First lens for 4x5- good "allrounder"?

[ventdesable]

Hello,

There is might be another way of seeing things...

First of all, there is no relations between 135 & LF and the reason lies on two basis : angle of view and... angle of view.

24x36 and 4x5 aren't on the same plane. So, by definition, you will not be able to get the same angle of view on your images : different length / wideness
And in LF, optics will have different angles of coverage. For instance a 210 SSXL is in the 105° category when an Apo Symmar 210 L has a coverage of 75°. Same focal length, same maker, different use !

Secondly, the way you think photography ! I don't think you want to do the same things in LF that you do in 135 : you handheld your 24x36 when you take your tripod on LF. This alone implies a different way of thinking.

So, if you want a good all around workhorse you may have a look on a modern 150 mm. Schneider or Rodenstock are as good as you can dream of (same for Nikon / Fuji) Their rendering is dictated by generation and world regions (German & Japanese have a different way of thinking rendering witch means that if you want a coherent image rendering you will have to choose the same origin for the next you buy.

One difference is important : the coverage. For Rodenstock you can get in recent optics : Apo Sironar N Apo Sironar S or Apo Sironar W they will cover respectively 72° - 75° & 80° of angle. From that coverage depends your ability to generate movement. Some of them will need lots of coverage.

You say you want to do some architecture photography. If you decide to give the sky 2/3 of the height you will have to shift your plane upward. Then you want to get everything in the plane of focus so you will have to tilt your front plane and that demands a lot of coverage. You could decide to go for a film-plane tilt witch does not cost any coverage... but... goodbye perspective.

I did own a 5,6 - 150 Sironar N : a tiny Workhorse. I always felt that I could use more coverage than the one I got. Now, find the image circle of this very good lens and find the one for a 5,6 - 135 Sironar N you might understand what I mean ;-)

If you really want a wider angle that is not to wide with plenty of coverage ; maybe you should look at a 120 Super Angulon. It really is a good one and not so expensive.

J

 

[PerTulip]

....remember that you also need a sturdy tripod and if printing your own an enlarger ....

Tripod and head are covered. Since I do a lot of wildlife with my DSLR (sorry for the forbidden digital mention) and long lenses, my combo supports very heavy weights. From MF I already have a cable release, lightmeter, etc.

As for enlarging: I won't go into that rabbit hole initially and use a mixed workflow. I have very good negative storage, so that option will remain....

 

[PerTulip]

Hello,
....

Secondly, the way you think photography ! I don't think you want to do the same things in LF that you do in 135 : you handheld your 24x36 when you take your tripod on LF. This alone implies a different way of thinking.
....

J

Thanks!
I used the 135 comparison just to make a point of what an "allrounder" would be. And because of "different way of thinking" I use 135 and 120. LF would be the expansion of the "really think about what you are doing" line of thought.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Schneider or Rodenstock are as good as you can dream of (same for Nikon / Fuji) Their rendering is dictated by generation and world regions (German & Japanese have a different way of thinking rendering witch means that if you want a coherent image rendering you will have to choose the same origin for the next you buy.

ventdesable, are you implying that if you start with Fuji you can only get Fuji (or Nikon) lenses afterwords. Any source to support that statement? I've never encountered this in every thing I've ever read about LF photography and in my own (short) experience with it.

Honestly - my opinion -, I doubt very much if anyone could make the difference between a shot taken by a good quality Fujinon and an equal quality Schneider. I have a Schneider 90mm, a Fujinon 125mm, a Nikon Nikkor 180 and a Rodenstock 210 and I have yet to encounter any lack of "coherent image rendering". I'm really curious to know more about what exactly you mean by that.

 

[ventdesable]

Alex thanks for your reading.

I do not imply that when you go with a brand or another you're obliged to keep with it. And, no, there is no police of lenses ;-)

What I wrote was that if you are articulating you photography around a project ; it might be judicious to stick with the German or Japanese kind of lens you started with. Not that it will be obvious in every case but it might be visible. Furthermore, when you have the chance of having both kind of lenses ; you then are able to choose the best one for the subject of the moment.

