Printable View
I don't have an idea either but I'm the same way. One of my favorite lenses for my Contax 35mm camera was 25mm. The widest lens I have used on 8x10 is my 250mm which feels like my 35mm felt on my 35mm camera. I've got a 180mm and 121mm for 4x5 that will just cover 8x10 straight on but I've never felt a need yet for something that wide.Quote:
Originally Posted by mdarnton
Serge, I've got a 121mm for 4x5 and it would probably be closer to a 65mm lens than an 80mm on 6x7. It feels to me like a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera. A mild wide. You may actually prefer a 135mm for 4x5 but I don't know if any 135mm lenses can cover 5x7.
The older Fuji 125 and 135mm single coated lenses will cover 5x7, though the 125 will not allow movements.
Kumar
I use my 120SA much more than my 90, but obviously that's highly personal.
I would agree with Peter. I have 120mm, 90mm and 65mm lenses for my 4x5, and the lens that I use most of these three is the 120mm, then the 65mm, followed by 90mm. Have you considered taking a bit of cardboard and making a viewing frame to get an idea of what sort of angle of view you'd like? I think that there's a formula that you can use for determining the distance to hold the frame to mimic lens sizes. Just a thought......Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt
Ed
I have a lovely and expensive Rodenstock 90mm f4.5 WA and I think it's never been on the camera. I just don't see wide very well. An old Fuji single coated 125 is one of my most used lenses in 4X5. I have a 110mm Cooke Series VII that is a worthy lens also, but no shutter.
I have both Super Angulons XL 72mm and XL 90mm with center filters for my Canham wood 5x7 camera, both lenses recommended by Mr. Canham. Watch your feet with the XL 72mm! I have slight movements with the XL 72mm. It helps to have a bag bellows for both lenses.
Best wishes --- Allen
Oren,Quote:
Originally Posted by Oren Grad
I am using a 5x7 Deardorff for 4x5, but plan to use the 5x7 back this summer now that I've got a hold of some film holders.
Thanks,
Serge
Thanks to all for the great information.
It's a bit trickier to purchase a lens to work for two formats, taking lens coverage and overall field of view account. And the price points are quite wide as well😀
I am leaning towards getting a moderate wide angle for the 4x5 format, as opposed to the 90.
Thanks again for all the great feedback!
Serge
Hello Serge,
Rodenstock 90mm/4.5 did not, IMHO, receive the deserved mentioning in this thread. My apology if that could irritate any body here.
It covers 5x7, but do not have personal experience. Please review manufacturer website.
On 4x5, it's very sharp and not so much wide for my taste. Equivalent to 28mm in small format.
Does not need to a center filter.
I'm looking now to 11x14 crop of 49.5" enlargement from 4x5 FP4+ developed in HRX.
Of course, do not have structural capability to enlarge to 50" longer aspect(10X). Just testing lenses at the central part of the negative.
You may imagine me putting my short height nose over the 11x14 crop print, saying: this is magic, marvelous, extremely sharp for a 50" print. Yes, FP4+ has its effect, also HRX. But nothing of that sharpness could be retained if the lens is not super sharp in the first place.
Mine is older version of MC( I think), it covers 102° only. Have seen only few similar in Ebay. But, the 105° coverage version, is typically distributed and more common.
Use it with Sinar behind lens shutter, failed to reassemble in a copal shutter. It's in the heavier side, but I keep it(with Sinar shutter), ALWAYS, in my camera bag. Super satisfied with this lens.
It's a marvelous lens that covers 5x7.
Hope this useful.
Thanks.