What is a good set of lenses for large format?

[Deleted member 88956]

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.

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

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

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?

 

[Vaughn]

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.

And it gives one the opportunity to use the fall-off as part of the image construction.

 

[Ian Grant]

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

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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?

 

[138S]

Why the 360 and not the 300?

Alan, the Tele-Xenar 360 requires only 214mm bellows extension from the shutter flange to the film (infinity focus) https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00832/00832.pdf

Anyway the longer focal will deliver more blur from the same vibration.

Anyway IMO a 300mm can be shot with moderate wind, there are with some tricks, we may protect the camera from wind with our body, if we wear a jacket then we open the left side of the jacked with our left hand while we shot with the other hand...

Well, a 4x5 shot is an easy deal compared with the 8x10 adventure, to not mention our ULF mates... In particular Mr Wolf got great shots with big sails... it's a bit about patience.

 

[Ian Grant]

Why the 360 and not the 300?

Quite simple because it was a lens posted for sale here on this Forum and at a very good price and I mean cheap plus I trusted the seller. I already had an ex-Military (British) 17" f5.6 Coated Telephoto but I'm limited as it has no shutter so I need to use it on my Speed Graphic, although I have a Gitzo single speed front mounting shutter (like a Luc) that fits now, and some TP roller blind shutters that'll fit as well. It's a lovely lens almost definitely a Dallmeyer, very sharp.

But a barrel lens and extra shutters aren't back-pack material, and a Speed Graphic has too limited movements. So the 360mm Tele-Xenar has proved far more useful, it suits one on my current projects, on hold due to the virus . . . . . . . .

Ian

 

[Doremus Scudder]

...
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

Ian,

My most-used cameras are Wista DXs. My solution to using the Nikkor 300mm M is a top-hat lensboard. It keeps me from needing to extend the bellows fully and allows me to focus down to 6 feet or so. Co-incidentally, it just happens to be the right length so that when I change to a 240mm lens (Fujinon A) on a flat board, the focus stays.

Best,

Doremus

 

[GKC]

Let your camera tell you!
When out shooting, do you miss having something wider? Or longer?
That should indicate which end of the spectrum to start looking for a second lens---unless you happen across a deal that's too good to pass up.

 

[Ai Print]

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.

 

[138S]

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.

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.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

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.

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.

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 ????

 

[138S]

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 ????

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...

 

[Deleted member 88956]

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...

Of course I was priming my entry into 2021 April 1st.

 

[W_Taylor76]

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.

 

[138S]

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.

You know, the 300 in 4x5 works the perspective like a 100mm focal with 35mm film cameras... As we usually also use smaller formats It can be interesting to see what we do in that focal range and how we use a 100mm, this is interesting to realize if we really want that focal, how we would use it, and to know if a 240 or a 360 would be better for us.

The most Ansel Adams image ("Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico," 1941) was made with a 580mm focal in 8x10, which would nearly match a 300mm for 4x5...

A relatively cheap way to try in those long focals is using old Symmar convertibles, the 210mm is converted to 370mm, the 210mm has sharp corners in 4x5 format becuase the circle is large and the 4x5 frame only takes the center-mid, the single coated conversion it is also low flare because only to groups are there, but a compendium shade may be required as illumination circle or the conversion is large and it illumintes a lot the bellows inside. The 240 converts to 420mm and the 300 converts to 500mm.

Another choice is using an APO Nikkor, but many are found without shutter. Of course, nothing much wrong in buying directly an expensive lens, you always can sell it, but experimenting with some cheap (and probably also very good glass) is a good way to realize what we really want and why. Only my thoughts after having mostly completed my own kit...

 

[Neil Poulsen]

I've never really liked the 210 focal length lens. Too wide for longer compositions; too narrow for wider compositions.

I have lots of lenses that are spaced about 25% to 35% apart, because no matter the composition, I want to be able to fill the 4x5 frame. The point of large format is to obtain that beautiful tonality for which LF is known. But If I had to narrow myself to just a few landscape lenses, I'd probably pick the following focal lengths . . .

