Large Format Lenses recommendation

[Guna Dwi]

I

Both the Fujinon and Nikkor telephotos infinity focus at about 80% of their actual focal length, that helps some. I have the 400mm Fujinon, very good lens.
I also have the 65mm Nkkor, My revenge for all the years I struggled to focus my F8 65mm Super Angulon. I think the Nikkor is slightly retro focus and the actual infinity focus is longer. It came in a recessed lensboard but it doesn't need it.

I think 65 is very wide for me, maybe my widest lens will be 90, i dont know i need to test every lens when i have them and see what i like/need.
Do you use it mostly with film back?

 

[BradS]

It's an offer i can't refuse...

As in The Godfather, "I made him an offer he couldn't refuse" ?

Other wise, again, I'd certainly pass if I were you.

 

[Guna Dwi]

Your Symmar-S is a keeper !

I would recomend you to purchase glass slowly, before assembling a kit I'd practice a lot with the symmar 150mm you have.

One shots with what he has, but you only can select your kit properly after you learn what you want from the glasses, and you only will learn what you really want after some extensive practice.


For example, portrait glass is an entire world, please read this https://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/ , you will find that Out of Focus depiction may more important than technical performance, LF delivers sharpness in excess for portraits, but the way you play with the OOF may allow an amazing 3D depth. It's more what you do than the particular glass you use, but you may wnt some nuances from a glass.

In general for LF lenses you consider 3 factors

1) Coverage, a large circle is desired for architecture, but the lens gets slower and/or heavier.

2) Lightweight, desired for the field, but an smaller lens is slower and/or it has an smaller circle.

3) Speed, it can be desired for wet plate and portraiture, but a fast lens is heavier and/or has an smaller coverage

Also you may want smooth Out of Focus, you may get a lens that also covers larger formats in the future, but the large image circle may deliver flare if not using a compendium shade. Also you have to learn about shutters, those available may have not been serviced for decades, you have to learn what shutters you want and how to check their accuracy.

Of course, you also should assemble your kit in a way focals are progressive, with a 30% longer focal in each step, or a 50%. For example you may get a 65-90-120-180-240-360 kit, or perhaps 75-105-150-210-300

then you may want certain great coverage in some focals and a narrower one in others...

What I'm saying is that time is in your side, first you should mature your LF style before you assemble your personal kit, for the moment perhaps I'd buy a single additional lens, better if it's cheap for now.

Wow, what a valuable insight, thanks for breaking it down for me. Im agree if i should do it slowy for LF, but i can't pass this offer. Maybe i should manage time to explore each lens that i choose when i have them.

What i have in mind is 90-150-210-300
I dont shoot interior or landscape very much so maybe 90 will be my widest lens.
210 for portrait and 300 i want to keep it in case i want to move up to 8x10 in the future.
because besides shoot on film i will shoot on wet plate also, so bigger size of plate maybe will be my option later.

And also im interest to have an option to shoot with 617 film back so 90 and 150 is ideal for this

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

For 4x5 I tend to use Nikkor SW 120, Nikkor W 210, Nikkor M 300, G-Claron 355 (all with a 4x5 reducing back on my 8x10)
For 8x10: 120, 210, 240, 300, 355 (all same as above), Nikkor M 450, Fujinon C 600
The 300, 450, and 600 work nicely on my 14x17.

I have a Fujinon 90, but I rarely use it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

We tend to have somewhat different preferences about angle of view, focal length, etc. I personally gravitate toward longer focal lengths, and have never even owned a "normal" 150. My idea of normal for 4x5 is a 250 ! But in any case, the overriding factor is the practicality of any lens for a given camera, and not just what anyone happens to like for another format or style of equipment.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

What i have in mind is 90-150-210-300
I dont shoot interior or landscape very much so maybe 90 will be my widest lens.
210 for portrait and 300 i want to keep it in case i want to move up to 8x10 in the future.
because besides shoot on film i will shoot on wet plate also, so bigger size of plate maybe will be my option later.

And also im interest to have an option to shoot with 617 film back so 90 and 150 is ideal for this

This makes sense. As to which 150 is better, I think the Apo-Symmar is newer, but otherwise, they’re both first rate normal lenses for 4x5”. Maybe one is in better condition or has a more reliable working shutter. If you buy the lenses, test both at different distances and apertures, and see which you like better. If you were planning to stick with 4x5”, I’d say keep the tele set, but if you’re thinking about 8x10”, then the 300 is a good choice.

 

[138S]

and have never even owned a "normal" 150. My idea of normal for 4x5 is a 250 !

Drew, you may say that the 250 is your normally preferred 4x5 focal, but it should not be your idea about what a Normal Lens is. "normal lens is a lens that reproduces a field of view that appears "natural" to a human observer". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens) I doubt you feel the 250mm view like if it was your naked eye...

If everyone says that the normal lens is its preferred focal then one would not understand what another one is saying... The Normal Lens concept is clear, a focal about the format diagonal.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I said "my idea" of normal. I'm well aware of the diagonal rule, and couldn't care less about it. But that has nothing to do with what appears "natural" to human vision, unless you're a one-eyed cyclops with somewhat tunnel vision. And I'm also aware that Picasso liked painting mythological creatures like cyclops and minotaurs with one eye pointing one way, and the other toward a different plane, cubist-style, so maybe his idea of "normal" would be a split-image right-angle prism in front of the lens. In any event, there's no logical functional reason to even recommend 150 as a starter lens for 4x5. When my older brother was in the photo academy the students were told not to waste their limited funds on a 150, but instead get a 210 for sake of portaiture and its bigger image circle, and a 90 WA for architectural use. Hence most them thought of 210 as their version of normal.

 

[Lachlan Young]

...get a 210 for ...its bigger image circle

Apologies for chopping your comment up Drew - but you have identified the biggest reason to get a classic plasmat type 210 for 4x5, especially if someone is finding they need a lot of camera movements - it requires some serious studio camera-yoga to really hit the edges - I suspect more people bought 120/121mm Super Angulon's for 4x5 than for any of the larger formats for this reason too...

Strand's preferred 305 on 5x6.25 roughly equates to a 250 on 4x5, so it's not that unusual. Personally, I find anything with a focal length more than about 10% over the dimension of the long side of the film in large format starts to feel a bit too much like a mug shot - at least in the 1:1.25ish formats.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The only lens I owned and used for the first ten years was a 210/5.6 Symmar S. It had a generous image circle, and I used it for everything - landscape, tabletop, portraiture, architecture. Later I branched, especially once I needed lenses I could use for either 4x5 or 8x10.

 

[removed account4]

Buy the lot. Try each lens and see which one(s) you like best, sell the rest at reasonable prices. It's that simple.

+1

yup its that simple

 

[138S]

FUJINON :
- 90/8
- 210/5.6
- 250/6.3
- 600/12

NIKKOR :
- 65/4
- 300/5.6
- Tele 360/8 Rear lens + Front lens
- Tele 500/11 Rear lens
- Tele 800/12 Rear lens + Front lens

RODENSTOCK :
- Sironar N 150/5.6
- Geronar WA 90/8

SINARON :
- Sinaron S 360/6.8

Hmmmm.... It has to be said that this is a very well balanced kit, the original owner sported some remarkable wisdom when he gathered this collection, he knew what he was purchasing. It allows from 4x5, 8x10 and even ULF, and it covers very well all general and studio and field shooting. Personally I would not replace a single lens if having that kit. I would value conserving the integrity of the collection, perhaps like if it was a little tribute to the former owner that gathered that collection for you.

It would not be a surpise that those shutters are also ok, somebody owning such a collection probably had the gear in shape, if you had to gather that asset probably you would not be able to avoid owning some "dogs" and faulty shutters.

If you are to take seriously LF for sure and wanting to upgrade to 8x10 then this is a great kit. If you are not to shot 8x10 in the short term and wanting to make cash you may sell some of the expensive 8x10 lenses, like the fantastic 600/12 to take $2000 to $3000, it is a true keeper but if not using it often perhaps it's better investing that cash to assemble a LF darkroom, this is the practical side. We don't know what will happen with prices of old gear in the future, but this is 2020 and still this kind of photography has enthusiasts and artists at work, but the value of the collection may vary (up or down)over time, one has to consider also the investment nature.

While it is a perfect general kit, of course one may make future additions depending on speciaized needs. One may add some old fashion portraiture glass, like an Heliar, or a super symmar xl for extreme achitectural shots.

When I started I also bought the kit of a former Pro, it was 1/3 of the lenses and 1/20 of the value compared to that kit, but it was great to start having the tools gathered by somebody sporting some wisdom in then gear acquisition.

 

[DREW WILEY]

That's probably a 600T/12 - a telephoto - which doesn't sell for much these days, and not the expensive 600C. None of those lenses are realistic for 8x10 except the Sinaron 360 and the Nikkor 300/5.6.

