What is a good set of lenses for large format?

I just got back into large format last month after 13 years. When I was using large format back then, I was mainly working in the studio and had a 90mm and a 150mm lens set which worked well for what I was doing. Now I am mainly focusing on landscapes with the occasional portrait session. I have a 210mm lens right now, and that is about it. What would be good lenses that work well for landscape photography?

I assume you're talking about 4x5 ?

You have a 210mm lens...what are not able to do with it?
Do you find yourself wanting to place the camera closer to the subject or farther away from the subject - in order to get the desired framing, for example?

BradS said:

I assume you're talking about 4x5

Click to expand...

Yes

BradS said:

Do you find yourself wanting to place the camera closer to the subject or farther away from the subject - in order to get the desired framing, for example?

Click to expand...

I am just wondering what a good telephoto for 4x5 is and maybe a good wide-angle too so that I can be ready for any situation. I would like to capture mountains/mountain ranges that I can't easily get close to and wide vista of the open southwest where I live. So what would be a good telephoto and a good wide-angle lens for landscapes?

For wide angle, 90mm and 120-125mm are often good options. The Angulons (not Super Angulons) are older models that are more compact than the Super Angulon varieties. Look for coated lenses.

With 4x5, sometime a longer length lens is limited by your bellows extension. You might like a 300mm lens or so.

There are no hard and fast rules.

W_Taylor76 said:

Yes


I am just wondering what a good telephoto for 4x5 is and maybe a good wide-angle too so that I can be ready for any situation. I would like to capture mountains/mountain ranges that I can't easily get close to and wide vista of the open southwest where I live. So what would be a good telephoto and a good wide-angle lens for landscapes?

Click to expand...

Wide vistas are a problem with a wide angle lens. A w/a lens renders them as all foreground with a tiny background.

The 210mm will be good for both general landscape and portraits. Adding a 150/5.6 for general landscape would be handy, too.

I never went wider with 4x5 except once or twice with a 135mm...never too interested in it. For me a 120mm would be more useful than a 90, but others do fine work with that and shorter. Have a lot of fun with the 210mm!

I find that the closer, more intimate the landscape, the wider the lens, more distant the subject, the longer the lens.
Roman Loranc shoots most of his landscapes with a 210mm if you're looking for inspiration
https://www.romanloranc.com/

what's good....anything made by Rodenstock, Schneider, Nikon or Fuji in the past thirty years or so.

The 90mm focal length on 4x5 is not for wide open vistas. Don't think of it as a wide angle lens, think of it as a short focal length lens...it is best used when there is something close to the camera...like a pile of boulders.
I find 90mm to be fairly useless on 4x5. If I want to go short, I'd rather go very short with a 75mm...but even that is a pretty rare thing.

The vast majority of my 4x5 work is done with either a 210mm or a 150mm or 135mm lens (150mm and 135mm are so close that I don't really distinguish between them).

If you have a 210mm, then I would suggest a 135mm or 150mm.
If you have the bellows extension I would add a light 300mm like the Fuji 300M C.
If you shoot close-up or macro, then the 90 or 135mm would work fine depending on the size of the subject.
Having said all this, you can have a lot of fun with the 210mm.

W_Taylor76 said:

. What would be good lenses that work well for landscape photography?

Click to expand...

In the short focals side, you may want to add a 65mm. Personally I use a multicoated Fujinon.

In general, one may use 65mm and a 90mm or instead one may use a 75mm to substitute both.

From 90mm to 150mm you have a big jump, this is not much a problem, but a 135mm or a 105mm in the middle may not be a bad idea.

Anyway (IMO) most of the lenses will work well for 4x5" landscape shots, glass weight is not much a concern like it is in 8x10. A good lens for architecture may be very expensive, and a lens with great bokeh for portraiture may be more difficult to find. For lanscape any "general usage" lens will excel. Regular Nikon W, Sironar, Symmar-S or Fujinon glasses are all excellent.

In the extra short focals biogons rule, they partially compensate some fall-off through tilting pupil design, anyway a factor when selecting a short focal may be having center filters available, while some people try to avoid using center filters.

I'd add a 135 to the 210. It may be all you want. You can always buy a 90 later if you find yourself wanting something wider.

After being the USA product manager for LInhof, Wista and Rodenstock from the early 70s till 5 years ago I can tell you that by far the most common 3 lens setup was the 90, 150 and 210mm. Note, we sold LInhof during that entire time span, Rodenstock from 198p till 5 years ago and Wista from the mid 80s on.

Bob S said:

90,

Click to expand...

As we all know, the 90mm for 4x5" provides a framing similar to a 30mm focal in 35mm film, while a 65mm provides a framing similar to around 20mm in the small format... of course, all depends on the kind of shot we want...


but what is clear is that under 90mm we start having well noticeable fall-off, and center filters are quite expensive if we want to that correct fall-off, also with very short focals it's more difficult to obtain top optical performance in the corners, still a very short focal has a particular footprint and it may take the framing we want

BradS said:

what's good....anything made by Rodenstock, Schneider, Nikon or Fuji in the past thirty years or so.

