Thanks, I'm very happy with it, it is in mint condition.......still haven't got the lens yet. The seller threw in 6 Fidelity film holders and a Canham Copal 0 lensboard for free and he messaged me today and said he found another lens board, Copal 3, so he's going to mail it to me..........awesome of him to do that.
Preferred 1st lens choice for 4x5
-
A
- Thread starter Chuck_P
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Zone VI Development Timer and Newsletters
- Started by 2Dogs
-
Sold Nikon s2 with 50mm 1.4
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
Sold Fujifilm 4x5 Fujichrome Veliva 100 and Fujifilm 4x5 Fujichrome 64T. EXPIRED
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
Sold Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros 120 and 4x5
- Started by Renato Tonelli
Forum statistics
Thanks, I'm very happy with it, it is in mint condition.......still haven't got the lens yet. The seller threw in 6 Fidelity film holders and a Canham Copal 0 lensboard for free and he messaged me today and said he found another lens board, Copal 3, so he's going to mail it to me..........awesome of him to do that.
Yes, you have a honey of a camera. I thought about getting one before I bought a Chamonix 4X5. I'm sure I would have been very happy either way.
135mm is perfect choice. Then eventually 90 and around 200mm.
You've done your research so you probably already know: Keith provides great customer support. You can just call him up and he answers any questions you might have about the camera. He ships quickly, too, in case you need a new ground glass, bellows, service, etc.
Thank you for the info....
Still, I have been doing a lot of thinking on this choice of first lens, not quite ready to buy yet as I am still funneling time and dollars toward getting the darkroom reignited (sink is built, primed, finishing up the 2nd finish coat today, then installing drain and connecting the plumbing). Anyway........any thoughts on a 120mm lens vs. a 135mm lens? I've seen multiple different focal length equivalent charts that indicates not much difference between the wide-angle aspect of the two lenses, maybe 4 or 5mm. Also, for 4x5, what would be the minimum image circle that I would want to make sure any lens I get has so that it covers moderate movements of my Canham DLC? Hope that's not too broad of a question.
The minimum for 4x5 is around 165mm, so that's a starting point. Then the coverage one needs beyond that depends on the type of photography one does and one's need of sharp consistent coverage delivered to the corners of your negative. This list gives a quick reference to image circle of modern lenses (at f/22, and at infnity, I believe, so a good reference for landscape).
If one can use back movements, by themselves or in conjunction with front movements, one can reduce the need for a larger image circle for tilt/swing...though rise/fall is more limiting.
I suggest keeping your eyes out for an low-priced 150mm, $200 or less, just to have on hand to compare to the 135mm it sounds you are getting. And it can be used to experiment with images that need the coverage. An extra shutter is nice to have around, and a 150mm would be a cheap way to do it.
I bought a Caltar IIN 150mm new back in about 1982 and used it this summer on several pack trips.
If one can use back movements, by themselves or in conjunction with front movements, one can reduce the need for a larger image circle for tilt/swing...though rise/fall is more limiting.
I suggest keeping your eyes out for an low-priced 150mm, $200 or less, just to have on hand to compare to the 135mm it sounds you are getting. And it can be used to experiment with images that need the coverage. An extra shutter is nice to have around, and a 150mm would be a cheap way to do it.
I bought a Caltar IIN 150mm new back in about 1982 and used it this summer on several pack trips.
As Vaughn has said, the IC target depends a lot on what king of photography you do. A lot of photographers end up with lenses with much more IC than they will ever use. It would be great if all 4x5 lens had ICs of 200mm -- an extra inch for movement on each side at infinity -- but most people don't need that. Plus, a lot of lenses that you might want, just don't have that much -- such as very wide-angle lenses. On two of my very wide lenses, I only have about 1/4" of movement -- but with those lenses I don't need much at all. So there is no magic number -- but the larger the IC, the greater the price, size, weight, etc.
As to 120mm vs 135mm, there's a BIG difference IMHO. I'd stick with a 135mm for "normal" and get a 90mm-105mm if you want a wide-angle.
