Two Lens Set for 4x5 Field Camera - Choices

[EdC]

On top of everything else I seem to have gotten involved in with getting back in to film photography, I have a Nagaoka 4x5 field that I want to equip with a two lens set for a lightweight kit. I'm looking for some movement capability for use in the field, low cost and weight. (Gee, that isn't too much, is it!) An additional consideration is that the camera only has 11 inches of bellows draw. This should translate to 279mm. Using a quick bit of math, a 210mm lens should let me focus down to roughly 3 feet or so. An additional factor is that the lens board is only 92mm square. With that in mind, here are some candidates I'm considering in order to meet these goals:

Kodak Ektar 203mm f/7.7 (Supermatic)
Goerz Dagor 5" f/6.8 (Rapax) (Should give some good coverage)
Goerz Red Dot Artar 8 1/4 in f/9 (Compur shutter) (Not sure about the coverage on this)
Kodak Wide Field Ektar 135mm f/6.3 (Supermatic)
Wollensak 4 1/4in f/6.8 Raptar Wide Angle (Rapax)

I've looked at things like the 8 1/2in Commercial Ektar, between weight and size of the shutter, do not know how well this might work.

I open to suggestions, certainly, since I am still dealing with a very steep learning curve on all of this.

Thanks,

Ed

[Kevin Crisp]

What do you want to photograph? If landscape then I'd say the Dagor and the Ektar. But I sure use a 135mm often.

[EdC]

What do you want to photograph? If landscape then I'd say the Dagor and the Ektar. But I sure use a 135mm often.

Good point, and I should have mentioned that, Kevin! What I'm in tending to do with this outfit is general landscape. One thing I like to do is take photos of some of the smaller towns in the midwest, etc. One image that comes to mind is an old fashioned hardware store with the wringer washing machine in the window. I need to get back there with some good black and white around sundown on a weekend. Kind of reminiscent of some of the FSA photos of Walker Evans. Another favorite is David Plowden. Hope this helps a bit....

Ed

[Steve Goldstein]

On the wide side you might consider the 125mm and 135mm "inside lettering" Fujinon W lenses. These are from the first, single-coated series. The 125mm covers 211mm at f/22, the 135mm a bit more. Both are smaller and a few ounces lighter than the 135mm WF Ektar, albeit with less coverage, live in standard #0-size shutters, and take standard filters as opposed to the Ektar's Series filters. I have all three, but the 125mm Fujinon is usually the one in my backpack.

[Luis-F-S]

What do you want to photograph? If landscape then I'd say the Dagor and the Ektar.

I've always felt that a 210 and a 120 are the two most useful lenses for 4x5, ala Fred Picker!

[Eric Woodbury]

Just two? 135mm for sure. Mine is a Fujinon (lettering on the outside). Then if you prefer wide, get a 90mm. If you prefer medium, go with 200 to 210mm.

Be careful, buying lenses is addictive.

[drew.saunders]

Of my "more than two, less than two dozen (for now...)" lens collection, if I were to pick just two, with an emphasis on light weight, I'd pick my 125mm/5.6 Fujinon W (single coated, inside lettering, huge coverage) and my 200/8 Nikkor M. Both are tiny, and both are in modern Copal 0 shutters, and with a step-up ring for the Fuji, could take the same filters (I use a Lee hood and square filters, so all my lenses have a Lee adaptor). Older shutters may need a lot of service, even if the seller says "speeds sound accurate," they aren't.

Edit: I just looked on ebay for 200/8 Nikkor M lenses and they're crazy expensive now! I found one 125/5.6 Fujinon in Seiko shutter (just like mine, it's a good shutter) for a reasonable price, plus a couple 180/9 Fujinon A lenses, which is another good compact lens, also for more reasonable prices than the Nikkor-M's.

[Eric Woodbury]

Love the 200/8 Nikkor M, but they are very pricey.

[Jim Noel]

I have each of these lenses in my 4x5 pack. My favorites are the Dagor, although you might consider a slightly longer 6", and the Wollensak which has better coverage than a similar length Angulon.
Enjoy

[EdC]

Yeah, the 200mm Nikkor would be nice, but a reasonable price on them now doesn't look likely anytime soon. In the meantime, I've come across a 135mm Schneider Repro-Claron, but have the sinking feeling that this will not offer much coverage at all. Am researching this at this time.

On a lens collection, I know exactly what all of you are talking about. I've also had to get some lenses put together to cover 8x10 and ULF. So, there's already been some negative cash flow! Something that I think all of us can appreciate........