The 90mm focal length on 4x5 is not for wide open vistas. Don't think of it as a wide angle lens, think of it as a short focal length lens...it is best used when there is something close to the camera...like a pile of boulders.
I find 90mm to be fairly useless on 4x5. If I want to go short, I'd rather go very short with a 75mm...but even that is a pretty rare thing.

The vast majority of my 4x5 work is done with either a 210mm or a 150mm or 135mm lens (150mm and 135mm are so close that I don't really distinguish between them).

Click to expand...

I'm new to 4x5. But I have a 75mm and 90mm. I'm picking the 75mm more than the 90mm. I also have a 150 and 300. But I don't have enough shooting under my belt to make any real assessment about them.
Here are two I shot with the 75mm. Interesting, there's no center filter on this lens but it seems to do well without it. I have a center filter with my 90mm. But haven't shot it enough to make an assessment as to the CF need.
Fujinon SWD f/5.6 75mm https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort...h=1&tags=75mm&user_id=55760757@N05&view_all=1

Alan Edward Klein said:

I'm new to 4x5. But I have a 75mm and 90mm. I'm picking the 75mm more than the 90mm. I also have a 150 and 300. But I don't have enough shooting under my belt to make any real assessment about them.
Here are two I shot with the 75mm. Interesting, there's no center filter on this lens but it seems to do well without it. I have a center filter with my 90mm. But haven't shot it enough to make an assessment as to the CF need.
Fujinon SWD f/5.6 75mm https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=75mm&user_id=55760757@N05&view_all=1

Click to expand...

Nice work!

Except for the absolutely most critical applications, a center filter is not necessary with good 75mm and 90mm lenses. A center filter is often desirable with anything shorter than 75mm but even then, it is a matter of taste.

BradS said:

Nice work!

Except for the absolutely most critical applications, a center filter is not necessary with good 75mm and 90mm lenses. A center filter is often desirable with anything shorter than 75mm but even then, it is a matter of taste.

Click to expand...

Thanks. My 90mm is a Nikkor SW f/4.5. It's a beautiful lens that needs a 105mm filters for the Schneider IV center filter. So I can;t use my 77mm medium format filters that fit on my other 75mm, 150mm and 300mm with adapters. I just don;t want to go out and spend all that extra money for filters.

BradS said:

Nice work!

Except for the absolutely most critical applications, a center filter is not necessary with good 75mm and 90mm lenses. A center filter is often desirable with anything shorter than 75mm but even then, it is a matter of taste.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by “good”? All modern wide angle lenses from all manufacturers have fall off and all benefit from the correct center filter. The fall off is physics, not lens quality.

Bob S said:

What do you mean by “good”? All modern wide angle lenses from all manufacturers have fall off and all benefit from the correct center filter. The fall off is physics, not lens quality.

Click to expand...

Bob, if you feel like you need a center filter then go right ahead a spend your money on a center filter. I personally do not see any need for one and will not waste my money in one. We don’t need no stinking center filters!

My 75mm doesn't seem to show any falloff without a center filter. This is Velvia 50 chrome.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/50570908936/in/dateposted/

Alan Edward Klein said:

My 75mm doesn't seem to show any falloff without a center filter. This is Velvia 50 chrome.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/50570908936/in/dateposted/

Click to expand...

Your 75mm has the same falloff as all other 75mm lenses. Because you confuse falloff with the “wide angle look” doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It would become even more obvious with movements.
It is most obvious in your post in the upper left corner.

Lens choice is highly personal, so take my recommendations in that light. I have chosen to go lightweight at the expense of larger aperture for shorter lenses and have chosen compact lenses over common f/5.6 Plasmat designs for longer lenses.

You already have a 210mm lens. If it's a Plasmat, then it's too big for me, but may work just fine for you. Anyway, that's your starting point.

If it were me, I'd choose to go shorter for my next lens. A 135mm f/5.6 Plasmat lens is compact and lightweight and would be my recommendation. However, the 135mm Plasmats only have moderate coverage. This is fine for landscapes and many other applications, but if you plan on using extreme movements, especially lots of front rise for architectural work, then you may want to search for a Wide-Field Ektar in the 135mm focal length. I have both; the smaller Plasmat is my go-to lens for most field work, but when I'm working in close quarters in cities, I'll always swap it out for the Wide-Field Ektar.

I'd recommend the 135mm lens over the 150mm focal length simply because you can easily crop the small amount needed with an image made with the 135mm to get the same view as you would have with the 150mm, but not vice-versa. FWIW, the large majority of my work is made with a 135mm lens.

Those two lenses, a 210mm and a 135mm lens will work for most situations. The next choice depends on if you want to go longer (i.e., find yourself cropping lots of images made with the 210mm lens to get what you saw in your minds eye) or if you want to go shorter (i.e., find yourself cursing because the 135mm lens isn't wide enough for lots of images you need/want to make.