As to 120mm vs 135mm, there's a BIG difference IMHO. I'd stick with a 135mm for "normal" and get a 90mm-105mm if you want a wide-angle.
Chuck, IMO it's nearly impossible to figure out in advance, what's going to work for you & what lens you'll find to be a sweet spot. Check out the photos in this blogspot. Gary Nylander is a fine photographer whom i met. I'd bet $50 he could live with just a 120mm. http://garynylander.blogspot.com/2010/11/twisted-tree-root.html . At the outset you're going to start photographing with one lens.....but the entire process of working in LF is so different....there will be many things to adapt to.
Exactly my opinion.
@Chuck_P : Why agonize over buying your one first lens for 4x5 when you can agonize over three! Heck, look at wide-angle 90mm lenses in both f/8 and f/5.6 (f/4.5 and f/6.8 if you like Rodenstock) and the wide selection of Plasmats and other designs in the 180-210mm range. You know you're going to need at least three lenses. Why go through all the torture two more times when you can do it all at once.
Doremus
When you consider FL 'equvialence' consider the short dimension (frame distance) and its multiples, to arrive at 'same AOV' in the short direction of the frame.
- LF frame = 93mm short dimension, 150mm = 93 * 1.61
- So the 135 format short direction AOV captured would be same as using FL = 24 * 1.61, or 38mm on 135 format
I agree, including the serial number in a photo. eBay especially Japanese sellers show you all the pictures. I had good experiences buying from them. Pick the ones with a 99-100% favorable rating and at least 50+ sales. Read the description to see if there are any issues. Ask questions before you buy if you have any. Compare prices to other sellers.
That's how I messed up. I should have bought Richard Avedon's lens.
Comparing 35mm which is 3:2 format vs. 4x5 which is 4:5 format is like comparing apples and oranges. The formats way different shapes. The diagonal, horizontal, and verticle angles and field of view are very different that you can say 50mm in 35mm is the same as 150mm or even 135mm in 4x5.
If you want to get a handle on the differences, check out this app and look at the angle each lens type takes and how different they are. It depends if you want to match up the horizontal field of view or let's say the diagonal field of view when trying to match lenses. Maybe someone can present some examples here. (I don't have time for it now.)
Lens calculator
If you want to get a handle on the differences, check out this app and look at the angle each lens type takes and how different they are. It depends if you want to match up the horizontal field of view or let's say the diagonal field of view when trying to match lenses. Maybe someone can present some examples here. (I don't have time for it now.)
Lens calculator
The first lens's focal length will not matter since, one will probably evolve to have approximately a 90mm, 135mm and a 210mm lenses or some variation of that.
Exactly my opinion.
@Chuck_P : Why agonize over buying your one first lens for 4x5 when you can agonize over three! Heck, look at wide-angle 90mm lenses in both f/8 and f/5.6 (f/4.5 and f/6.8 if you like Rodenstock) and the wide selection of Plasmats and other designs in the 180-210mm range. You know you're going to need at least three lenses. Why go through all the torture two more times when you can do it all at once.
Doremus
Not sure what your point is, but yes, I probably will acquire at least three lenses in due time. And agonizing is a bit strong, more like just contemplating.....the aniticipation of it brings me joy, not agony.
Chuck,
I was just being my normal, flippant, self
But seriously, if you're looking at a first lens, it would be a good idea to make a plan for your lens kit or kits for the future. Me, I like 90mm, 135mm, 203mm and 300mm. The lenses I chose are lightweight (no 210 Plasmat for me; too heavy and bulky - I like my 203mm f/7.7 Ektar) and evenly-spaced at approx 1.5x intervals.
I like lightweight and a small maximum aperture doesn't bother me. I work in the field and often carry my kit relatively long distances. All that helped determine my lens choices. Studio photographers or architectural photographers with lots of assistants to carry gear for them like huge lenses with lots of coverage and a large choice of focal lengths. Some minimalist types work with just one lens; others like the look of vintage lenses like Petzvals, etc., etc.