Thanks,

Ed

[Maris Rusis]

I carry a two lens kit with my Tachihara 45GF camera when walking about and "looking for snaps".
The wide lens is a Schneider Super Angulon 75mm. I can crop a 90mm or 135mm view out of this as the image sharpness holds up well for the moderate enlargements I do.
The long lens is a Nikkor-W 210mm. I can crop a 300mm or even a 400mm view out of this.
I make up the diffence between focal lengths and cropping ratios by "foot-zoom". If I carry more lenses the extra weight tires me out and overall productivity per effort expended goes down.

[angusparker]

My two cents on lens sets can be found here: http://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blog/2016/3/good-lenses-for-a-4x5-view-camera

I like the idea of the Fujinon 125/5.6 (52mm filter thread version) with the Nikkor 200/8 (also 52mm) or if you can go that long perhaps the Fujinon 240/9. I'd go with newer coated lenses in copal shutters rather than Ektars/Dagors etc the price of a good Fujinon lens isn't too rich.

[Kevin Crisp]

I'm a big fan of repro clarons in longer focal lengths, but from what I've heard the 135 will barely cover 4X5 if at all. I think I asked Jim Galli that question some years back, and he was not positive about it.

[Two23]

I do a lot of my shooting in small towns on the Northern Plains. My preferred lenses are Nikon 90mm f4.5 and Rodenstock 135mm f5.6. When shooting my antique lenses, it's Dagor 3 5/8 in. (90mm) and Tessar 165mm. I tend to use a lens that's ~90mm the most in towns.


Kent in SD

[Randy]

I enjoy my 115mm Caltar II-N f/6.8 along with my Fuji 180mm f/5.6. I purchased both for use on 5X7 but having gotten rid if the 5X7 I now carry them with my 4X5. The 115mm is a tad heavier then a 90mm f/8 but it is easier to focus.

[Tim Meisburger]

On the wide side you might consider the 125mm and 135mm "inside lettering" Fujinon W lenses. These are from the first, single-coated series. The 125mm covers 211mm at f/22, the 135mm a bit more. Both are smaller and a few ounces lighter than the 135mm WF Ektar, albeit with less coverage, live in standard #0-size shutters, and take standard filters as opposed to the Ektar's Series filters. I have all three, but the 125mm Fujinon is usually the one in my backpack.

For me its the 135mm. My most used field lens.

[John Kasaian]

Color or B&W?

[Mark Sampson]

A Repro-Claron is essentially Schneider's version of the Goerz Artar. I'd be surprised if it covers 4x5 at infinity.
My years at Kodak have made me appreciate their lenses, although they were out of production 20 years before I showed up. Of the lenses you mention, I'd use the 135/6.3 Wide Field Ektar and the 203/7.7 Ektar. The 135/6.3 is a long-time favorite of mine and I've used the 203/7.7, although I don't own one now.
More modern lenses will, of course, provide higher contrast, but in b/w the Kodaks are hard to beat. The 8-1/2"/6.3 Commercial Ektar is also a classic but if you have the 203 there's no need to look further.

[Lightbender]

You are likely to get many different answers. Probably more confusing than when you started.

Truth is just about any post WWII lens is fantastic at f8-f16.
So what you should really look at is a clean lens in a good shutter. Your choice really comes down to focal length and size.
My kit I have two extremes.. 65mm and 300mm, and a tiny 135mm for everything in between.

But also good is a150mm plasmat (Nikkor) with a90mm angulon.

Or a 210mm g-claron and a135mm Fujinon.

Or whatever.

[David Karp]

Funny how many responses are similar to the choice I would make if I could only pick two lenses.

I would pick my 125mm f/5.6 Fujinon NW and my 210mm f/5.6 Fujinon L (or a 210mm f/6.1 Schneider Xenar or Caltar Pro). The latter are smaller and simpler designs that allow them to be smaller than the typical 210mm Plasmat lens design. They are the same construction as the 200mm Nikkor M.

My photos are mostly landscape in black and white. These are my most used lenses.

[EdC]

My two cents on lens sets can be found here: http://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blog/2016/3/good-lenses-for-a-4x5-view-camera

I like the idea of the Fujinon 125/5.6 (52mm filter thread version) with the Nikkor 200/8 (also 52mm) or if you can go that long perhaps the Fujinon 240/9. I'd go with newer coated lenses in copal shutters rather than Ektars/Dagors etc the price of a good Fujinon lens isn't too rich.

My compliments to you on your website. I have made use of that, and especially your section on ULF. Thanks!


Ed

[EdC]

Color or B&W?

It will probably be at least 75% black and white.

Ed

[EdC]

A Repro-Claron is essentially Schneider's version of the Goerz Artar. I'd be surprised if it covers 4x5 at infinity.
My years at Kodak have made me appreciate their lenses, although they were out of production 20 years before I showed up. Of the lenses you mention, I'd use the 135/6.3 Wide Field Ektar and the 203/7.7 Ektar. The 135/6.3 is a long-time favorite of mine and I've used the 203/7.7, although I don't own one now.
More modern lenses will, of course, provide higher contrast, but in b/w the Kodaks are hard to beat. The 8-1/2"/6.3 Commercial Ektar is also a classic but if you have the 203 there's no need to look further.

I used a Commercial Ektar with an old Calumet 8x10 that I used to own, and always liked the results. I do not have the 203mm yet, but was considering that for reasons of size and price. Are there reasons to choose an 8-1/2" Comm. Ektar over the 203mm f/7.7 Ektar?

On the Wide Field Ektar, would love to track one down. However, from what I have seen they are not common in any length. There are some being sold from Japan on a certain auction site, but at prices running well over $500. Not what I was looking for.

Anyhow, hope this helps a bit.

Ed

[angusparker]

My compliments to you on your website. I have made use of that, and especially your section on ULF. Thanks!


Ed

Thanks. Just jotting down what I've learned so that others can benefit. It usually just pulling together what others on this site have already shared in posts but in a more structured form.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lightbender]

Funny how many responses are similar to the choice I would make if I could only pick two lenses.

I would pick my 125mm f/5.6 Fujinon NW and my 210mm f/5.6 Fujinon L (or a 210mm f/6.1 Schneider Xenar or Caltar Pro). The latter are smaller and simpler designs that allow them to be smaller than the typical 210mm Plasmat lens design. They are the same construction as the 200mm Nikkor M.

My photos are mostly landscape in black and white. These are my most used lenses.

Regarding the Fujinon 125.. Fuji is really the only manufacturer that took 125 seriously. The others had 135mm.. but that is too close to 150mm.

[David Hedley]

On top of everything else I seem to have gotten involved in with getting back in to film photography, I have a Nagaoka 4x5 field that I want to equip with a two lens set for a lightweight kit. I'm looking for some movement capability for use in the field, low cost and weight. (Gee, that isn't too much, is it!) An additional consideration is that the camera only has 11 inches of bellows draw. This should translate to 279mm. Using a quick bit of math, a 210mm lens should let me focus down to roughly 3 feet or so. An additional factor is that the lens board is only 92mm square. With that in mind, here are some candidates I'm considering in order to meet these goals:

Kodak Ektar 203mm f/7.7 (Supermatic)
Goerz Dagor 5" f/6.8 (Rapax) (Should give some good coverage)
Goerz Red Dot Artar 8 1/4 in f/9 (Compur shutter) (Not sure about the coverage on this)
Kodak Wide Field Ektar 135mm f/6.3 (Supermatic)
Wollensak 4 1/4in f/6.8 Raptar Wide Angle (Rapax)

I've looked at things like the 8 1/2in Commercial Ektar, between weight and size of the shutter, do not know how well this might work.

I open to suggestions, certainly, since I am still dealing with a very steep learning curve on all of this.

Thanks,

Ed

My 2c;

First, a modern 90mm f/8 (Fujinon or Nikkor, for example) - light, portable, easy to use, and probably a 67mm filter size. A wide lens like this is really useful if you're hiking with the camera, and want to get near / far LF landscape photographs using front tilt & rise. Anything wider and you may need to use a recessed lens board, which can be a pain to use. The faster 90mm lenses are also appreciably heavier.

Second, either a modern 180mm or 210mm, depending on what you prefer, and also with a 67mm filter size. A Schneider Super-Symmar (for example) is also light and easy to use, particularly with common LF movements. If you want to focus close, then I'd personally go for the 180mm, as it will gve you more flexibility in bellows draw, magnification and distance from the subject (particularly with a 279mm bellows draw).

[Carsten Wolff]

My 2c;

First, a modern 90mm f/8 (Fujinon or Nikkor, for example) - light, portable, easy to use, and probably a 67mm filter size. A wide lens like this is really useful if you're hiking with the camera, and want to get near / far LF landscape photographs using front tilt & rise. Anything wider and you may need to use a recessed lens board, which can be a pain to use. The faster 90mm lenses are also appreciably heavier.

Second, either a modern 180mm or 210mm, depending on what you prefer, and also with a 67mm filter size. A Schneider Super-Symmar (for example) is also light and easy to use, particularly with common LF movements. If you want to focus close, then I'd personally go for the 180mm, as it will gve you more flexibility in bellows draw, magnification and distance from the subject (particularly with a 279mm bellows draw).

I'd go with that as well. Although an adapter ring to 67mm for the longer lenses to match the 90mm may be even easier than going all 67mm; with the weight-saving of small glass you can then get a third lens :) - the tiny 203 Ektar and 200mm Nikkors are excellent. My "light" kit is 90mm, 135mm and 210mm. (Ilex Acu-Veriwide, Fujinon-W-old and Komura Commercial, but you don't necessarily need the large ICs these particular lenses offer (I've just got them so I can also use them on 5x7" and 6x17cm)).

[rfesk]

I definitely use a 90mm fairly often. Excellent for buildings where you can't back up enough. Otherwise, you can get by with something longer.
My lenses are a 90/8, 135/5.6 and 240/9. The 203 Ektar is fine. The question is do you want a 90, 125 or a 135 for the wider end if you only want two lenses.

[Sal Santamaura]

After more than three decades owning and shooting with many modern lenses from the three major manufacturers, almost every one purchased new, and having multiple optics* in most focal lengths, here are the two I've settled on to go with my 4x5 Phillips:


135mm f/5.6 CM Fujinon W
210mm f/5.6 Apo Symmar

Both have step-up rings and are used with 77mm filters. This avoids collisions between filter glass and the Apo Symmar's front element while completely eliminating any movement restriction on their sharp-to-the-edge image circles. Also, despite a small weight penalty, I find the bright viewing (through a Maxwell screen, Beattie AR-coated cover glass and pop-up focus hood -- no dark cloth necessary) worth it.

When another 1.5 multiple is needed, I bring along a 300mm f/9 Nikkor-M and dedicated 52mm yellow filter rather than a 52-77mm step up ring. There's no issue composing/focusing through the Maxwell with an f/9 lens at that focal length and the small filter weighs less than a ring would.


* Note that I own a number of single-coated, outside-lettering, 80-degree Fujinon plasmats, including 135mm, 180mm, 210mm and 250mm. In my experience, while that series will illuminate the circles it's specified to, field curvature and sharpness falloff near the outside of those circles is such that their overall performance doesn't match, much less exceed, more recent designs.

[EdC]

Lots of good information to consider! Thanks to everyone for chiming in. I mentioned at the outset wanting to restrict myself to a two lens set. I might want to change that to a 3 lens set. If I do so, my goal is still to keep the entire outfit other than tripod to something capable of fitting in a very small day pack. I do like Sal's suggestion regarding a Maxwell screen, etc. Brightening things up is worth it.

So, I've been busy seriously checking various sources for lenses, trying to keep pricing at a reasonable level. Interestingly enough, I've found some near new Nikon lenses at a dealer with some excellent pricing. I could get near mint 135mm and 210mm lenses for a total of roughly $550 and then look in to a 90mm later on, when time permits.

At any rate, we'll see what develops!

Thanks,

Ed

[Sal Santamaura]

...I've found some near new Nikon lenses at a dealer with some excellent pricing. I could get near mint 135mm and 210mm lenses for a total of roughly $550 and then look in to a 90mm later on, when time permits...I'd not suggest you buy the 135mm f/5.6 Nikkor W. Mine, purchased new, isn't too sharp at the corners of a centered 4x5 frame (not even the edge of its image circle), consistent with the test results here:


http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

On the other hand, I've a 300mm f/5.6 Nikkor W that's extraordinarily sharp over its full circle, even at f/64. There's apparently considerable variation between different focal lengths of the same lens line.

When you get around to acquiring a 90mm, I enthusiastically recommend the f/8 Nikkor. My sample of that lens is as good a performer as the one listed in the linked test results.

[EdC]

I'd not suggest you buy the 135mm f/5.6 Nikkor W. Mine, purchased new, isn't too sharp at the corners of a centered 4x5 frame (not even the edge of its image circle), consistent with the test results here:


http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

On the other hand, I've a 300mm f/5.6 Nikkor W that's extraordinarily sharp over its full circle, even at f/64. There's apparently considerable variation between different focal lengths of the same lens line.

When you get around to acquiring a 90mm, I enthusiastically recommend the f/8 Nikkor. My sample of that lens is is good a performer as the one listed in the linked test results.

