Preferred 1st lens choice for 4x5

[jtk]

After 135 I'd suggest 210. 150 isn't quite "normal" on 4X5 IMO. In studio/table-top (e.g. food) 210 was for me ideal. I might have been happier with 240. Nikor, not Schneider.

IMO Fuji is likely to be better than Schneider because better shutters.

Old Kodak Ektars might ring your bell.

 

[jtk]

Maybe there aren't many newbies that start with 4x5 (and I'm not sure about the OP's background). For newbies, something like a Kodak Ektar 127mm or similar Wollensak Raptor 127mm are not expensive and produce photos of sufficient quality to motivate/reward. I'd spend money on a CLA to get things dialed in.

Ektars are a lot better sharpness-wise than Raptors. If you're considering lenses of that vintage the shutter may be a bigger issue. On the other hand, neither Schneider nor Fuji is likely to rival Kodak's Commercial Ektars optically.

 

[MattKing]

It tells me a pic that is 569x602 is too large, that's the smallest resize option I have.

Is it a jpeg?

 

[Chuck_P]

Is it a jpeg?

Yes it is....

 

[MattKing]

Start a Conversation with me. Please include details about how you are doing this, because something is resulting in Photrio being presented with a bigger file than you think it is being presented with.
FWIW, I never upload directly from a cel phone. I always send a digital file from a cel phone to a computer, edit it, and then upload it from there.

 

[xkaes]

JPEGS have a LOT of FLAVORS. Some are compatible with everything -- some with next to nothing. Think of vanilla ice cream versus rocky road.

 

[ronw]

I'm in the middle of building up my LF kit again and starting with 150 and 90. i'd like to have more but i suffer from paralysis by analysis so i'll keep it simple ... for now. and i'll just stick to fp4/portra 160 and call it a day

 

[xkaes]

I'm in the middle of building up my LF kit again and starting with 150 and 90. i'd like to have more but i suffer from paralysis by analysis so i'll keep it simple ... for now.

Here's a simple solution to your quandary:

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/close-up.htm

 

[Vaughn]

The odd-size that seems to get little love is 180mm. I think most people feel it is in the awkward middle ground between 135/150mm and 210mm. For those not heavily focused on wide angle,135/180/250mm would be a nice set-up.

Before I was hired as the lab tech, the uni bought several Calumet 4x5s with Caltar IIN 180/5.6 lenses. They turned out to be useful lenses for the student, as we could only afford one lens per camera (I slowly could widen out the choices).

My Fuji W 180/5.6 (inside writing) is currently my main 5x7 lens. I have been tempted to find an inexpensive Fuji W 180mm with outside writing (less coverage than inside writing, but plenty for 4x5) to keep in my 4x5 kit.

 

[xkaes]

My Fuji W 180/5.6 (inside writing) is currently my main 5x7 lens. I have been tempted to find an inexpensive Fuji W 180mm with outside writing (less coverage than inside writing, but plenty for 4x5) to keep in my 4x5 kit.

The Fujinon W 180mm f5.6 has a 6/4 design and a 58mm thread. The NW model is a 6/6 design with EBC coating and a smaller IC. It came in two versions. The difference is that one has a 62mm filter thread, and the other a 67mm filter thread. I have the 67mm filter thread version, but have no idea which came first. Either way it is a hunk of glass. There is also the newer CM-W, which has a 67mm filter thread, a 6/5 design, and an even smaller IC.

That's a lot to choose from.

 

[Vaughn]

My 4x5 was a thin square 3.625" lens board, and my 5x7 has a wood 4.5" sq lensboard. An adapter between the two would be nice, but if I come across one of the two newer Fuji W 180s cheap, it could be difficult to pass up.

The 180 Fuji CM-W weighs 409 grams (0.9 lb). The Fuji A 180/9.0 tips in at a third of that if weight is a major consideration. (and only 9mm less coverage)

 

[Craig]

The 180 Fuji CM-W weighs 409 grams (0.9 lb). The Fuji A 180/9.0 tips in at a third of that if weight is a major consideration. (and only 9mm less coverage)

Although the A series are optimized for close up and copy work, rather than infinity focus landscapes.

 

[GregY]

Yeah, hence.......wanting opinions on a preferred first, or starter, 4x5 lens.

Aren't you waiting for one to be delivered? Is this thread going to turn into "Groundhog Day" ??

 

[Chuck_P]

I posted that it was delivered yesterday.....was going to post a pic of it on my new to me Canham45 but ran into problems uploading a pic from my phone......

 

[Chuck_P]

Ok, uploaded this from my desktop and no problems loading this one. The 135mm Sironar N lens arrived quite unexpectedly yesterday based off the tracking messages I was getting. So here it is on the KB Canham45 DLC with the lens at infinity focus. Robert Frost's poetic line in his poem, "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" comes to mind "........I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep, and miles to go before I sleep."

Well, I have a darkroom to complete, and money to spend before I print, and money to spend before I print. But these two purchases are the single biggest ones and so I'm getting closer.