Henri Gaud, a friend of mine, known by some of the people here wrote the explanation based on choices made by Japanese & German lensemakers. Choices dictated by mechanical or optical "laws". Le beurre ou l'argent du beurre ; on ne peut pas toujours tout avoir ;-)

here is what he wrote :

Pour des optiques Grand Format, les mauvaises optiques n'existent pas,
Il n'existe que des tempéraments, des usages et des spécificités ...
La première spécificité c'est la famille, les optiques grand format se fabriquent par famille,
Une famille c'est une formule optique, un angle de champ et une ouverture,
Ensuite dans la famille on décline les focales.

Dans ces familles les angles de champs sont déterminants, et spécifiques au grand format, les familles des 104-105° ceux des 100°, puis les 80°, puis les 70-75°, puis les 48°-50° puis les 15-25°. Et aussi les familles spécifiques, celles dédiés à la micro, ou à la macro, ou à la proxi, ou au portrait, ou à des tas trucs spécifiques …

Pour les sujets proxi-macro-micro, soyons clair, il ne s'agit pas de courir après les papillons avec un gros full frame dernier cri … Mais en Grand-Format, même en 4x5, le portrait est soit de la proxi, soit de la macro. En grand format la majorité des photos que l'on voit dans les bouquins d'histoire de la photo sont de la proxi ou de la macro, voir de la micro … C'est ainsi, il faut assumer ce fardeau …

Pour ces optiques, elles sont toutes excellentes, mais il y a des différences, les Japonais comme les Allemands sont de bons opticiens, très bons même, mais ils travaillent différemment. Les Allemand sûr d'eux veulent le meilleur, donc bon contraste à toutes les fréquences, les Japonais sont pragmatiques, ils veulent le meilleur de ce qui est utile, donc le plus haut contraste pour les "bonnes" fréquences.

Donc pour résumer, les optiques Allemandes seront meilleurs dans les hautes fréquences et les Japonaises sur les fréquences moyennes, celles qui intéressent un photographe en grand format. Donc pour le terrain, un film scientifique très fin donnera un meilleur résultat avec une optique Allemande, et un film de bonne sensibilité, moins fin, donnera un meilleur résultat avec une optique Japonaise. Idem pour les sujets, un sujet très dessiné, optique Japonaise, sujet tout en très fine nuances, optique Allemande.

Mais de façon générale, vous ne verrez aucune différence, ces optiques sont très bonnes.

Ensuite on peut classer ces différents fabricants, du plus "Allemand" au plus "Japonais", du plus haute fréquence, au plus fréquences utiles. De la haute fréquence, Zeiss, Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon, Fuji vers la fréquence utile … à vous de choisir ...

Nulle brutalité chez nos optiques,
Une optique ne fabrique pas le contraste de détail d'un objet, elle le transmet plus ou moins bien,
Comme tout est affaire de compromis, une transmission parfaite du contraste de détail de toute les fréquences étant impossible,
Les opticiens Allemand ont choisi les hautes fréquences, les détails les plus fin de l'image,
Les opticiens Japonais ont choisi les fréquences les plus visibles, c'est à dire les moyennes et basses fréquences, soit les détails qui sautent aux yeux.

Si votre sujet est de fréquence moyenne avec peu de contraste, les optiques japonaises proposeront une meilleure restitution, si votre sujet très haute fréquence et avec peu de contraste général les optiques allemandes proposeront une meilleure restitution, si votre sujet est rendu de matière et fort contraste, les deux famille d'optique feront jeu égal en proposant des rendus différents, si votre sujet n'a pas de contraste, pas de matière, il ne sera pas possible de distinguer l'origine des optiques.

Le choix des optiques et leurs qualités respectives, et plus déterminant sur des sujets de moyen ou faible contraste, quand on risque de perdre le peu que l'objet contient.
Pour les sujets de très haut contraste, le flare calme très vite le jeu et l'optique ne peut que faire avec la situation.

Un véritable monde à découvrir ...

And here is the link : http://www.galerie-photo.info/forumgp/read.php?3,229613,229731#msg-229731

So, is it mandatory or compulsory ?

Everyone does as he wants. It's just a kind of proposal.

Jérôme

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Merci pour les précisions, Jérôme. I'll make sure to check the link.

