First lens for 4x5

[Luis-F-S]

That wasn't very respectful at all, Luis.

Perhaps not, but perhaps true. I typically don't respond to inquiries like this because many times they're made by individuals who have little to no experience with the topic, but know how to use a computer and want to argue. I think they should spend their time, money and make their mistakes, and after using LF for 40 plus years, maybe their opinions will change. I gave you my opinion as a professional photographer since 1974, you can either take it or not, it matters little to me. If you have a credible question, I'm glad to help. What exactly was it you didn't understand? Here are at least 100 threads on this site on lenses, which to buy, which not to, and you'll get as many opinions as there are posters.

When Fred Picker was alive, he recommended a 210 as a first lens, and a 120 as the second. I followed his advice and never regretted it. He sold Schneider, so that was what he recommended. I think his advice on the focal lengths holds true today; the lens brand is secondary in that equation. Good luck.

[Mark Sawyer]

It is said that Edward Weston made his Mexico photographs with a lens that he paid $5 for and most of his friends felt he paid too much for it. I believe he did ok with that lens.

Yeah, but I wonder whether he could have gotten just a little more out of it if he'd tried.

Get a run-of-the-mill lens in a reliable shutter and a working camera, and you'll never come close to its full potential. The fun is in the trying...

[Drew Wiley]

The only lens I used on 4x5 for the first twenty years was a 210. After that I branched out. I took my older brother's advice. He attended Brooks Institute and they told all their students to buy two lenses, a 210 for portraiture and general commercial use, and a 90 wide-angle for architecture. The bonus advantage of a 210 is that it has a lot bigger image circle than typical "normal" 150's. But in the long run, just depends on the look you want, and what you are comfortable using. Now I generally carry a 180 / 240 / 360 / 450 selection, but sometimes add something wider, or pare things down to just a 200 and 300.

[Luis-F-S]

Get a run-of-the-mill lens in a reliable shutter and a working camera, and you'll never come close to its full potential. The fun is in the trying...

I believe I said something like this in post #17. L

[Two23]

Jeez Louise. Meanwhile, my spiffy new 150mm lens came from Spain today. I just loaded up some holder so I can go shoot it tomorrow! It's an A.J. Pipon Aplanascope (rectilinear) in gorgeous Unicum shutter! Pipon made lenses & cameras in Paris from 1894 to 1914. I decided I needed to add something a little more modern to my camera bag.


Kent in SD

[Corran]

Ignore the folks talking about optimum apertures, sharpness, and other garbage, and just buy a 180mm or 210mm, according to your own statements, and start to make images/mistakes.

Don't fall into the trap of "paralysis by analysis." A $150 Schneider 210mm f5.6 Symmar-S will do you just fine until you figure out what you want to do.

The "experts" here are only experts in their own image making preferences. If I were to have asked about my "first lens" I surely would've been fed the same garbage and gotten a 150mm or 210mm, when instead what I needed was a 90mm. Or wider. That's just me.

[neil poulsen]

My first lens was a 180mm. For me, 210mm was too tight. My second lens was a 121mm SW.

[Mark Sawyer]

I believe I said something like this in post #17. L

Yeah, but I said something like that first, in post #12.

[jesse]

I prefer 150mm for the first 4x5 lens.

[Myriophyllum]

I prefer 150mm for the first 4x5 lens.

+1

Yes, and then a 210mm (I once borrowed a convertible Symmar 5.6/210, now I have a Apo-Symmar 210, can't say which I like better: The older one gave a pleasing "semisoft" look, the Apo makes technically better images).
And if you like 40mm in 6x6 a 75mm (I have a stunning Grandagon-N 4.5/75mm) would be / was my third lens.

Best
Jens