section out of the horizon, but a lot of my favourite pictures are relatively close up shots of foliage and undergrowth (no deserts here . Longer lenses allow me to maintain the viewpoint and spatial relationships that originally attracted me, and to play with short depth of field and bokeh.

 

[bobfowler]

Is the "focus in" anything like the Merklinger "focus on far, stop down for close, and forget you ever heard the word hyperfocal"?

If so, I'm all in favour of it.

Graeme, my "tube contribution" was shot that way. All over 5mm fuzz.

OK, OK... Sorry, I went to bed!

Here's the info, lifted straight from his email:

Regarding this wide angle lens and ALL large format lenses with coverage greater than 85 degrees, in 90mm always "focus in". What this means is that all WA's are optimized for 1:1 close up, the only way you can get this kind of coverage. Typically the rule is for distances greater than the Hyper Focal Distance, always focus at the HFD.

So much for that, focus at your subject unless it is 35 feet or farther away. If it is farther, always focus at 35' after you have used swings and tilts. Thereafter simply frame the subject stop down to f 16 or smaller and shoot. You will get critical focus this way. If you focus further than 35 feet, the center of the image will be soft and the surrounding 2/3rds of the image will be completely out of focus.

At distances in WA lenses (in 35 and medium format, the designers focus in without telling you), for example with your lens focused at 200 feet, the center will be identifiable but not ver sharp, the outer third will be in focus at about 18", that is terrible field curvature but it happens in all of these kinds of lenses.

He followed up with this info:

47 mm focus in 15 ft
65mm focus in at 25 ft
75mm focus in at 30 ft
90mm focus in at 35 ft
120mm focus in at 50 ft
165mm no focus in

I tried this with my 90mm when I got home from work yesterday (Polaroid testing) and he was absolutely correct, optimum sharpness in center and edges required "focus in".

The full story about how HE learned about this technique is in one of 4 articles on Caltar lenses he had published in View Camera magazine.
BTW - Lynn is a Brooks grad and he didn't learn it there!

 

[Dan Fromm]

Um, er, ah, Bob, my short lenses, including a 65/8 Ilex that I think Lynn Jones commissioned, don't agree with this at all. What am I missing?

Mind you, I don't shoot 'em at f/16. I use the 38/4.5 Biogon from f/5.6 to f/8, the 47/5.6 SA at f/11, and the 65/8 Ilex from f/8 - f/11. All this on 2x3.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[bobfowler]

Um, er, ah, Bob, my short lenses, including a 65/8 Ilex that I think Lynn Jones commissioned, don't agree with this at all. What am I missing?

Mind you, I don't shoot 'em at f/16. I use the 38/4.5 Biogon from f/5.6 to f/8, the 47/5.6 SA at f/11, and the 65/8 Ilex from f/8 - f/11. All this on 2x3.

Cheers,

Dan

Hey Dan,

Lynn was specifically talking about 4X5, but this would apply to any wide-field lens (the 90mm f/8 Wide Field Caltar has a coverage angle of 103 degrees). It's a field curvature issue with short focal length lenses of great covering power at wider f/stops.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Here's the info, lifted straight from his email:

Regarding this wide angle lens and ALL large format lenses with coverage greater than 85 degrees, in 90mm always "focus in". What this means is that all WA's are optimized for 1:1 close up, the only way you can get this kind of coverage. Typically the rule is for distances greater than the Hyper Focal Distance, always focus at the HFD

.
I've read this some 32 times ... and I'm having a bit of trouble straightening things out ... possibly something lost in translation..?

The major point I'm stumbling on is that "ALL WA (Wide angle - retrofocus ?) lenses are designed for optimum focus for 1:1 close up". A 100mm Wide Angle designed for optimum focus at 100mm? That might apply to a "Macro" or "Copy" lens design (although still somewhat severe) - but it seems a bit strange for a more broadly intended camera lens.
I'd really have to go to the Initial Design Specifications ... but from what I've seen - in general - it just isn't so.

Following ... because of this ALL wide angle lenses when focused at a distance shorter than the Hyperfocal distance are --- what... useless (?) because of severe curvature of field? I would wonder, then, why they design them with any kind of focusing mechanism capable of focusing at a distance shorter than the hyperfocal distance at the smallest aperture...? I guess that only applies to those lenses with integral focusing ... but still, I'm having trouble with the concept.