 

[sfphoto]

Hello Per
The Intrepid seems like a decent 'entry level' camera. However I would have concerns that if my photos were not sharp, was it me or the camera?
As to a lens for landscapes and cityscapes IMO get a MODERN 135mm (or slightly shorter) i.e. Nikon or Fuji not an older lens designed for a camera w/ no movements.

If you have not reviewed this take a look-
.

 

[PerTulip]

Just to check if I get it. If I look at this one: https://www.ebay.at/itm/194058008043?hash=item2d2ec235eb:g:IsgAAOSwKU9flb72

- Copal shutters are very recommended
- the included lens board might not fit, but "Copal 0" is a standardized size, so a lens board for that shutter size might be needed
- mounting a LF lens on a lens board is straightforward and, as long as the board is Copal 0, I would be OK
- "for Wista" on the Copal is meaningless
- cable releases are universal
- do I miss something or should I consider anything else?

So if I was looking for a 135mm for an Intrepid (or Chamonix, or Shen Hao,...) 4x5, this one would meet the requirements.

 

[BrianShaw]

So if I was looking for a 135mm for an Intrepid (or Chamonix, or Shen Hao,...) 5x7, this one would meet the requirements.

I thought you were looking for a lens to use on a 4x5 camera?

 

[PerTulip]

I thought you were looking for a lens to use on a 4x5 camera?

My bad. Typing while on the telephone.

 

[ventdesable]

You may alsoe look for a "Woodyman" 4x5. A very sturdy one with ample mouvements.
https://galerie-photo.com/chambre-woodyman.html Brand new for the price of a used one.

J

 

[removed account4]

Just to check if I get it. If I look at this one: https://www.ebay.at/itm/194058008043?hash=item2d2ec235eb:g:IsgAAOSwKU9flb72

- Copal shutters are very recommended
- the included lens board might not fit, but "Copal 0" is a standardized size, so a lens board for that shutter size might be needed
- mounting a LF lens on a lens board is straightforward and, as long as the board is Copal 0, I would be OK
- "for Wista" on the Copal is meaningless
- cable releases are universal
- do I miss something or should I consider anything else?

So if I was looking for a 135mm for an Intrepid (or Chamonix, or Shen Hao,...) 4x5, this one would meet the requirements.

you might go to the large format site and read some of the essays there, they might help you understand the workings of large format photography.
it really isn't as complicated as people make it out to be. its pretty much like 35mm and MF camera work. and like 35mm and mf cameras have certain "mounts" that is the lens board on a LF camera. .. the mount. that lens will work with any 4x5 camera ( as long as it isn't a point and shoot )but the lens board will not.
for wista probably means wista and linhof share the same lens boards, and it would not fit the/your requirements, unless you get a wista or linhof camera.
you might consider getting your camera first, lens boards and lens board adapters are not a dime a dozen.

 

[PerTulip]

....
it really isn't as complicated as people make it out to be. its pretty much like 35mm and MF camera work. and like 35mm and mf cameras have certain "mounts" that is the lens board on a LF camera. ......

Thanks!

But sometimes it's better to overthink a little before. With 35mm, I just buy "Nikon F" and it will (with very few exceptions) work. And with MF, I just go for "Bronica SQ". And the MF SLR isn't that much different than 35mm. With LF I led to wrap my head around some new things which, while in theory clear, I lack any practical experience.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I am considering going into 4x5 photography. I have enough experience with 135/120 and am aware of film/developer/etc. I also informed myself on shutters (Copal,...), movements and other technicalities.
I suggest any name-brand 135mm 4x5 lens will work well and will be with you for years; There are plenty on the 2nd-hand market to choose from.
What I am struggling with is: what lens should I buy? I will waste many exposures, learn along the way, so I am not going to buy more than 1 lens to start.

With 35mm the 50mm is considered the lens you should buy if only having one. I found I prefer a 35mm as an "allround lens". Pricewise, I found the 35/1.8 acceptable enough, even when 35/1.4ies on paper have better performance. Just to give some perspective what I mean with "allrounder".

So my question: what would be a good lens to hunt for? What would be a good "35/1.8" for 4x5? (slight wide angle, doesn't break the bank, good enough for my first LF experiments).

 

[removed account4]

Thanks!

