Care to comment on proposed lens kit?

[Brian Ellis]

110, 135/150, and 210 seems like an odd starting lens combination to me. That's three more or less normal lenses and one very slightly wide lens. Why such a concentration of lenses in the midrange? Unless you're a dedicated, dyed-in-the-wool, never-use-a-wide-angle-lens- photographer, why not forget the 110, get a 90, then a 150 or 210, then something longer, maybe 300. Then you would have a nice spread of focal lengths and could fill in any gaps later if you found it necessary.

[David Young]

Ralph (et-al) - I'll take a look at that Nikkor 360T thanks for the tip.

Dave - Not out of school.... that is in fact the lens that I'm unsure of. I'm leaning more and more to renting something before I buy that length.

Eugene, Kevin, Dave - Is a 135 all that different from a 110?? you guys really think I'll miss having something like a 150 in the middle? I've rented a 110 in some of my explorations and I really can't see a 90 for me as I didn't find myself wanting for a wider lens than the 110.

Brian - That's what I was thinking and just saying.... seems like overkill on the midrange concentration, and frankly with 40-60mm difference in focal lengths I could likely walk a few paces forward or back and get the same viewpoint.

Note to all: I'm not ruling it out (the 90 or the 135/150).... just can't see it yet and definitly would want to rent one for a bit to see if I like what I see. I also feel that based on my past experience that I'll likely settle on two, or *maybe* three lenses that'll work well for me. I'm not ashamed to admit that I may take back that comment on wider lenses at some point, or that I may end up selling one or all of the initial lenses in favor of a completely different set.

Thanks all for the tips on talking to Jim at MPEX... I'll give him a call before I buy anything. I appreciate all the comments and still look for more!

Cheers, D.

[David Karp]

David,

Its hard to tell you what will be best for you. And your preferences may change over time. So what you buy now may not be best for you later.

That said, A 210mm is considered by many to be a long normal lens. The 135mm is a wide normal lens. The 150mm is normal. Even so, it is not unusual for photographers to have either a 135mm or 150mm paired with a 210mm in their kit. In fact, two of these plus a 90mm is a very common kit.

Without saying it as well as Brian did, I think that I was thinking along the same lines as he is. That is why I offered the 125mm Fujinon for consideration. If you are going for the long normal 210mm, then a slightly wide 125mm is not so wide as to crowd a 90mm, but not so far from the wide normal 135mm. If you eventually get a 90mm, then you will have a nice spread - 90mm, 125mm, 210mm, plus whatever else you pick up.

Of course, then you have to consider things like filter sizes, budget, lens size, and everything else that goes into a lens buying decision.

It might be a good idea to rent a 90mm for a weekend and give it a try. 150s and 135s are also commonly available for rent. The problem with the 125mm is that it is not so common, and probably unavailable for rent.

For what its worth, I have a 75, 90, 125, 210, 300, and 450. A fairly good spread. The three widest lenses are often used for architectural subjects. If I had not purchased the 210 first, I might have ended up with a different kit, perhaps 75, 90, 125, 180, 240, 450 (or I might have skipped the 180). Who knows?

In the end, what makes sense to me or others, may not make sense to you. Also, what you buy first may not be what you want in the end. In addition to renting, I advocate buying used from a reputable dealer. That will make it easier to recoup your costs if you later decide to sell and buy a different lens.

[David A. Goldfarb]

For architecture, you'll probably want a 90. You might also find that your preferred focal length range does not correspond to your preferences in other formats. As I started experimenting with other formats after shooting 35mm for a long time, I decided that a wide lens often takes in too much information for a 35mm neg to render adequately, but I tend toward the wide end in large format.

If I were you, I'd start with one lens--maybe the 210. Get used to the camera, the movements, a feel for the format, and then you'll know what you really need.

[Bruce Watson]

As you can tell from a number of replies you've already gotten, there's a wide range of opinions.

My opinion is that you are making an unwarranted assumption. That is, your preference of lenses for 35mm somehow applies to LF. I thought that too, and I was wrong.

The reason for this is that photographing with LF means a tripod which hinders your ability to move the camera around when framing the shot. Photographing with 35mm means handheld, and mobility. When you are using 35mm, do you look through the viewfinder and move around to compose your shot? Walk forward and back? Side to side? Most people do. What they are doing to some extent is accommodating their lenses. Much harder to do with LF.

When I was into 35mm, I had exactly two lenses, a 35mm and a 105mm. In LF, I've now got three that I use almost equally - 110mm, 150mm, 240mm. There's very little correlation here.

I started with a 110mm myself. Used it alone for a few months before deciding on another lens. I resisted the 150mm for a long time - didn't need no stinkin' "normal" lens. Yet, I do need it in LF.

My advice is that you start with a 150mm. That lens that you think you really don't want and don't need. They are less expensive that others, and you can always sell it later if you don't use it. The reason to start with a 150 is that it's easier to learn movements, and easier to learn what you'll have to learn eventually - to frame the shot in your head and decide from where to take the shot before you start setting up your tripod.

From there I suspect that you'll like the 110mm. From there you'll either go shorter (75mm) or longer 210/240mm. This gives you angles of view in 15 degree increments, which seems to make a lot of sense visually to me. Of course, YMMV.

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

"Schneider SS-XL 110/5.6 The classic "if I could only have one lens" choice by many people here. A little heavier than the APO-Symmar 120, and double the price, but it seems to be the consensus that the bang-for-the-buck is more than worth it. "

I would prefer the APO Symmar 120 AND Grandagon 90mm f/6.8 for the same price as the 110mm f/5.6. That seems like more bang for your buck.

[Gem Singer]

Hello again David,

I have the same set of focal lengths that David Karp has, with the addition of a 150. I'm not saying that you need all of those focal lengths. What I am saying is that you should have at least one lens in the "normal" range, as well as a wide angle lens and a long lens. I find the 210 to be in the long lens category.

It is not always possible to move forward and backward to get the composition you are looking for. The 110XL is definitely a wide angle lens. It is more like a 90, than a 135. A 150 and a 135 are almost identical in the way they see the world, except the 150 usually has a larger image circle.

For many years, the standard lens kit for the 4X5 format has been 90-150-210. They are three focal lengths that seem to work comfortably with most 4X5 cameras, without the need for a wide angle bellows or an extension lensboard. They will cover almost all picture making situations. Fred Picker advocated the use of only two lenses for outdoor landscape photography, a 120 wide angle and a 210 long "normal" lens. He believed that the 90 would be better for indoor architectural work. I tend to agree with him.

[Kirk Gittings]

I do arch photography almost exclusively. The lenses I use regularly are 47, 65, 90,120,150,210,350.

In the commercial arch photo business we have a saying "90% of the images are taken with a 90mm lens". There are two reasons for this. On interiors the human eye "scans" a room and wide angle lenses simulate that in a fixed image. A 90MM lens is about as wide as you can go without starting to get into significant distortion, though you often have to go wider. And for exteriors, in order to get an in an entire facade and be close enough to it to avoid all the street signs and crap you need a 90.

On my fine art arch photography I tend toward longer lenses. I would say I use a 90 about 30% of the time, a 120 10%, a 150 5%, and a 210 about 50%.

[Herb Cunningham]

Hoo boy! how many opinions-most of us would be embarrased to tell exactly how many lenses we own.

You might want to experiment with convertibles-Ron Wisner swears by them, and I have about 4, two schneiders and two Turner Reich, on 5x7 and one 8x10- the 8x10 is way too big for 4x5, but the 5x7 provides three focal lengths and usually sell for about $150 to $200. The Schneider convertibles sell on ebay sometimes by sellers who do not know they are convertibles. I got a 135/235 schneider on an old wista that I got for $100, and it folds up in the camera, portablility plus.

Nobody disputes the superiority of modern vs older, and single vs convertibles, but you could find out about focal lengths (not in wide angle) pretty cheap, and cover all the focal lengths that have been mentioned so far.

You will also get a different feel with the older lenses.