There are many possibilities for spacing focal lengths too: some like 90mm, 150mm, 240mm for a three-lens kit; many like a very wide 65mm or 75mm (or even wider) lens for their widest and then a 150mm and a 300mm. That gets the extremes and relies on cropping and careful framing to get whatever lies between. Some like to carry 75mm, 90mm, 135mm, 150mm, 180mm, 210mm, 240mm, 300mm and a 360mm or even 450mm lens to be able to have a lens for every eventuality.
My point is, your first lens should be a fit for your ideal future lens kit in both focal length, size, coverage and optical characteristics.
So, while you're contemplating your first lens, contemplate a few steps further at the same time.
Best,
Doremus
I see your point, well taken.
I see your point, well taken.
I can tell you what I did agonize about and that was the decision to get my b&w photography/darkroom going again knowing the cost that is involved since I sold a lot of things. The two single biggest costs are the camera, which I now have in the Canham DLC, and a lens, that I have yet to pull the trigger on. Soon though.........
Chuck,
I was just being my normal, flippant, self
Me, I like 90mm, 135mm, 203mm and 300mm. The lenses I chose are lightweight (no 210 Plasmat for me; too heavy and bulky - I like my 203mm f/7.7 Ektar) and evenly-spaced at approx 1.5x intervals.
I like lightweight and a small maximum aperture doesn't bother me. I work in the field and often carry my kit relatively long distances. All that helped determine my lens choices. Studio photographers or architectural photographers with lots of assistants to carry gear for them like huge lenses with lots of coverage and a large choice of focal lengths. Some minimalist types work with just one lens; others like the look of vintage lenses like Petzvals, etc., etc.
There are many possibilities for spacing focal lengths too: some like 90mm, 150mm, 240mm for a three-lens kit; many like a very wide 65mm or 75mm (or even wider) lens for their widest and then a 150mm and a 300mm. That gets the extremes and relies on cropping and careful framing to get whatever lies between. Some like to carry 75mm, 90mm, 135mm, 150mm, 180mm, 210mm, 240mm, 300mm and a 360mm or even 450mm lens to be able to have a lens for every eventuality.
My point is, your first lens should be a fit for your ideal future lens kit in both focal length, size, coverage and optical characteristics.
So, while you're contemplating your first lens, contemplate a few steps further at the same time.
Best,
Doremus
I see your point, well taken.
I can tell you what I did agonize about and that was the decision to get my b&w photography/darkroom going again knowing the cost that is involved since I sold a lot of things. The two single biggest costs are the camera, which I now have in the Canham DLC, and a lens, that I have yet to pull the trigger on. Soon though.........
What sort of photography do you do? I think I read up thread that you want something slightly wider than the 50mm in 35mm format?
If that's the case, then I would go for a 150. I find it somewhat between 35 and 50 in 35mm, but there isn't a direct comparison. The 150 gives a useful increase in image circle compared to a 135, so you can use a lot more movements and not run out of coverage. I'd get a lens from Japan on Ebay, any of the Nikon or Fuji 150/5.6 lenses would work well.
If that's the case, then I would go for a 150. I find it somewhat between 35 and 50 in 35mm, but there isn't a direct comparison. The 150 gives a useful increase in image circle compared to a 135, so you can use a lot more movements and not run out of coverage. I'd get a lens from Japan on Ebay, any of the Nikon or Fuji 150/5.6 lenses would work well.
...which is why using the short dimension of the frame, and its multiples WILL result in SAME ANGLE of VIEW along the short dimension of the frame, regardless of format aspect ratio!
See if this helps. 4x5 is much more 'square' than a 35mm frame.
So if you compare using the 'long' sides, 50mm~165mm but on 4x5 you get much more vertical.
Compare using the 'short' sides and 50mm~210mm, but on 4x5 the longer edge is chopped.