 

[138S]

That's probably a 600T/12 - a telephoto - which doesn't sell for much these days, and not the expensive 600C. None of those lenses are realistic for 8x10 except the Sinaron 360 and the Nikkor 300/5.6.

Drew, check the original list....


FUJINON :
- 90/8
- 210/5.6
- 250/6.3
- 600/12

NIKKOR :
- 65/4
- 300/5.6
- Tele 360/8 Rear lens + Front lens
- Tele 500/11 Rear lens
- Tele 800/12 Rear lens + Front lens

RODENSTOCK :
- Sironar N 150/5.6
- Geronar WA 90/8

SINARON :
- Sinaron S 360/6.8


The Nikon 800/12 is also for 8x10" !!!


The 6 lenses covering 8x10" () should be:


FUJINON :
- 210/5.6 (it can be used, lacks 2mm nominal)
- 250/6.3 , the CM-W, covers well, 7mm in excess
- 600/12 (it can be both , the fujinon C covering the king format or the T not covering it)

NIKKOR :
- 300/5.6
- Tele 800/12 Rear lens + Front lens

SINARON :
- Sinaron S 360/6.8


Owner had to be a 8x10 shooter (5x7 at least) because he had the T800 (see that two rears are there), the 4x5 set is 360-500-720... the 800 if from the 8x10 set.



Then having the Nikon T500 for 4x5 (IMO) it makes a lot of sense that the 600 is the C for 8x10, also consider it's a good performance/expensive kit, so the the C 600 would not be a surprise at all, given how the other lenses are.

If the 600 is a Fujinon T (instead C) then only 5 lenses would cover 8x10...

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't see why there would be a 600C in the set if there was a Nikkor tele which sorta covers 8x10. But he can find that out for himself. The 250/6.3 would not be realistic for 8x10 - 7mm wiggle room is nothing; it's the 250/6.7 that works for 8x10.

 

[138S]

The 250/6.3 would not be realistic for 8x10 - 7mm wiggle room is nothing; it's the 250/6.7 that works for 8x10.

The 6.3 is a totally able 8x10 glass!!! Of course the 6.3 is not the the most 250 versatile choice, but (at 500gr) it was relatively lightweight and cheap for 8x10, still a totally able 8x10" landscape choice that would travel in the same bag than the T800.

Drew, for many general shots we don't need translational movements and at all, the 250/6.3 (for 8x10) allows any tilt-swing for landscape or for ambiental portaits, it is true that for architecture we may want ample rise-shift and the 6.3 won't allow it, but many 8x10" shooters tipically had been using lenses scarcely covering the format, as 8x10 excess coverage can be quite expensive and it may require heavy and/or slow designs.

The T600-800-1200 kit for example has been extensively used in 8x10", and it covers only 310mm nominally when format requirement is 312.5, it also happens with the SW 120 or the SA

In 8x10 we have more limited choices, and many we have to shot more with what we have than with what we would desire, still usually this is not a practical limitation at all.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Rise just for architecture and not for landscape applications? Ever hear of mountains and tall trees? Don't tell me the Pyrenees have already eroded away! The fact is that a 600-800-1200 tele kit would be ridiculously heavy to tote around in the hills, whereas far smaller lenses are available which not only have way better coverage on 8x10, but are likely to be cheaper in many cases, especially if one adapts long focal length barrel process lenses. And in the wider 240-250mm range, both the Fuji 240A and 250 G-Claron have about the same coverage as the 250/6.7 Fuji, superior to a 250/6.3, but are even smaller, among the more commonly seen options.

 

[138S]

Rise just for architecture and not for landscape applications? Ever hear of mountains and tall trees?

Of course rise may be used in landscape when the lens allows it... but MF and 35mm cameras have shot insane amounts of landscapes with no rise movement, and many LF landscape shots don't use rise.

Don't tell me the Pyrenees have already eroded away!

Well, Pyrenees have been eroded from (calculated) 8000m to 3404m, limestone on the top disapeared many millions of years ago... granite remains.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't care what other people do, or what the custom might be. Here in the main Sierra mountain range of our West Coast there is very little limestone - just a narrow band of it running many miles, containing many caves. Most of the range is a long granite upraised fault-block. But in certain areas, more ancient metamorphic rock were lifted up atop the granite batholiths. Geologists term these "roof pendants", and here they form exceptionally steep cliffs and spires of more colorful rock atop the granite. I've used all the rise I could get out of my Sinar in some of those places. There are also some volcanic formations mixed into all of this. Lower down, the granite has actually eroded away from even more resistant layers of basalt that once were rivers of lava filling Pliocene river beds. After both uplift and erosion, these now remain as flat tablelands high above the current river canyons, with sheer columnar basalt cliff perimeters. Underneath them are capped-off sandstone remains of still earlier Pliocene riverbeds, sometime containing petrified palm wood. There are no cave paintings, though you might get bitten by a coyote for invading his den when looking for them!