On the shorter side, I recommend one of the fine 90mm f/8 lenses. My favorite is the Nikkor SW 90mm f/8 since it has the largest image circle of the bunch. However, I used a 90mm Schneider Super Angulon f/8 for years and it was a fine lens; maybe even a tad bit sharper than the Nikkor. Fuji SWs or Rodenstock Grandagons are great too.

On the longer side, a 300mm Nikkor M is my choice. Alternately, a Fujinon A 240mm lens is great too, just not as long. Do make sure your camera will accommodate whatever lens you choose on the longer side. Many field cameras won't focus a 300mm lens.

Ending up with a lens kit that increases in increments of 50% allows you to tackle just about any situation if you're willing to crop a bit. My 50% kit is: 90mm, 135mm, 210mm (or a 203mm Ektar) and 300mm. In the rare cases I need wider, I carry a 75mm lens, but don't use it much; plus the image circle barely covers 4x5. I also have the above mentioned 240mm Fujinon A, which I will carry instead of (or in addition to) the 300mm lens at times. Still, if I had to have just four, it would certainly be 90mm, 135mm, 210mm and 300mm.

Hope this helps a bit,

Doremus

Bob S said:

Your 75mm has the same falloff as all other 75mm lenses. Because you confuse falloff with the “wide angle look” doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It would become even more obvious with movements.
It is most obvious in your post in the upper left corner.

Click to expand...

I believe the upper left is in shadow. But your point is well understood. I may not have used movements on this shot. Here's another that I cropped that I believe do show falloff in spite of the crop. I did use movements on this one. Seems to be in the upper left side. Hmmm. You know I checked this lens. I noticed that there's like a 1/4" scratch that extends towards the edge on the back element of the lens. I wonder if that could be causing the darkness up there. Is there a way to test this "scratch" like shooting a white wall?

In astrophotography, the technique is to take a "flat" image-- put a diffuse cover over the lens, take a shot of an even light source (could be as simple as a white t-shirt in daylight).

https://astrobackyard.com/how-to-take-flat-frames/

They then use this image in post-processing to correct for uneven lighting. It's not a 1:1 fit for digital scans of a negative, but the basic concept is sound.

Alan Edward Klein said:

I believe the upper left is in shadow. But your point is well understood. I may not have used movements on this shot. Here's another that I cropped that I believe do show falloff in spite of the crop. I did use movements on this one. Seems to be in the upper left side. Hmmm. You know I checked this lens. I noticed that there's like a 1/4" scratch that extends towards the edge on the back element of the lens. I wonder if that could be causing the darkness up there. Is there a way to test this "scratch" like shooting a white wall?

Click to expand...

The scratch has nothing to do with wide angle cosine failure. It is pure physics. Shoot a light colored evenly illuminated subject, white sand beach, clear sky, etc. that goes from edge to edge and corner to corner. The falloff is there.

I concur with the 90. Besides fall off, keep in mind that wide angle lenses get harder to see on the ground glass, especially in the corners. Not impossible though, and with a good darkcloth when shooting outside during daylight hours, it usually isn't a problem. With a 90mm lens, the falloff won't be enough to mess with a center filter. Below that, and you start to take your chances.

I went with a Fujinon 90/5.6. You might consider a 90/8, as they're smaller, usually cheaper, and you rarely need the extra speed for landscapes, other than focusing. Plus, the filters will be cheaper. I also have a Schneider SA 65/8, but don't use it very often. I doesn't have any room for movements, and requires a center filter, but the lens itself isn't too expensive, which helps with the price of a center filter, if you can find one. More often than not, it's too wide. But there are times when only it will do, so it's worth having. But I wouldn't get one until after you've bought a 90mm, as that is far more useful.

I'd also recommend a 150/5.6, as they're cheap and very versatile. It's probably my most used lens. I have a few 210's, but rarely use them. Many of my 210's are over 100 years old, so I use them more for the effects they provide than the focal length. It's just a weird focal length for me that's usually acceptable, but rarely ever my best option. My third most used lens for landscapes is a 360mm Tele-Xenon by Schneider. The telephoto design helps with my field and press cameras, and it's a fairly decent lens. Although, the lens is pretty bit, and it does require a stable tripod and large filters. Still, it's a good value for a longer lens. There are also some 400mm+ telephotos, and some have interchangeable lenses to get you multiple lengths. Though those tend to be pretty pricey. But if you got the dough, that's the way I'd go.

So I'd start off with a 90, 150, and 360 to begin with. Since already have a 210, I might go for the 90 and 360 first, as the 150mm won't give you much difference from the 210mm. Also, a 135mm might make more sense for you than the 150mm with a 210mm already in your bag. I have a 135mm, and don't use it that often. It's kind of like the 210mm to me, in that it's an in-between length. But if I didn't have a 150mm, then I'd probably reach for the 210mm and 135mm fairly often.