Deleted member 88956
I suspect you know this, why center filters are so bloody expensive? I mean, all you need is a center and a filter and you've got one
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.
Thanks JIm. For whatever it's worth, I already got 75, 90, 150 and 300 lenses for my 4x5. I have a CF for the 90 but seem to be favoring the 75 for shots. The 90 is a bright Nikkor SW f4.5 with Schnieder IV CF. The 75, 150 and 300 can take my existing 77mm filters on adapters that I have. The 90 can't and would require a new set of much larger BW contrast, polarizing and grad NDs to fit the 105mm CF threads. I like what the 75mm is giving me and seem to favor it so I might get rid of the 90mm and CF and not bother with a replacement. You want to buy my 90mm?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.
And it gives one the opportunity to use the fall-off as part of the image construction.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.
Why the 360 and not the 300?I'd agree with Bob on the 90mm, 150mm and 210mm combination. Over the years my 150mm and 90mm have had the greatest use but I don't often shoot in wide open landscapes, quite the opposite and so have a 65mm although it gets little or no use since I bought a 75mm. I do like the 75mm and was lucky to get two new Hoya centre filters at bargain prices early this year.
I've had a 300mm f9 Nikkor M since the late 1980's it's not a practical lens on some 5x4 cameras, on my Wista 45DX it sits at the end of the focus bed at almost full extension bellows acting like a sail, so only really usable on a very still day with no wind, alos your limited as it wont focus closer objects. On the other hand a 360mm Tele-Xenar or similar works well.
Ian
Why the 360 and not the 300?
Why the 360 and not the 300?
...
I've had a 300mm f9 Nikkor M since the late 1980's it's not a practical lens on some 5x4 cameras, on my Wista 45DX it sits at the end of the focus bed at almost full extension bellows acting like a sail, so only really usable on a very still day with no wind, alos your limited as it wont focus closer objects. On the other hand a 360mm Tele-Xenar or similar works well.
Ian
One of my favorite 3 lens sets is the 90mm F8 Nikkor, 135mm 5.6 Apo Sironar S and 180mm 5.6 Apo Sironar S. Wider than that I use a Nikkor 75mm 4.5 always with a center filter.
To go lighter than the 180mm 5.6 I replace it with a tiny Nikkor 200mm F8. Longer than that I go with the Fujinon 240A and a Schneider 350mm F11 Apo Tele Xenar.
But the 90/135/180 set is what I use the most.
Agreed there all the way. Over time lens set builds up, even if i.e. 135-150 is not much, yet quite pronounced. Some of it comes from shooting position available for a scene given, with no possibility to change the stance and adjust framing. This makes starting set a bit challenging.90-135-180 progression is interestingly well balanced becasue we have +50% jumps, a 90-150-210 has a big jump from 90 to 150, and speaking of very the expensive S sironars the 135-180 was more affordable and lightweight than the 150-210 choice.
The consistent progression with the 150-210 would be 75-105-150-210, adding weight and cost. IMO if one tends to crop when necessary when wanting a particular framing then 90-135-180 is quite sound, those liking to print the full sheet perhaps it less followers for that progression.
Also it depends on what we consider the Normal focal for 4x5, both 135 and 150 can be considered Normal, but here our mileage may vary, still 150 and 210 were the most popular choices in "modern times". I feel the 135 was very popular in the Graflex age.
Whatever happened to that Schneider LF zoom lens 65-300 with constant 2.8 aperture that would cover 8x10 the World was abuzz about back in the early 1970's ????
Of course I was priming my entry into 2021 April 1st.Zooms are not new in LF, AA used the Dallmeyer Adon for the Half Dome (the day he "invented" the Visualization concept)... but he publicly complained his entire life about the poor lens he used.
I guess that problem of that SK proposed parfocal zoom would weight (and cost) an insane amount if it it had to deliver a good enogh image quality to beat MF...
Thanks for all of the comments and info. It looks like a 300mm is on set for the future with a possible 90mm or 75mm.
I've never really liked the 210 focal length lens. Too wide for longer compositions; too narrow for wider compositions...
Sometimes I think the tripod is more important than the camera for large format . . .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?