 

[Lachlan Young]

It looks like a 4x5/ 5x7 lens kit, probably for a Sinar. I've often seen 360mm plasmats on 4x5 Sinar setups. The 250/6.3 and 600/12 are pretty clear giveaways that it wasn't supposed to stretch to 8x10. I wonder what the percentages of people using the 250/6.3 Fujinon on 8x10 are, compared to the 250/6.7 - not high, I'd hazard a guess.

 

[Bob S]

It looks like a 4x5/ 5x7 lens kit, probably for a Sinar. I've often seen 360mm plasmats on 4x5 Sinar setups. The 250/6.3 and 600/12 are pretty clear giveaways that it wasn't supposed to stretch to 8x10. I wonder what the percentages of people using the 250/6.3 Fujinon on 8x10 are, compared to the 250/6.7 - not high, I'd hazard a guess.

And why wouldn’t that selection be for a
LInhof Kardan, a Cambo, an Arca, a Toyo, a Plaubel or lots of other camera brands?

 

[Lachlan Young]

And why wouldn’t that selection be for a
LInhof Kardan, a Cambo, an Arca, a Toyo, a Plaubel or lots of other camera brands?

It equally could have been - it's just it was a Sinar branded lens that I noticed. Given the choice I'd rather have Linhof or Plaubel - if only Plaubel hadn't insisted on sticking to those Millionfalz Rada backs/ plateholders with international backs only as an option...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Lachlan - as you've probably noticed yourself, over on the dedicated LF Forum, the recommendation of the 250/6.7 is so habitually prominent that it's as if the 6.3 version didn't even exist (although it would be versatile for up to 5X7).

 

[Lachlan Young]

Lachlan - as you've probably noticed yourself, over on the dedicated LF Forum, the recommendation of the 250/6.7 is so habitually prominent that it's as if the 6.3 version didn't even exist (although it would be versatile for up to 5X7).

Yeah - I bought a 6.7 as I wanted a 250 with comfortable 8x10 coverage (WF Ektars being a much heftier investment these days) - if I was using 5x7 or whole plate as my maximum & enlarging to a decent size, I'd probably go with the 6.3 as it seems to be a newer design.

 

[Guna Dwi]

Y

Hmmmm.... It has to be said that this is a very well balanced kit, the original owner sported some remarkable wisdom when he gathered this collection, he knew what he was purchasing. It allows from 4x5, 8x10 and even ULF, and it covers very well all general and studio and field shooting. Personally I would not replace a single lens if having that kit. I would value conserving the integrity of the collection, perhaps like if it was a little tribute to the former owner that gathered that collection for you.

It would not be a surpise that those shutters are also ok, somebody owning such a collection probably had the gear in shape, if you had to gather that asset probably you would not be able to avoid owning some "dogs" and faulty shutters.

If you are to take seriously LF for sure and wanting to upgrade to 8x10 then this is a great kit. If you are not to shot 8x10 in the short term and wanting to make cash you may sell some of the expensive 8x10 lenses, like the fantastic 600/12 to take $2000 to $3000, it is a true keeper but if not using it often perhaps it's better investing that cash to assemble a LF darkroom, this is the practical side. We don't know what will happen with prices of old gear in the future, but this is 2020 and still this kind of photography has enthusiasts and artists at work, but the value of the collection may vary (up or down)over time, one has to consider also the investment nature.

While it is a perfect general kit, of course one may make future additions depending on speciaized needs. One may add some old fashion portraiture glass, like an Heliar, or a super symmar xl for extreme achitectural shots.

When I started I also bought the kit of a former Pro, it was 1/3 of the lenses and 1/20 of the value compared to that kit, but it was great to start having the tools gathered by somebody sporting some wisdom in then gear acquisition.

Yes it was used by Pro Photographer who died last year and his son selling it to me, mainly they are in good condition some of them just need clean the optics.

Actually I already bought the lot yesterday and thinking to sell few items especially the Tele lens because i wont use that much.