Thanks for the link, Sal! Color me surprised to see the results that you mentioned. I guess it's natural to figure that performance would be consistent across an entire line. I decided to look up the Ektar lenses, and the 203mm comes across with some decidedly good performance. At any rate, I'm going to have to do some further checking in to the testing results to screen lenses that don't compare well with others of the same size. Good information to have! Okay, lab coat back on, and return to the lab for more work on this......

Ed

[Vaughn]

Consider lenses that will go with you when you move to a field 5x7! :cool:
I got a Fuji W 180mm (inside writing) that will service both the 4x5 and the 5x7. I was hoping for some use of the 8x10 (for 4x10s, really), but my camera would require a recessed lensboard.

[Salmo22]

After more than three decades owning and shooting with many modern lenses from the three major manufacturers, almost every one purchased new, and having multiple optics* in most focal lengths, here are the two I've settled on to go with my 4x5 Phillips:


135mm f/5.6 CM Fujinon W
210mm f/5.6 Apo Symmar

Both have step-up rings and are used with 77mm filters. This avoids collisions between filter glass and the Apo Symmar's front element while completely eliminating any movement restriction on their sharp-to-the-edge image circles. Also, despite a small weight penalty, I find the bright viewing (through a Maxwell screen, Beattie AR-coated cover glass and pop-up focus hood -- no dark cloth necessary) worth it.

When another 1.5 multiple is needed, I bring along a 300mm f/9 Nikkor-M and dedicated 52mm yellow filter rather than a 52-77mm step up ring. There's no issue composing/focusing through the Maxwell with an f/9 lens at that focal length and the small filter weighs less than a ring would.


* Note that I own a number of single-coated, outside-lettering, 80-degree Fujinon plasmats, including 135mm, 180mm, 210mm and 250mm. In my experience, while that series will illuminate the circles it's specified to, field curvature and sharpness falloff near the outside of those circles is such that their overall performance doesn't match, much less exceed, more recent designs.

Like the OP, I'm getting back into LF (4x5) after a significant hiatus of several decades. I'm very interested in the 210mm f/5.6 APO Symmar; however, I'm not sure if you and Mr. Thalmann are referring to the "MC" version or the "L-75* MC" version? Not only is there a significant difference in cost on the used market, the single 210mm Schneider Symmar APO f/5.6 Mr. Thalmann cites in his testing does not refer to either the "MC" version or the "L-75* MC" version. While this lack of understanding on my end clearly identifies me as a rank amateur, I'd rather be certain than worry about brusing my ego. Any assistance in helping me get pointed at the 210mm f/5.6 APO Symmar that both Sal and Mr. Thalmann are citing would be appreciated.

[rfesk]

I suspect that when Mr. Thalmann tested the lenses several years ago there was no "L-75* MC" version in existence.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I'm very interested in the 210mm f/5.6 APO Symmar; however, I'm not sure if you and Mr. Thalmann are referring to the "MC" version or the "L-75* MC" version?...Any assistance in helping me get pointed at the 210mm f/5.6 APO Symmar that both Sal and Mr. Thalmann are citing would be appreciated.Both my post above and Christopher/Kerry's lens test refer to the 210mm Apo Symmar, a 72-degree lens, not the 75-degree Apo Symmar L.

Reportedly as a result of EU regulations that caused certain glass types to become unavailable, when Schneider designed the "L" series, ultimate resolution could not be as high. I've compared MTF charts for the 210mm Apo Symmar and Apo Symmar L; while not providing evidence to support the 'why' (lead out of glass), they do explain why the 'plain' Apo Symmar is sharpest.

On 4x5, image circle of the 210mm Apo Symmar is large enough for any practical movements. The extra three degrees of coverage an "L" version provides are of no real use.

[Pere Casals]

IMHO the vast majority of modern good 4x5 lenses are diffraction limited by f/22, performing mostly the same at this aperture, at least with a centered shot. So at f/64 all have resolving power well limited by difraction, performing just the same resolving power.


IMHO there are sample to sample exceptions. And some people interchange shutter without interchanging front calibrated shim, so front to rear cell distance is not anymore the ideal one for that sample... even some ebay glass simply lacks the calibration shim, it happened to me, anyway it's easy to solve that, just unscreew until focused image it's at its best, this can be seen with an eyepiece.

[EdC]

Just as a follow up to all of this, I wanted to mention what I did wind up buying. It was possible to get a Kodak Ektar 203mm in Compur, and there is a 135mm Wide Field Ektar that is on its way for inspection. Thanks to one and all for the feedback! Very much appreciated.