105mm (Fuji f8 SW); 120mm (SA f8); 180mm (Nikon f5.6); 250mm (Fuji f6.7)

Of these, my most used lenses would be the two center ones. To avoid the foreground issue to which Vaughn refers, the 120 Super Angulon has tons of rise. For landscape, a 90mm is much too wide for my tastes. So the 105mm Fuji super-wide would give me the little wider view that I might need. For longer, the Fuji f6.7 250mm offers plenty of movement. But more the the point, it comes in a Copal 1 shutter. (Versus a Copal 3, which is huge.) Another possibility for a longer lens is the relatively rare 270mm G-Claron (NOT the WA 270mm G-Claron), which I believe may come in a Copal 1 shutter.

These aren't the "tiny" lenses that some people prefer. But if one only has four lenses, why should that matter??? It's much more important for me to have the rise capability (if needed) that larger (plasmat?) lenses offer.

As for carrying my kit when I include all my regular lenses, I have a cart that I like. It has large wheels that can navigate trails, rocks, sand, etc. I used to carry these lenses in a large backpack, and even with a heavy aluminum tripod, this was not a problem. But the aging process is usually accompanied by compromise.

 

[138S]

I've never really liked the 210 focal length lens. Too wide for longer compositions; too narrow for wider compositions...

...and perfect for intermediate compositions.

Neil, one example of this view angle range is "Aspens, Northern New Mexico", which would be 240 equivalent.

The 210mm was the 2nd most sold focal for 4x5, at least in modern times, acording to Bob. It can be perfect for half body portraits.

Still, of course, everyone has its own preferences depending on the kind of photographs he crafts and on personal taste, but regarding averaged preferences we have that fact: 210mm was the 2nd most sold focal for 4x5", after the 150mm flavor.

 

[Bob S]

No, the 90, 150 and 210 are the most popular. 150 being the best seller. 90 and 210 are very close.

 

[Barrister]

I have an old Wollensack 135mm that I use with the 4x5; I use it in crowded forests, close quarters. Shorter lenses are also best for close ups. I use the 210mm the majority of the time. I also have a 300 and 360mm for this format. Useful when I need to compress the perspective (2 shimmering trees against a dark treeline - moving up with the shorter lens brings too much of the sky into the frame - ja?). Camera and tripod need to be very steady for these lenses. Sometimes I think the tripod is more important than the camera for large format . . .

Anyway, there's my 2 cents.

 

[138S]

Sometimes I think the tripod is more important than the camera for large format . . .

You may easily learn your tripod steadiness... just attach a $5 toy laser pointer in the front standard, and see how the point vibrates on a far target, it also tells how much time you have to wait after holder insertion, if 1s is enough or you require a longer time...

Say you use a 210mm lens if you point the laser at 210m then the magnification will be 1000:1. Say the point vibrates 5mm (210m far)... the generated blur on film will be 0.005mm, x2 this is 0.01mm a line pairs, so it is destroying 100lp/mm resolving power. In practice probably your system effective resolving power is form about 40lp/mm to 60lp/mm, if vibration damages at 100 lp/mm then you are in the safe side.

In practice... take your focal lens in mm and point far that value in m, for a 150mm lens point a target 150m far. If the point vibrates on the target less than 5mm then you are in the safe side, if it vibrates (amplitude) more than 10mm then you are starting to provocate some perceptible damage.

You may use a cheap anemometer...



...to rate at what wind speed your setup is starting to fail, point the camera to the wind and perpendicular to it, those are different situations. You also may ask somebody to insert a holder and measure how much time it takes to vibration to go under 5mm amplitude, with the target X meter far as many mm the focal has.

Of course, longer focals are proportionally sensitive to vibration... If in the field you use a 4x5 with a 75mm any tripod will do the job. A 8x10 with a 600mm is another game... you can only allow 1/8 of the angular vibration tan with the 75mm, and the 8x10 is an impressive sail taking the wind energy.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have literally had my 8x10 complete with a heavy Ries wooden tripod picked up by a sudden wind gust and tossed over 30 feet! This happened more than once. Fortunately, each time there was a soft landing in tall grass or some kind of flower bushes. No more of that. Now if I anticipate a windy day, I take MF gear instead of some big bellows-kite. Once I was attempting to photograph an "ice flower" out on a frozen high altitude lake with my 8x10 gear. The Ries tripod has spike feet. But there were winds of at least 50 mph. Once I had the composition set and focussed with great difficult, I actually laid down on the ice using my own body as additional stabilization weight. The idea was to trip the shutter cable during a sustained wind, no matter how high. It's the gusts which cause vibration. The actual shot came out completely precise.