Upgrading to LF, dealing with filter's above 77mm

[StoneNYC]

So I just got my first LF camera Toyo 45a, and a schneider 135mm lens, it has a 77mm thread, copal-0, smaller than I thought for LF and as I understand, just a good enough image circle to work for my field camera.

So I tend to standardize on 4 lenses in a kit (like many I'm sure) the 3 normal people get, a wide, normal, and telephoto ... for me the others will be a 90mm or 75mm and a 250mm-350mm lens, and finally for me, I like a lot of macro, and I want a macro specific lens, I'm to understand they are usually in the 150mm realm, I know you can use the bellows to get macro on any lens really, but I want the added depth of field options that macro lenses are designed around as far as the lens elements etc.

ANYWAY, the point (get to the point Stone!) is that, I had standardized on 77mm filter thread size for everything I own, almost all my lenses even the 35mm stuff comes in 77mm as the filter thread, or I have a step down ring...

Now I approach LF and many of the lenses are in the 80mm range, which means purchasing larger, more expensive versions of everything I've come to rely on for a good image, color filters, ND, Circ Pol, Grad density, etc.

How do LF shooters deal with this adjustment, do you just suck it up, or is there a system? if I'm shooting a landscape, can I use a STEP DOWN ring and use a 77mm on say an 85mm lens thread and be ok because the image circle is larger than the surface area? or will I still have issues when trying to tilt/shift etc with vignetting from the edge of the step down area?

Also, I know people say since LF has such a large surface area that the lens quality and such isn't AS important as it is for smaller formats, but I'm not sure that's true, and so does this also apply to filters? can I buy cheaper filters and not lose image quality? Right now I really prefer B+W filters, I've had such issues on foggy days with Hoya and Tiffen brands with all the coatings attracting moisture or when wet bubbling in a bad way instead of a good way that allows the light to get through. I know with LF this is less of an issue as I wouldn't be shooting in a hurricane like I might with my 35mm equipment, but still, rather be prepared then have to upgrade later, I'm of the opinion if I want to do something start with the equipment that's right for the job rather than the "upgrade later" mentality, but only if there will be a need to upgrade in the first place, get it?

Thanks guys! Sorry this was long winded, I just wanted to be clear.

[Otto Seaman]

I'd try the lenses out first and see how well everything sticks before investing in more filters. I don't know of any 135mm 4x5 lens that would have a 77mm thread but maybe you found one (or made a typo)?

Once you get into larger filters then the large squares from Lee or the old Kodak, Sinar, Wratten gels or poly can be used.

But frankly, for most 4x5 lenses there aren't that many that are larger than 77mm thread unless you got the really expensive wide angles and 8x10 coverage lenses... in which case you'll probably end up swapping down in size once you actually use them.

[Alan Gales]

I shoot 8x10 as well as 4x5 and none of my lenses have a filter thread larger than 77mm. In fact only my SA 121mm has 77mm threads.

My point is that you don't have to buy large pieces of glass if you don't want to. There are a lot of options out there.

[Alan Gales]

If you can afford some of those wide angles Otto is talking about, you can afford buying more filters.

[Jim Jones]

. . . can I use a STEP DOWN ring and use a 77mm on say an 85mm lens thread and be ok . . . .

To the point, yes! There are a few disadvantages.

With the lens' aperture wide open and a smaller filter acting like an additional aperture in front of the lens, aberrations and focus shift may occur. Unless this is determined to be no problem, compose and focus without the filter. Then add the filter and stop down. In the unlikely event of doing this for macro photography with a wide aperture and very shallow DOF, you may need to make a slight focus correction to allow for introducing the filter.

Miniature cameras with full aperture automatic metering may give the wrong exposure in addition to aberration and focus shift.

[ROL]

I use 67mm B&W on all (four, ) of my LF lenses from 110 to 450, shooting 5x7 – the same filters I use for 120 (MF). I step up, not down, with the largest lens being the 67mm 110 (and a 43mm MF). Not dropping names on the lenses, but the LF's are probably the same makes as many here use. I wouldn't recommend stepping down as an encompassing strategy, unless you're certain you have sufficient coverage.

[John Kasaian]

What I don't have glass filters for, Lee polyesters gets called into service. Lee Polyester sounds like a character in a bad sitcom, doesn't it?

[Alan Gales]

What I don't have glass filters for, Lee polyesters gets called into service. Lee Polyester sounds like a character in a bad sitcom, doesn't it?

Or a 1970's porno.

[Brian Ellis]

"I want the added depth of field options that macro lenses are designed around as far as the lens elements etc."

I've never heard that LF macro lenses produce greater depth of field than a non-macro lens at the same aperture, focal length, and distance from subject. I know of course that they're optimized for close-up photography and have relatively small ranges within which they produce the best results (e.g. 3x reduction to 3x enlargement) but I don't offhand see how the optimization would include greater DOF than non-macro lenses, assuming the above three factors affecting DOF are the same.

With respect to filters, FWIW I've tried pretty much everything you can try for b&w photography - buying a separate set of filters for each different diameter lens I owned, buying one set of the largest diameter lens I owned and using step-up rings, and once using a step-down ring when the difference between the lens diameter and the ring was small. I also used some Lee 4"x4" filters that I just held up to the lens by hand and didn't worry about adapters, step-up or down rings, or anything else except making sure my hand wasn't in the picture.

I don't know that any of these methods was "the best," they just happened to be what I used at various different times. All of them worked fine, it was mostly just a question of how much trouble and expense I was willing to accept. From a pure ease-of-use standpoint the Lee filters held up to the lens by hand were probably the best but those filters are also expensive.

[vinny]

I standardized on 82mm filters for glass ans lee filters for grads, nd's and others. All my lenses that don't have 82mm threads wear step up rings and Tamron snap on lens caps. My lee hood wears a 82mm ring. This setup works for lf and mf of which I have 4 lenses which use 82mm threads.
Your other questions have been covered here in other threads.