Ed

[LabRat]

Just as a follow up to all of this, I wanted to mention what I did wind up buying. It was possible to get a Kodak Ektar 203mm in Compur, and there is a 135mm Wide Field Ektar that is on its way for inspection. Thanks to one and all for the feedback! Very much appreciated.

Ed

Both very good (slightly older world vintage/look) lenses... (I like those better than the modern harder looking lenses...) Good choice!!!!

One note I'll make about the 135mm WF Ektar is that it has great coverage, but I notice that with mine that if you use the extremes of the IC, not too sharp unless you stop down to f32... On axis and slightly off (on 4X5), it is quite sharp even wide open... Just stop it all the way down if your massive front rise turns the camera into a periscope... ;-)

Steve K

[Drew Bedo]

For ease of use in the field and on the fly, I find that a 150mm whatever is a snap. Bellows correction is a pre-figured 1/3 stop for every inch beyond infinity.

S, odo the focus-compose-focus dance then measure the extension. For every inch beyond six inches add 1/3 more exposure.


for a 210mm lens its 1/4 stop more for each inch beyond eight inches (OK, this one is not exact, but works well.

[John Layton]

I find it almost impossible to decide on exactly two lenses when I take out my 4x5. Its either my "grab and go" outfit of the super light (1st gen) Gowland 4x5 with 135mm Sironar-N (plus Feisol CF, four to six holders, Pentax spot)...or more "involved" (and heavier!) kit of an L-45A, 90/135/210 lenses (usually also a 305), plus a greater volume of film and other associated goodies.

But with my currently preferred format of 5x7 (L-57A) - its either the above mentioned four lens setup, or two lenses...a 120 SA plus 210 Sironar-N. But never just one lens.

If I were to recommend exactly two lenses for 4x5...it would probably be something like 110/180.

[Luis-F-S]

8 1/4" Dagor and either a 6" Dagor or a 120 Angulon. L

[esearing]

I use a 65MM and 135MM most for landscapes. I also carry 180MM and 250mm. I'm considering a 75/80 MM to replace the 65 since they have almost same angle of view and slightly more movements.

[Vaughn]

Just as a follow up to all of this, I wanted to mention what I did wind up buying. It was possible to get a Kodak Ektar 203mm in Compur, and there is a 135mm Wide Field Ektar that is on its way for inspection. Thanks to one and all for the feedback! Very much appreciated.

Ed

Sounds great Ed. A 203mm is an interesting focal length -- sounds very useful. I am not much of a wide-angle image-maker, but the 135mm with the coverage that Steve indicates, again, sounds very useful. While not mathematically equivilent, I do like my 300mm for 8x10...a wide normal (or a long wide?)

I bought an 180mm Fuji W for my 5x7, but I think it will start spending time on the 4x5 as well! Hope the 135mm fit the bill for you!

[EdC]

Just as a follow up to all of this, I wanted to mention what I did wind up buying. It was possible to get a Kodak Ektar 203mm in Compur, and there is a 135mm Wide Field Ektar that is on its way for inspection. Thanks to one and all for the feedback! Very much appreciated.

Ed

Well, I probably jinxed myself by speaking too soon. Sad to say, both lenses wound up being returned, so I am back to looking around again. That being said, I will be making use of the advice provided in this thread in order to get this camera into use.

Thanks,

Ed

[MAubrey]

If I had to choose just two lenses, I'd probably cheat.

A 90 and a 180/315 Symmar convertible.

90 is a solid focal length that isn't excessive in its perspective distortion and can still have plenty of movement.
180 is just slightly longer than normal--closer in AoV to the traditional 50mm for small format.
315 is an nice ~2x normal, which is great for portraits.

[gnuyork]

Mainly I use a 90 and a 210. I don't really wish for anything more. (I also have a couple vintage Ektars 203 and something wider that don't get much use).

[Doremus Scudder]

I've been following this thread with interest for a while now. I guess I'll finally chime in.

First, sorry to hear that you had to return the Ektar lenses. I own and use both regularly. The 203mm f/7.7 is small, sharp and has great coverage, the WF 135mm has more coverage than a standard 135mm Plasmat by a long shot and is about the same size. You might continue searching for these same lenses in better condition. You couldn't go wrong with either if you find good ones.

To address the original question however: My favorite two-lens kit is a three-lens kit. I like 90mm, 135mm and a lens in the 200mm range. I carry a 90mm f/8 Super Angulon, a 135mm WF Ektar and a 203mm Ektar just about always. They were cheap enough that they are the equivalent of two other LF lenses in price as well as in size and weight.