35mm
Width = 24 mm, Length = 36 mm, Diagonal = 43.2666 mm
f Hor Vert Diag H/V
16.0 96.7329 73.7398 107.0267 1.3118
18.0 90.0000 67.3801 100.4757 1.3357
21.0 81.2026 59.4898 91.7021 1.3650
24.0 73.7398 53.1301 84.0622 1.3879
28.0 65.4705 46.3972 75.3806 1.4111
35.0 54.4322 37.8493 63.4400 1.4381
43.0 45.4288 31.1856 53.4140 1.4567
50.0 39.5978 26.9915 46.7930 1.4670
58.0 34.4829 23.3787 40.9098 1.4750
75.0 26.9915 18.1806 32.1798 1.4846
85.0 23.9132 16.0714 28.5583 1.4879
100.0 20.4079 13.6855 24.4137 1.4912
105.0 19.4552 13.0396 23.2837 1.4920
4/5
Width = 108 mm, Length = 120 mm, Diagonal = 161.443 mm
f Hor Vert Diag H/V
47.0 103.8544 97.9293 119.5800 1.0605
58.0 91.9420 85.9092 108.6042 1.0702
65.0 85.4188 79.4375 102.3155 1.0753
90.0 67.3801 61.9275 83.7784 1.0880
100.0 61.9275 56.7381 77.8221 1.0915
105.0 59.4898 54.4322 75.1046 1.0929
135.0 47.9250 43.6028 61.7537 1.0991
150.0 43.6028 39.5978 56.5734 1.1011
180.0 36.8699 33.3985 48.3081 1.1039
210.0 31.8908 28.8415 42.0524 1.1057
So if you compare using the 'long' sides, 50mm~165mm but on 4x5 you get much more vertical.
Compare using the 'short' sides and 50mm~210mm, but on 4x5 the longer edge is chopped.
35mm
Width = 24 mm, Length = 36 mm, Diagonal = 43.2666 mm
f Hor Vert Diag H/V
16.0 96.7329 73.7398 107.0267 1.3118
18.0 90.0000 67.3801 100.4757 1.3357
21.0 81.2026 59.4898 91.7021 1.3650
24.0 73.7398 53.1301 84.0622 1.3879
28.0 65.4705 46.3972 75.3806 1.4111
35.0 54.4322 37.8493 63.4400 1.4381
43.0 45.4288 31.1856 53.4140 1.4567
50.0 39.5978 26.9915 46.7930 1.4670
58.0 34.4829 23.3787 40.9098 1.4750
75.0 26.9915 18.1806 32.1798 1.4846
85.0 23.9132 16.0714 28.5583 1.4879
100.0 20.4079 13.6855 24.4137 1.4912
105.0 19.4552 13.0396 23.2837 1.4920
4/5
Width = 108 mm, Length = 120 mm, Diagonal = 161.443 mm
f Hor Vert Diag H/V
47.0 103.8544 97.9293 119.5800 1.0605
58.0 91.9420 85.9092 108.6042 1.0702
65.0 85.4188 79.4375 102.3155 1.0753
90.0 67.3801 61.9275 83.7784 1.0880
100.0 61.9275 56.7381 77.8221 1.0915
105.0 59.4898 54.4322 75.1046 1.0929
135.0 47.9250 43.6028 61.7537 1.0991
150.0 43.6028 39.5978 56.5734 1.1011
180.0 36.8699 33.3985 48.3081 1.1039
210.0 31.8908 28.8415 42.0524 1.1057
And dont worry too much about it.. 135/150mm lenses are not that expensive, and plenty around.
Just get a clean f5.6 lens from one of Fuji, Nikon, Rodenstock, Schneider. They are all the same 6/4 design.
Just get a clean f5.6 lens from one of Fuji, Nikon, Rodenstock, Schneider. They are all the same 6/4 design.
FYI, Fuji's NW & CM-W 150mm & 135mm f5.6 lenses are all 6/6 designs.
Is there a performance difference between the two designs?
I get different angles and field of view for 4/5.
https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator/#{%22c%22:[{%22f%22:19,%22av%22:%224%22,%22fl%22:150,%22d%22:30480,%22cm%22:%220%22}],%22m%22:0}
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |