Sharp, fast, small and lightweight. Ideal lenses...

[papercrate]

And another additional requirement... needs to performs at infinity superbly.

Looking at getting a couple lenses maybe a 90 and 150 for a lightweight hiker 4x5 camera I'm working on. Just wondering if anybody has any recommendations. It doesn't have to the newest thing, but should perform well, be multicoated and decently available (popping on eBay and such). Any lenses that are currently manufactured would that would be suitable I'd be interested in hearing recommendations as well.

It is a very DIY/parts project and while I have a 127 off an old Polaroid A type land camera which should just about cover 4x5 but am interested in investing in a proper lens!

Thanks.

 

[Trail Images]

Sharp and fast I have, 90 5.6 & 150 5.6 Schneider lenses. However, lightweight not exactly. The 150 is small and light, the 90 is large and heavy. I find my super light weight 120 5.6 Schneider lens much easier to tote and I use it much more then I ever did my 90. Although, when you really need the wide coverage the 90 does a great job.

EDIT: all were bought used on eBay.

 

[papercrate]

Thanks. I like those 5.6 / 120 Schneider lenses. Is yours one of the newer APO Digitar models or Symmar or an older one?

 

[Jesper]

Have you considered the old Angulon 90/6.8 and 165/6.8?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

And another additional requirement... needs to performs at infinity superbly.

Looking at getting a couple lenses maybe a 90 and 150 for a lightweight hiker 4x5 camera I'm working on. Just wondering if anybody has any recommendations. It doesn't have to the newest thing, but should perform well, be multicoated and decently available (popping on eBay and such). Any lenses that are currently manufactured would that would be suitable I'd be interested in hearing recommendations as well.

It is a very DIY/parts project and while I have a 127 off an old Polaroid A type land camera which should just about cover 4x5 but am interested in investing in a proper lens!

Thanks.

You can get sharp and fast, sharp and small, small and lightweight, sharp and lightweight, but forget all four except in relative terms. Get a 150 convertible Symmar, you'll have two lenses in one. A 90mm Angulon is about as small and light as a 90 gets. A good darkcloth will make the lenses faster for focussing, which is all you need.

 

[StoneNYC]

Oh never mind

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Oh never mind

 

[Trail Images]

Is yours one of the newer APO Digitar models or Symmar or an older one?

APO Symmar.....

 

[papercrate]

But is any convertible lens really "sharp enough". How about those new convertibles by Cooke? Anybody had any experience with those? Doubt they are very light though.

Edit: Thought Cooke made a tri-convertible for 4x5 but looks like its only 8x10. Sounds amazing though!
http://www.cookeoptics.co.uk/l/xva.html

 

[StoneNYC]

But is any convertible lens really "sharp enough". How about those new convertibles by Cooke? Anybody had any experience with those? Doubt they are very light though.

Everyone tells me LF can't be as sharp as my Mamiya 7 lenses, but of the lenses I own, the sharpest I think I would say is the 90mm f/8 Schneider super Angulon which isn't supposed to be as sharp as some of my other lenses considering I have a Rodenstock 75mm grandagon N green stripe and a fujinon 300 C f/8.5... So really you'll sort of have to test it. If you can get to a semi-local camera shop that loans out LF kits I would give that a try and see for yourself before investing.

 

[papercrate]

I agree on medium format. I've been really happy with the sharpness of the lenses for my Pentax 6x7. Recently had an exhibition and printed a few shots around 42x50. I was pleasantly surprise at how they held up at that size. Used to shoot quite a bit with the 90mm 2.8 from 1980 but after I got the Super Takumar 75mm 4.5 I've pretty much only used that, that thing is sharp.

I've read a lot about how there isn't that huge of a difference for most folks when it comes to enlargements. But there is something about the process of large format that I'm really like. How it slows you down a bit more and makes you consider. Maybe I should just change this build to 8x10! Definitely going to have to sacrifice the whole lightweight aspect though.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

For an ultralight 4x5" kit, I like the 90/6.8 Angulon and 135/5.6 Symmar or (Apo-)Sironar (or rebranded Caltar versions). They're not the newest lenses, and the Angulon will be single coated (with only 4 air-glass surfaces, it doesn't benefit much from multicoating anyway), and they don't have massive coverage for 4x5", but they both take 40.5mm filters and shades and are in #0 shutters, and the 135 is convertable in a pinch. The 150/4.5 Xenar is another possibility, also taking 40.5mm filters.

If you want a compact lens with huge coverage, look for a 168mm ser. iii Dagor, which is even smaller than the others, but uses a non-standard filter size. It will likely be uncoated, but again, with only 4 air-glass surfaces, it doesn't gain much with coating.

If you're not shooting handheld, fast isn't so important, and if you want small, fast isn't an option, and if you want cheap, fast lenses like the 135/3.5 Planar or 150/2.8 Xenotar most likely don't qualify either.

If you're using a tripod, you'll probably be at f:22 most of the time, or thereabouts, whatever lens you use, so the main thing you get by using fancier lens designs will be coverage and larger maximum aperture, more for focusing than for shooting.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

By the way, make sure you check out Kerry Thalmann's LF pages, if you haven't already. He gives a lot of good advice about equipment choices for backpackers with LF.

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/reviews.htm

 

[StoneNYC]

For an ultralight 4x5" kit, I like the 90/6.8 Angulon and 135/5.6 Symmar or (Apo-)Sironar (or rebranded Caltar versions). They're not the newest lenses, and the Angulon will be single coated (with only 4 air-glass surfaces, it doesn't benefit much from multicoating anyway), and they don't have massive coverage for 4x5", but they both take 40.5mm filters and shades and are in #0 shutters, and the 135 is convertable in a pinch. The 150/4.5 Xenar is another possibility, also taking 40.5mm filters.

If you want a compact lens with huge coverage, look for a 168mm ser. iii Dagor, which is even smaller than the others, but uses a non-standard filter size. It will likely be uncoated, but again, with only 4 air-glass surfaces, it doesn't gain much with coating.

If you're not shooting handheld, fast isn't so important, and if you want small, fast isn't an option, and if you want cheap, fast lenses like the 135/3.5 Planar or 150/2.8 Xenotar most likely don't qualify either.

If you're using a tripod, you'll probably be at f:22 most of the time, or thereabouts, whatever lens you use, so the main thing you get by using fancier lens designs will be coverage and larger maximum aperture, more for focusing than for shooting.

What kind of coverage does the 168mm have?

 

[Black Dog]

Yes I was wondering about that too?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

What kind of coverage does the 168mm have?

There seems to be some variation among different examples (perhaps due to cell spacing on different shutters), but mine just covers 8x10". Even if you get one with less coverage, it will probably have more image circle than most 4x5" cameras can use.

 

[AgX]

The most lightweight lenses should be those of the Tessar type.

 

[StoneNYC]

There seems to be some variation among different examples (perhaps due to cell spacing on different shutters), but mine just covers 8x10". Even if you get one with less coverage, it will probably have more image circle than most 4x5" cameras can use.

Oh I was thinking GENEROUS coverage... (As in generous movements on an 8x10) Thanks for the info.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

168mm is very wide for 8x10", so you won't find much at that focal length or wider that covers 8x10". There's the Nikkor 150 SW, ultrawides like the 120mm Berthiot Perigraphe, the 110mm Super-Symmar XL and not much else, but the original post is about 4x5", so any of these would have massive coverage for 4x5".

 

[Vaughn]

Caltar N-II 150mm/5.6 covers all the bases in my opinion.

 

[CatLABS]

This is a very small form factor yet still sharp, still (fairly) fast lens in copal 0, with ample coverage for 4X5.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/191038-REG/Toyo_View_160203_150mm_F6_3_Geronar_Copal.html

Was also sold under Caltar brand if you want to save some $$$ in the used market, but this lens was extremely cheap to start out with.

230 grams, 180mm IC, 42mm filter thread...

 

[papercrate]

For an ultralight 4x5" kit, I like the 90/6.8 Angulon and 135/5.6 Symmar or (Apo-)Sironar (or rebranded Caltar versions). They're not the newest lenses, and the Angulon will be single coated (with only 4 air-glass surfaces, it doesn't benefit much from multicoating anyway), and they don't have massive coverage for 4x5", but they both take 40.5mm filters and shades and are in #0 shutters, and the 135 is convertable in a pinch. The 150/4.5 Xenar is another possibility, also taking 40.5mm filters.

If you want a compact lens with huge coverage, look for a 168mm ser. iii Dagor, which is even smaller than the others, but uses a non-standard filter size. It will likely be uncoated, but again, with only 4 air-glass surfaces, it doesn't gain much with coating.

If you're not shooting handheld, fast isn't so important, and if you want small, fast isn't an option, and if you want cheap, fast lenses like the 135/3.5 Planar or 150/2.8 Xenotar most likely don't qualify either.

If you're using a tripod, you'll probably be at f:22 most of the time, or thereabouts, whatever lens you use, so the main thing you get by using fancier lens designs will be coverage and larger maximum aperture, more for focusing than for shooting.

Thanks David! Good tips. Definitely read Kerry's site in the past. Some great information on there.

I would probably say that the "fast" requirement is relative and probably the least important but it would be nice to shoot handheld once in a while. I actually rigged up something to attach a lightweight head to a nice sized stick/branch I would ram into the ground or pile of rocks. That was a fun on-the-trail solution for a few shots (granted when there wasn't strong wind). A newer lightweight ball head would have certainly worked better for this then the hefty tri-movement one I used at the time. I'd love to completely do away with a tripod just for the size and form factor issues when packing it away, regardless if it is CF and lightweight. For the most part a tripod is really necessary though, unless you are comfortable compromising quite a lot and setting the camera on rocks or ledges. Has any tried on of those Gorilla pod tripods with large format before? I think they make one that can support up to 11 lbs.

 

[papercrate]

I've also been referencing the LF lens chart here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

I know it focuses on newer lenses and isn't exhaustive, but from what I can gather, if you want lightweight (sub 350g) you are going to sacrifice coverage. I'm guessing that is because there simply isn't as much glass? Are there any older lenses that are counter to this?

I reckon I'll be shooting landscapes at or close to infinity and probably not doing a lot of huge movements, but I know the spread of the circle will have to be quite immediate and clear, and preferably shape as a tack edge to edge, especially with the bellows near the minimum. If I can do that at a wider aperture all the better, if not, I'm definitely willing to sacrifice speed first.

Thanks again for everybody chiming in.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I know it focuses on newer lenses and isn't exhaustive, but from what I can gather, if you want lightweight (sub 350g) you are going to sacrifice coverage. I'm guessing that is because there simply isn't as much glass? Are there any older lenses that are counter to this?

I reckon I'll be shooting landscapes at or close to infinity and probably not doing a lot of huge movements, but I know the spread of the circle will have to be quite immediate and clear, and preferably shape as a tack edge to edge, especially with the bellows near the minimum. If I can do that at a wider aperture all the better, if not, I'm definitely willing to sacrifice speed first.

f/14 Berthiot Perigraphe Serie VIa. Tiny tiny lenses with very little glass and high coverage. Coverage claims shrank over time, from 115 degrees in 1912 to 105 degrees in the late 1920s to 100 degrees around 1950. In the 1912 catalog Berthiot asserted that at small apertures the 90/14 covers 5x7 and the 120/14 covers 8x10.

I think you're presenting us with a moving target. Unkind.

 

[papercrate]

I think you're presenting us with a moving target. Unkind.

I suppose I am, but it is coming out of all the feedback and conversations. Sorry! Seems like a good "challenge" for some of you who are more knowledgable about LF lenses though! Would it make sense to start a different thread? I was quite enjoying all the interesting info this one has brought together so far.