My recommendation is not to limit yourself to two lenses, but get three - wide - middle - long. Look for deals and sleepers. A bit of patience and you'll have a kit you won't need to augment much at all, maybe never.

90mm Fujinon SW and Schneider Super Angulon lenses are plentiful and cheap.

135-150mm Plasmats are all over the place for cheap too. (FWIW I use 135mm for the greatest percentage of my shots.) That just leaves a longer lens to choose.

210mm Plasmats are plentiful, but too heavy for me; I like my 203mm Ektar, but would be happy with others in that focal length. A G-Claron in a shutter is likely not too expensive. A Fujinon A 180mm is a bit shorter, but also a super lens: light and small. I have a Fujinon L 210mm 210mm lens that performs just fine (Tessar) and is not too big. If you want to go a bit longer, the 240mm Fujinon A is tops for size and weight.

Smaller lenses in the 200-240mm range have smaller maximum apertures. If you need brighter, you'll have to go larger, so you're back to the Plasmats...

Hope this helps,

Doremus

[EdC]

Well, thought I'd chime in with what I ultimately bought. First, I did take the advice of several posters, and went with a three lens set. That did make sense. I ultimately gave up on finding any classic lenses in a condition that I felt I could live with. Here's what I wound up getting -

210mm 5.6 Rodenstock Sironar N - Picked this up at a price well below $200. There is a coating flaw precisely in the middle of the front element about the size of a pinhead. From my research on this forum, that shouldn't matter. Marvelous condition otherwise.
135mm 5.6 Rodenstock Sironar N - Near new condition. This was the priciest of the three.
90mm 4.5 Rodenstock Grandagon - Near new condition. Larger than I was planning on, but between the condition and an extremely competitive price, and the slightly brighter focusing that I could use for interior shots when out and about, I couldn't pass it up. For the money, I'll go with the size, and use Lee filters.

Anyhow, thanks for all of the advice! It did come in handy in regards to looking at focal lengths, and the number!

Ed

[Bill_1856]

Sounds like you've got a near-perfect setup.

[consummate_fritterer]

Wide lightweight set: 90/8 Nikkor-SW, 150/9 Computar

Med lightweight set: 135/5.6 Fuji-W (front lettering), 203/7.7 Ektar (in Compur)

Long lightweight set: 150/9 Computar, 240/9 Apo Ronar

[xkaes]

I'm not going to tell you what TWO focal lengths to go with. You've already had lots of opinions regarding that. No matter which lenses you choose, keep in mind that there is an inexpensive, lighweight, small and easy way to expand the lenses that you have. Check out:

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/close-up.htm

In the end, it will tell you if, and which, additional focal lengths you might want to add to -- or switch to -- without breaking the bank.

[Jac@stafford.net]

The two lenses need not overlap in coverage because you can usually walk the difference for example, a 210mm and 90mm.

[Mark Sawyer]

How about a 7.5-inch Verito and a 190mm Ektar?

[Jac@stafford.net]

How about a 7.5-inch Verito and a 190mm Ektar?

Trick question! :)

[Sal Santamaura]

Well, thought I'd chime in with what I ultimately bought...Anyhow, thanks for all of the advice! It did come in handy in regards to looking at focal lengths, and the number!...You're most welcome. The three you ended up with are top tier and will provide you no excuse for bad pictures. :)

I find the five posts immediately preceding this one to be entertaining examples of 'transmit-only mode.' None of those posters bothered to read that you've already selected and purchased the (three) lenses for your kit. If only the software had some way to verify members have read an entire thread before permitting them to post. :D

[Mark Sawyer]

Trick question! :)

Technically, a trick answer! :rolleyes: Although those might well be my choice. It seems like focal lengths are the only options people worry about...

[David Karp]

Good choices. I have either owned, or own the 210mm (the Caltar II-N version) and the 90mm. Outstanding lenses. I don't own the 135mm, but I own the 150mm. Very nice.

[Thalmees]

... What I'm in tending to do with this outfit is general landscape. One thing I like to do is take photos of some of the smaller towns in the midwest, etc.
...
Ed


It will probably be at least 75% black and white.
Ed
Hello EdC,
Welcome to photography.
It looks to me that you are about artistic photography, not after a job or business to fulfill.
So, why you do not consider Grandagon N 90/4.5 or any equivalent?
I have an older version of the lens, it has a marvelous rendering, very sharp and more than enough coverage behind and in front of the lens.
If I left with only one lens, it should be the 90/4.5.
Please consider, its not small and its in the heavier side. But, it could be your gold standard in sharpness for your other lenses.