 

[Vaughn]

Although the A series are optimized for close up and copy work, rather than infinity focus landscapes.

Thanks -- I did not consider the need for significant enlargement. But they do have an angle of coverage of 70 degrees, unlike many process lenses, and are designed to fit into a nice little Copal 0 shutter.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Chuck: Nice setup. Good luck and have fun.

 

[maltfalc]

4/5
Width = 108 mm, Length = 120 mm, Diagonal = 161.443 mm

i don't know where you got those numbers. they don't match 4x5's image dimensions or film dimensions or 4"x5".

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}

that's not right either.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

i don't know where you got those numbers. they don't match 4x5's image dimensions or film dimensions or 4"x5".

that's not right either.

Where do you get your data? Do you have a link?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

i don't know where you got those numbers. they don't match 4x5's image dimensions or film dimensions or 4"x5".

that's not right either.

Here's the calculator;s author;s method of calculating the angle. Note there are two methods. Which one is wrong or both?

calculator site with explanation

Angle and Field of View​

Angle of View Method 1:		θ the angle of view s is the focus distance h is the frame dimension f is the focal length
Angle of View Method 2:
Field of View:

The calculator calculates angle of view using two different methods. Both arrive at the same result at infinity focus, but differ at closer focusing distances. Since fields of view are calculated using the angle of view, there are also two calculated values for the field of view at the specified distance; one for each method. Further, neither method is completely accurate at very close focusing distances. For more information on this, see Calculating the Angle of View: When Theory Meets Practice.

Method 1 is a “naive” method that assumes that the angle of view for the format, which is the angle of view at infinity focus, does not change when the lens is focused closer.

Method 2 compensates for lens extension when focusing closer than infinity.

Which method should you use?

Use Method
Does your lens extend when focusing?	2
Does your lens use an inner focusing system or is a video or cine lens?	1

 

[maltfalc]

Where do you get your data? Do you have a link?

i shoot 4x5. i own 4x5 film and 4x5 film holders. i also own a ruler. 4x5 is not 108mm x 120mm.

Here's the calculator;s author;s method of calculating the angle. Note there are two methods. Which one is wrong or both?

calculator site with explanation

Angle and Field of View​

Angle of View Method 1:		θ the angle of view s is the focus distance h is the frame dimension f is the focal length
Angle of View Method 2:
Field of View:

The calculator calculates angle of view using two different methods. Both arrive at the same result at infinity focus, but differ at closer focusing distances. Since fields of view are calculated using the angle of view, there are also two calculated values for the field of view at the specified distance; one for each method. Further, neither method is completely accurate at very close focusing distances. For more information on this, see Calculating the Angle of View: When Theory Meets Practice.

Method 1 is a “naive” method that assumes that the angle of view for the format, which is the angle of view at infinity focus, does not change when the lens is focused closer.

Method 2 compensates for lens extension when focusing closer than infinity.

Which method should you use?

Use Method
Does your lens extend when focusing?	2
Does your lens use an inner focusing system or is a video or cine lens?	1

that has nothing to do with what i said. doesn't matter what equations you're using if you feed the wrong numbers into them. a lot of online calculators and apps like that one are incorrectly using 4x5's film dimensions instead of the image area dimensions.

 

[xkaes]

Right. The picture angle is what the 4x5 sheet of film sees. That is different from the angle of coverage -- which is the image that the lens produces. Unfortunately some people use "angle of view" which can mean either of these to different people.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

i shoot 4x5. i own 4x5 film and 4x5 film holders. i also own a ruler. 4x5 is not 108mm x 120mm.

that has nothing to do with what i said. doesn't matter what equations you're using if you feed the wrong numbers into them. a lot of online calculators and apps like that one are incorrectly using 4x5's film dimensions instead of the image area dimensions.

Right. The picture angle is what the 4x5 sheet of film sees. That is different from the angle of coverage -- which is the image that the lens produces. Unfortunately some people use "angle of view" which can mean either of these to different people.

Is there a way to convert his angles to correct ones? Do you have a chart or calculator that calculates it correctly to what appears on the film?

 

[maltfalc]

Is there a way to convert his angles to correct ones? Do you have a chart or calculator that calculates it correctly to what appears on the film?

use the calculator you posted, but in the sensor size drop down menu, choose "custom" and use 120x95.

 

[grat]

4 inches is 101.6 mm, 5 inches is 127.

4x5 isn't exactly 4x5-- the actual opening is 120.25 x 100.75 mm (at the widest point) on my Fidelity Elite holders. Because of the design of the holder, the actual opening is closer to 120.25 x 97mm, for a diagonal of (120.252+972)1/2, or 154.5mm.

The difference between 162mm (the usual suspect for diagonal) and the actual value of 154.5 is roughly 5% and not really worth arguing over.

For anyone who's making the same calculations out to 8 decimal places and shouting that I'm a hack, I suggest a quick refresher on "significant digits".

If you're going to talk about field of view, you probably want to express it in terms of long or short edge on 4x5.