Hello from Tasmania!

[AlexGard]

Hello everybody.
New to large format, been shooting on medium format for a little while now and love it, sold/selling all my digital gear to fund my new camera.

Just purchased:
Sinar F2
Rodenstock 150mm f/5.6 MC Sironar-N

I did also get a Schneider Super Angulon 90mm f/8 but returned it and am going to go for the 90mm f/5.6 XL as that seems to be a slightly better option.

I just have a quick query;

Will a center filter be necessary for the 90mm? What kind of light falloff is there on the 90mmXL?
Also, will a bag bellows be necessary for my Sinar with the 90mm?

And last question, any tripod heads to recommend with this setup?

I read someone somewhere saying that the 90mm XL had problems when used with filters, but he did not elaborate on this, can anyone comment on what he might have meant? I like doing long exposures with my Lee filter system and hope to be able to do this too in front of my 90mm

thanks

really looking forward to getting into this!

[Lachlan 717]

Welcome, Alex.

No doubt, you'll get conflicting responses to some of the questions that you've posed.

Here's my take on a one of them:

*You don't need the XL variant of the 90mm; however, I'd recommend the f5.6 (non-XL) version. You won't see any difference in its performance and, if shooting Positives, you'll need the Grad CF. you should be able to get both the lens and the CF for the price of an XL. Another lens to consider is the Nikkor 90mm f4.5. The half stop brighter image will help you focus in lower light.

[AlexGard]

Thanks for the reply

Some info I've read is that the XL is the way to go. What do you mean by 'shooting positives'? Is that like slide film? (not negative?)

[Lachlan 717]

Thanks for the reply

Some info I've read is that the XL is the way to go. What do you mean by 'shooting positives'? Is that like slide film? (not negative?)

Yep; slide film. It'll show drop-off significantly more than Neg film.

Why do you feel you need the XL?

[AlexGard]

I originally purchased a 90mm f/8
then convinced myself through reading that the dark ground glass would be hard for me, especially seeing as I (want to) do a lot of landscapey stuff in lower light, forest floors etc etc

Through reading, the 5.6 sounded like a better bet, and somewhere alogn the line convinced myself that the XL would be the right choice... that's pretty much how I came to that conclusion. Was I correct in reading that the XL had more image circle coverage?

[Lachlan 717]

It does, but I'd suggest reading up on when you need large image circles. Generally, it's not for generic landscapes. Be sure that you really understand the need for large ICs, and consider if you have that need. Again, for the price of an XL, you'll probably get a "regular" 90mm f5.6 SA and the CF.

As for light, I reiterate that you should consider the Nikkor 90mm f4.5. Half a stop brighter than the Schneider. Also, consider one of the brighter aftermarket ground glasses.

I often shoot in the Otways, and can get by using a 120mm f8. I wouldn't really want to shoot anything wider at f8.

[munz6869]

Hi Alex,

Another option is the Rodenstock Grandagon 90mm f/6.8 - I have the Caltar II-branded version for my Wista and it's a sharp, easy to focus lens that doesn't require a centre filter. The Caltars are often cheaper for no good reason, which is another fine aspect...

Marc!

[AlexGard]

I might just hang onto the 150mm for a while and play with it to get a feel before I lash out on a 90... looking at some photos it seems 150mm can still a pretty great job as a landscape lens. just need to stop thinking in medium/35mm format mentality

[Vaughn]

Welcome to the LF world!

I have always used just the 150 with the 4x5 (well, a 210 for a little while). Mostly landscapes. Traveled with that set-up a little around Oz, but never got down to Taz (if that is an acceptable abbreviation)...tho I have spent some time in NZ with the 4x5/150mm). It can be a wonderful combination for landscape...some folks just prefer to get more into the image...I just tend to go for less.

My set up is ultra-light, so a ball head was compact and great to use. Yours is a bit heavier, so I do not recommend a ballhead. A Monfrotto 3-way or even a Gitzo would work fine. Perhaps something like this: http://www.manfrotto.us/standard-3-way-head Although gearheads are sweet.

What kind of legs do you have?

Anyway, perhaps someday I'll get down your way...if I win the lottery o r something (guess I'll need to buy a ticket, though...lol!)

Vaughn

[AlexGard]

At the moment I have a Vanguard 263AT with a pistol grip tripod head. The tripod is pretty sturdy although I am not a fan of the pistol grip head and have a feeling it might not be able to support the weight of the Sinar but I could be wrong.
The price of gitzo gear makes my head spin!!!

I did see the Sinar tripod head on ebay for (I think) a pretty good price, but not as cheap as that manfrotto head.

yes definitely get to tassie if you can, every tourist I've met who goes there say it's amazing. I used to work on the ferries going between vic and tas and people always told me they wish they had spent longer there.

[munz6869]

103354

I generally carry around 65/135/300mm lenses with my 5x4" Wista, and I must say it's the 135mm the gets the most use by far, esp. for landscapes (like this one from your neck of the woods). Wide can be too wide and even a little bit removed from the world (and dull). 300mm can be a nuisance on a windy day :)

Marc!