But sometimes it's better to overthink a little before. With 35mm, I just buy "Nikon F" and it will (with very few exceptions) work. And with MF, I just go for "Bronica SQ". And the MF SLR isn't that much different than 35mm. With LF I led to wrap my head around some new things which, while in theory clear, I lack any practical experience.

right
Nikon f is the same as buying linof or speed graphic or crown graphic, bronco sq is the same as buying Kodak master view or toyo ..
its just brands and some brands commingle and some do not.. the LF page will clear your head on this stuff.
just don't worry about all the technical nonsense,


good luck

 

[Vaughn]

A 150mm f5.6 lens, Under $200 for a very good condition lens -- especially the Caltar IIN 150/5.6. Good film coverage to learn camera movements...one of the most important factors in getting a first LF lens and learning the format.

What one does with 35mm and MF may have no close relationship to what one does with 4x5.

 

[GKC]

There are plenty of gently used economical 210mms on the market. All the major players----Nikon, Schneider, Fuji, Rodenstock---made good ones,

 

[abruzzi]

So if I was looking for a 135mm for an Intrepid (or Chamonix, or Shen Hao,...) 4x5, this one would meet the requirements.

a couple of comments on that specific lens:

- yes, it will cover 4x5, but the image circle looks fairly tight wide open, 156mm at f5.6.
- it has been remounted from its original shutter. Every Nikkor I’ve seen came with a black ringed Copal, so this seems like it has been moved. Maybe someone bought it for the shutter, and found an older shutter to put the lens element in to resell. It’s probably not a problem, but it’s worth knowing.
- it is mounted in a press shutter (I think that’s what they are called) that only goes up to 1/125. A ‘proper’ Copal #0 will have 1/250 and 1/500 which that shutter doesn’t have. I don’t know if you need or will use those speeds, but I tend to prefer having those speeds as options.

To me, I’d avoid any lens that looks like the shutters have been swapped, because then I start wondering if the aperture scale is correct, or if it was swapped for a reason. For a lot of lenses, it’s hard to make that determination, but Nikkors list the lens name on the shutter so you know it’s the right shutter.

 

[wiltw]

Different aspect ratio of the frame makes it challenging to specify 'equivalent AOV'. I have found a way to equalize aspect ratio is simply to ignore the diagonal measure, and pay attention to the shortest dimension of the frame.

If 35mm FL was your favorite FL on 135, 35 = 24mm * 1.46. So for 4x5 (measured image on my film holders =93mm x 120mm) 93 * 1.46 = 135mm
and both 135 format and 4x5 format would capture identical vertical AOV from identical camera position.

To carry the concept further, 82mm would proivide identical 'vertical AOV' for 6x7, 6x9, and 6x12 cameras, and the very much wider captured horizontal of 6x12 is clearly the result of only a longer horizontal image dimension of its frame.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Just to check if I get it. If I look at this one: https://www.ebay.at/itm/194058008043?hash=item2d2ec235eb:g:IsgAAOSwKU9flb72

- Copal shutters are very recommended
- the included lens board might not fit, but "Copal 0" is a standardized size, so a lens board for that shutter size might be needed
- mounting a LF lens on a lens board is straightforward and, as long as the board is Copal 0, I would be OK
- "for Wista" on the Copal is meaningless
- cable releases are universal
- do I miss something or should I consider anything else?

So if I was looking for a 135mm for an Intrepid (or Chamonix, or Shen Hao,...) 4x5, this one would meet the requirements.

Only thing left to consider is the image circle. At 200mm, it's not small but not huge (albeit there are lenses with much smaller ones). If it's part of a set, it doesn't matter much. If it's your only lens, it might limit you a tad in some movements, but not that much with what you want to do, and certainly not enough to prevent you from experimenting (153mm is the minimum needed for 4x5, so you do have some wiggle room).

It'll be fine for portraits, landscape, urban environment, maybe a bit more problematic for some architecture. I've had the Sironar N 135mm with the same image circle, but didn't use it enough to tell you how limiting it is. That said, did some fine portraits, still life and general landscape with it with no problems and enough movements for my needs. Others probably could be more precise on this, with their own experiences of lenses with a 200mm image circle.