I'll go back and re-read this ... I must be missing something.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Hey Dan,

Lynn was specifically talking about 4X5, but this would apply to any wide-field lens (the 90mm f/8 Wide Field Caltar has a coverage angle of 103 degrees). It's a field curvature issue with short focal length lenses of great covering power at wider f/stops.

This "Rule" certainly does not apply to my Schneider Super Symmar XL Aspherics (110mm and 150mm).

 

[Deckled Edge]

Wayne,
Sorry to return to the thread, but I, like you, yearned for a longer lens than my trusty 210. Granted, whenever I broke out the 4x5, the 210 seemed the most appropriate lens, and the 150 and the 120 just sat in the backpack. BUT I KNEW I must have a longer lens, and, hampered by my short bellows, I chose a brand new Schneider 360mm Tele-Xenar. TMALSS, I used it twice.
It turns out that bringing the far near is the job of my 4x4 or my hiking boots. Moral: If it's beautiful, get close and use a medium focal length.

 

[Ole]

This "Rule" certainly does not apply to my Schneider Super Symmar XL Aspherics (110mm and 150mm).

Nor ANY of mine - Angulon 90, 120, 165, Super Angulon 90, 121, and sundry old brass thingys.

I'l stick to Merklinger's infinity.

 

[waynecrider]

Wayne,
Sorry to return to the thread, but I, like you, yearned for a longer lens than my trusty 210. Granted, whenever I broke out the 4x5, the 210 seemed the most appropriate lens, and the 150 and the 120 just sat in the backpack. BUT I KNEW I must have a longer lens, and, hampered by my short bellows, I chose a brand new Schneider 360mm Tele-Xenar. TMALSS, I used it twice.
It turns out that bringing the far near is the job of my 4x4 or my hiking boots. Moral: If it's beautiful, get close and use a medium focal length.

Point taken. I do find tho that it's often near impossible to get close to some things out in the desert soutwest. It might be a little different at other places but out here it can be a very long way to go, especially if it's across a chasm. Then you have to think about passing on someone's land and more involving other wildlife issues. I think maybe a 300 would be a nice length for compressing mountain ranges somewhat. I wonder if a 300mm would give me much of a different perspective over the 203mm?

I don't have much bellows; What's the bellows draw on that 360?

 

[Ole]

The Tele-Xenar 360/5.5 has a flange focal distance of about 21cm. They haven't been made for some years - but they are fairly easy to find used. It is my longest lens (except converted), and I use it quite often.

The perspective depends on the standpoint, not angle of view. But the angle of view of a 360mm is quite a bit narrower than that of a 203mm!

I took all my lenses and a pack of 5x7" film out for a shootout - 90, 120, 121, 135, 150, 165, 180, 210, 240, 300, 360; The only difficulty was telling the difference between those shot with the 120mm and 121mm lenses. The rest were obvious, even the difference between 210 and 240.

 

[Early Riser]

While traveling down I17 in AZ yesterday during the sweet light, the landscape of the rolling hillsides and short mountain ranges took on such a beauty that I wished I had my 4x5 and a long lens to capture it instead of having my smaller format and wide angles. I'm wondering for such wide open spaces what focal lengths and or specific lenses you have found approiate to capture such beauty.

Wayne my "normal" lenses are most often long lenses. I don't necessarily use them to bring very distant subjects closer, because of haze it's rare to be able to do that, I instead use them to isolate closer objects. It's also rare to be able to walk much closer to a subject because it can change perspectives
or is simply physically impossible to do so.

I shoot most often 6x8cm, 6x12cm, 6x17cm and 4x5". I commonly use 240mm, 300mm, 360mm, 400mm, 480mm, and 500mm lenses and am considering buying the Fuji 600 or the Nikon tele (600, 800). Any one have any experience with these lenses?

 

[bobfowler]

This "Rule" certainly does not apply to my Schneider Super Symmar XL Aspherics (110mm and 150mm).

Very good point. I had the "day from below hell" at work yesterday and wasn't able to really keep up on threads here, but I'll email Lynn and invite him to come on over and add to the conversation. It's entirely possible that the aspheric lenses have much better flatness of field than the older designs.

All I know is that it indeed worked with the 90mm wide field Caltar.