240mm too close to 180mm?

[Nicholas Fiduccia]

I find that converting the focal lengths to their 35mm equivalents is often helpful in considering proper spacing. The conversion factor I like to use is 3/10. So, a 180 in 4x5 would be equivalent to a 54mm in 35mm. A 240mm would be like a 72mm. Would you carry both a 54 and a 72mm for 35mm kit. I would not.

Another way is to take the ratio of the focal lengths: 240/180 is 1.33 which is outside of my preferred spacing ratio or 1.4 to 1.7, but not by much. This decision depends how much glass you want to be carrying to cover a good focal length range. If your lenses are more closely spaced, you will be carrying more lenses than a wider spaced set covering the same range. It's really up to you. Good luck!

[MIke Sherck]

I carry an Ektar 127, a Fuji 180, and a Rodenstock 240. Usage is real close to 5%/55%/40%. I tried 300mm before I got the 240 and based on a year and a half of shooting, sold the 300, bought the 240 and am buying a 360mm. My "ideal" 4x5/5x7 kit would be 125mm-ish, 180mm, 240mm, and 360mm. Something longer than 360 would be nice but things get rather expensive at that point.

[CXC]

For 4x5 I usually carry 80 - 110 - 240 - 450. I have a 180 but don't use it much; I prefer a longer "normal" lens. I also have a 355 that I quit using with 4x5 once I figured out that my Walker could in fact accommodate it via movements.

If you are enlarging, but not too big, then it is not all that crucial what lenses you have between the widest and longest. In a way they are a convenience, or maybe a luxury. Were I to do it over, instead of the 7 lenses I currently have, I would go with 90 - 210 - 450. Few will agree with me though.

One useful exercise is to get a piece of cardboard and cut a 4"x5" hole in it. Carry it around for a day and frame up some images with it, using one eye. Hold it 180, 240, 300, and 450mm away from your eye and ask yourself which you like better, which are not so useful. Better yet, frame it up first without measuring, then see what the "ideal" lens would have been. Costs nothing and is worth way more than other folks' advice.

[Ole Tjugen]

"Too close"? Not in my opinion - but I tend to use the "slow zoom" option quite a lot. One of my cameras only has a lensboard for 165, 180 and 240mm (all in Compur #2 shutters) - and I miss the option of using 90, 120, 150 and 210 lenses. More lensboards are ordered!

My longest lens at the moment is the 420mm rear half of the 240 Symmar convertible. That might change too...

[Ellis Vener]

Last month I did an interview of portrait and conceptual still life photographer for the April issue of "Professional Photographer". 99% of the time he shoots 4"x5" (sometimes 8"x10' and sometimes 6x6cm) . His lens kit is; 90mm, 110mm, 135mm, 150mm, 180 mm,210mm, 240mm, 300mm & 450mm. All are Rodenstock Sironar & Grandagon lenses except for the 110mm which is the Schneider SuperSymmar XL.

[Yuri Saniko]

My solution was G-Claron 270mm f9 - beautiful lens, very sharp and compact. I think it's a great replacement for 240mm and 300mm lenses. Also, it is the longest lens you can comfortable use on most of wood field cameras with 300-320mm bellows (like my Wista-DX for example)

[Alan Davenport]

My current kit includes 90mm, 150mm and 254mm lenses. I think my next acquisition will be a 360mm or 400mm, but I'll need a telephoto lens for those lengths (Tachihara 4x5.)

A question for those with tele experience: am I correct in guessing that most LF telephoto lenses will require about 2/3 of the bellows draw (at infinity) as compared to the focal length? i.e., that a 400mm tele will need around 265mm of bellows? My Tachihara can [just] handle a 300mm lens (non-tele) so I don't want to get something I can't use.