When doing your lens purchases, it's really important to check this, but figuring out how much image circle one really needs for 4x5 is, I found, the most difficult part in searching for a good lens. Some are obviously way too small - I had a good deal on a Schneider 120mm Symmar a short while ago but didn't go for it because of the 179mm ic - and others are obviously made for 8x10 cameras.

You find almost all the info you need here regarding the image circles of most 4x5 lenses.

EDIT: just noticed abruzzi wrote about the image circle at the same time I did. My 200mm is base on f/22 while his number is based on f/5.6 (which I never use in large format). I second his comments about the shutter. That should raise a few red flags, not about the lens but about this particular sale.

 

[sfphoto]

Just to check if I get it. If I look at this one: https://www.ebay.at/itm/194058008043?hash=item2d2ec235eb:g:IsgAAOSwKU9flb72
So if I was looking for a 135mm for an Intrepid (or Chamonix, or Shen Hao,...) 4x5, this one would meet the requirements.

Yes that lens would - however IMO you might want to look further. Also yes to your other notes re: mounting and cable release. One review of the Intrepid mentioned that the front was prone to moving when firing the cable release.

Reviews pan the Nikkor 135 in favor of other brands, here is just one discussion:
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/nikkor-w-135-mm.238959/
"The 135mm Nikkor is perhaps the only DOG large format lens in the Nikon arsenal"
A Fujinon is suggested to be better and have more movement (larger image circle).

One note regarding any manufacturer but particularly Rodenstock is that they made multiple models. With just the Sironar name there is a Sironar, Sironar N & and APO Sironar.

Someone put together this list of Fuji lenses, look at how many variation of 125mm lenses there are:
http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm

I do not necessarily recommend the following, only list as reference:
https://www.ebay.at/itm/284292549434
https://www.ebay.at/itm/393274045265
https://www.ebay.at/itm/393329655722

Here is a good primer:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses-primer/

Fungus/haze can SOMETIMES be removed
A speed tester is not expensive yet I see NO sellers offering to provide results
Aperture blades often get stuck with dirt in the oil and can be cleaned but the blades can also break

 

[John Earley]

a couple of comments on that specific lens:
- it has been remounted from its original shutter. Every Nikkor I’ve seen came with a black ringed Copal, so this seems like it has been moved. Maybe someone bought it for the shutter, and found an older shutter to put the lens element in to resell.

I've owned 4 different Nikkor large format lenses that were mounted in silver ring Copal shutters - two 300mm, one 450mm and a 150mm. They all worked just fine.

For example:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/194057794222?hash=item2d2ebef2ae:g:IsgAAOSwKU9flb72
https://www.ebay.com/itm/384167652540?hash=item59722d2cbc:g:9L4AAOSwvCZgnGuB
https://www.ebay.com/itm/154449646039?hash=item23f5ea91d7:g:6IIAAOSwMWVgmwp~
https://www.ebay.com/itm/373469069868?hash=item56f47dc22c:g:qtQAAOSwJstgMbYS
https://www.ebay.com/itm/184833086625?hash=item2b08e914a1:g:YpUAAOSwzeFgnHL~

 

[abruzzi]

I'm sure they work fine, thats not my point, it is evidence that they have been changed. For many people thats not an issue, but when I buy a used car, I look for evidence of overspray, or if the engine number doesn't match. I'll let someone else but the one that has a rebuilt engine. I'll hold out for one that hasn't been messed with.

EDIT: I'll add that of the ones you listed: 1,3, and 5 have press shutters without speeds over 1/125, and #2 has the wrong aperture scale as it opens up to ƒ3.5 on a lens that maxes at ƒ4.5.

 

[outwest]

If you want a really nice small 135 with plenty of coverage for a 4x5 and that will also cover 5x7, you might consider a Kodak Wide Field Ektar. Made when Koday quality control and glass quality were at its peak it is a superb lens that is often overlooked. I've had three of them and I still have the first one as in testing the second two there was absolutely no difference in the quality.

 

[John Earley]

I'm sure they work fine, thats not my point, it is evidence that they have been changed.

I agree that some shutters may have been switched but this Nikon brochure from the mid 70's proves that Nikkor large format lenses did come in older chrome ring Copal shutters.

Screen Shot 2021-05-20 at 5.15.20 PM by JOHN EARLEY, on Flickr