...
And some people interchange shutter without interchanging front calibrated shim, so front to rear cell distance is not anymore the ideal one for that sample... even some ebay glass simply lacks the calibration shim, it happened to me, anyway it's easy to solve that, just unscreew until focused image it's at its best, this can be seen with an eyepiece.
Hello Pere,
Could you specify in details(if possible) the differences in image quality between the two cases, with or without spacer?
Is the difference confined to close range distance? Or not?
I still have something to add to the Rodagon 105/5.6 thread, will update later.
Thank you so much Pere.

[Jim Andrada]

Glad you found a kit that works for you. I normally use a 150 G-Claron, a 203 Ektar and a 305 Repro Claron. (And more often than I would have expected a 500mm Nikor T)

[EdC]

Noted here, also, Sal! Oh well.......

Thanks!

Ed



You're most welcome. The three you ended up with are top tier and will provide you no excuse for bad pictures. :)

I find the five posts immediately preceding this one to be entertaining examples of 'transmit-only mode.' None of those posters bothered to read that you've already selected and purchased the (three) lenses for your kit. If only the software had some way to verify members have read an entire thread before permitting them to post. :D

[Pere Casals]

Hello Pere,
Could you specify in details(if possible) the differences in image quality between the two cases, with or without spacer?
Is the difference confined to close range distance? Or not?
I still have something to add to the Rodagon 105/5.6 thread, will update later.
Thank you so much Pere.


Sorry, I saw your question now.

Spacer rings were used when needed to adjust rear to front cell distance for best sharpness. For every pair of cells it may be required different ring spacers (normally) ranging from 0.5mm to 1.5mm

A lens may have no spacer, one spacer or more than one.

This is used to get best correction possible of aberrations for a particular lens. More distance makes aberrations provocated by front cell to spread more before the rear cell compensates it in the oposite way.

It is also possible that one spacing distance is better for the center and another is better for corners. Also a particular spacing can work better for near subjects or for infinite.

If I'm not mistaken, a process lens can be optimized for distant subjects by changing spacing, for example to be used for ULF.

To find best spacing you use a resolution target and an eyepiece, so you see the image "in the air". Projection on Ground Glass it is not good enough for that, as the frozen glass texture degradates the image quality.

At the end you see the resolution target through the lens with the eyepiece, and you unscreew to seek best Lp/mm in the center and/or in the corners, for macro or for distant subjects. You count the number of tours you unscreew the front cell until best image...

...and as you know the thread pitch you also know the good ring thickness.

This kind of optimization is useful for very sharp shots. If shot is not very sharp (f/32 diffraction) perhaps it won't be noticed. I've been playing with that, using a microscope 20x periplan as eyepiece, but I've pending learning about that.

[thafred]

Interesting and informative replies here! Here´s my two cents:

In my experience it´s best to look at your favourite focal length for formats you already shoot and buy appropriate for 4x5. When you start to get the hang of Large Format AND know WHAT you want to shoot with it, you will have a clear idea how to proceed with your lenses. Resale value most of the time is the same as purchase price so a little experimentation doesn´t hurt too much if on a budget.

I shot mainly with a Leica M before LF and my most used lenses were 40mm and 28mm. So as I started out I got two lenses for my field Camera, a 90mm Super Angulon MC and a 150mm APO Symmar. Surprisingly about 80% of shooting I did with the 90 SA (on Leica I used 40mm much more. BUT I was starting to shoot differently so for me the Format reflected into my photography style. Not only because of the Limitations of the Format but I started to seek other Pictures.

After a while I found 90mm just wasn't wide enough for what I wanted to shoot (a little bit landscape and a lot Urban Architecture) so I got a 75mm Nikkor f4,5. That was my kit for the last few Years. Sometime I carried all three lenses but most of the time only 75 and 150 or 90 and 150. (those WA lenses all weight about 500g...much rather carry three extra film holders)

Only last week I treated myself with a 300mm Apo Ronar and a 125mm Fujinon-W . both modern Multicoated versions so my Kit now consists of two sets. The 220IC gang (150APO and 90MC) and the 200mm IC pack (75 and 125)..the Ronar just lives in the bag, at under 300g I don't see a reason not to take it with me.

Don't worry about the first lenses for Field shooting, it will most definitely not be the last lens purchase you make!