Do you use your longer lenses much for landscapes

[Eric Leppanen]

I own 4x5 lenses ranging from 58mm to 600mm focal lengths, which I tend to use almost equally (aside from the 58, which I use infrequently).

The longer lenses are vital for me because, aside from providing smaller angles-of-view for close-ups and distant objects, they also provide more options for optimizing compression of perspective. In general I have found that:

- My 150mm lens is the longest lens that can capture near-to-far compositions (where near is defined as within a couple yards of the camera) by solely stopping down, without resort to movements. This is important for compositions where movements just won't work.

- My 240-300mm lenses are the longest that can capture near-to-far compositions with non-planar objects, and require a combination of movements and stopping down. If the landscape is irregular (non-planar) then there is often no choice but to stop down quite a bit, even with movements. There is no getting around this.

- My 450mm lens can only capture near-to-far compositions with planar subjects, otherwise "near" must be farther away (perhaps 10+ yards from the camera). The 450 is also useful to close-ups of planar objects (such as Indian petroglyphs).

- My 600mm lens is used solely for distant objects.

Longer lenses on 4x5 are going to pose depth-of-field challenges, and all you can do is tailor your compositions so that movements can be used as much as possible, thereby minimizing the need for stopping down. To me, using a shorter lens with an otherwise overly large angle-of-view just to avoid stopping down is artificial, and can only hinder your compositions in the long run.

Jack Dykinga routinely stops down his lenses as much as the light permits, in order to achieve the most depth-of-field possible; he is more preoccupied with getting the shot in focus rather than minimizing diffraction.

[Joseph O'Neil]

I often use my 8.25 inch (aka 209mm) Artar and my 300mm Komura for landscapes.

Frankly, I like the look of not everything being in focus.

By having some part of the picture out of focus, it forces the eye of the person looking at your photograph to see what you want them to see.

Secondly almost all digital work today - everything is "perfect" - almost always in full focus. By having some part of yoru pciutre out of focus, it gives it a different look form much of todays photography.

If you have time, take at look at some old portraits - usually pre WW2 - where you see only the eyes and nose in focus on the whole face. Stand back and take a good look at them. I am not suggesting we go back to that style with all new portraits, but there certianly is "character" to these old portraits.

So instead of seeing it as a weakness, use the lack of depth of field to your advanatage. You might be pleasantly surprized.

joe

[Brian Ellis]

Mark - Your message to which I was responding spoke only of coverage and that's all I was talking about as well. I used a 210mm G Claron on 8x10 for a while and IIRC it covered that format at f16. Also, as I mentioned, I currently own and use the 240mm G Claron on 8x10 and it easily covers even that format at f22. For those reasons I'm confident that while it may very well be desirable to stop a 240mm G Claron down to f22 for any number of reasons as Schneider states, it isn't necessary to do that solely to cover 4x5. But thanks for reading my message, sometimes I rattle on at such length that I wonder if anyone reads them. : - )

[Eric Wagner]

Like you, my longest lens for many years was a 180, and then I bought a 240 G-Claron. I didn't use the 240 much at first, but became fond of it as I learned to "see" better from the perspective of a longer lens. I use the 240 about half as much as the 180. 30 percent of my photos are taken with a 180 and 16 percent with the 240.

[Doug Meek]

I am always amused by the needless fretting over diffraction. To put it succinctly, there simply is no "very obvious decrease in resolution from f32 to f45 ". I am a sharpness fanatic. After all, resolution is one of the prime reasons we shoot large format to begin with. I routinely shoot at f/32 and f/45, especially with my long lenses (300, 360 and 500mm). 30x40's look very sharp, regardless of whether I shot at F/22 or f/45. I also just spent 6 days shooting with Tom Till in Utah. Tom, with rare exception (his words), shoots all of his images at f/32 or f/45. His Moab gallery is adorned with at least twenty 30x40 images, all of which are extremely sharp. I do not dispute the theoretical effects of diffraction, the laws of physics are undeniable. I do maintain, however, that the visible effect of diffraction at f/45 is nil. On the other hand, the gain in depth of field by using f/45 is substantial. In short, the benefit derived from increased depth of field far exceeds the insignificant loss of resolution due to diffraction. I speak not from textbook theory, but rather real world experience. Don't be afraid to shoot at f/32 or f/45!

[QT Luong]

In support of Doug's point, if you measure the focus spread for most non-planar subjects and lenses 210 and above,
you'll find the

"optimum" f-stop
is usually at least f45.

[Struan Gray]

My most-used lens in 4x5 is an 18" (457 mm) Apo-Lustrar. Once you get that long, you are shooting either the valley floor or the mountains in the background, and so rarely have to worry about having both in focus at the same time. That said, one reason I stick with a monorail in the field is that it happily copes with the relatively large tilt angles needed to lay the plane of focus along the ground.

My second most-used lens is a 240 Apo-Ronar. I use it mostly for close-ups and detail shots, and it is an ideal length for when I want to point the camera straight down without getting that domed effect from too wide an angle, and still be able to peek at the ground glass.

I too often stop down beyond f22, but even at larger apertures I haven't been ambushed by misfocus or too-shallow depth of field. I think the well-illuminated ground glass you get with longer lenses helps to spot problems before you trip the shutter. The extra depth of focus makes alignment less of an issue too.

In short, I'd recommend using the lens a while longer before giving up.

[David Karp]

My experience matches Doug's and QT's. I use a 450mm Fujinon with my 4x5 fairly frequently. I use it for non-planar subjects and planar subjects when my feet cannot get me to where I need to be to make the photograph I want. Using the 450mm often leads to small apertures like f/45 and f/64, but I do not think that the resulting decrease in sharpness is visible at the sizes that I make my prints - no larger than 16x20. Perhaps if they were much larger, then there might be a noticeable problem.

I worry more about the chance for vibration or the wind picking up during the long exposures more than I am concerned about diffraction. If the choice is between worrying about diffraction or not taking the photograph, I always make the latter choice.

[Matt Brain]

Thanks for all the responses:

First, to an issue where I seem to be wrong - f32 to f45 being a lot less sharp, this is based on a roll film that I shot the other day over our town: 3 shots with the 180mm and 3 with the 240mm going from f22 - f45 with each all of the same scene. Obviously I have only one shot with each lens at each aperture so sample error is possible. The 180 mm didn't change much at f45 but (and I have read QT Luong's excellent article and was surprised) the 240mm could pull out the lines of corrugated iron roofing kilometers away at f22 and f32 (lines which the 180mm cannot resolve) but this fell off at f45 and more distant powerlines which resolved at f22 and f32 similarly were not much better than what the 180 mm could see at f22. I realise that I said the wrong thing: all shots look very sharp but the resolution drop is noticable - however I should take more photos to test this - as Dave Karp said and others implied if it meant getting the scene I would use the 240mm at f45. It is quite possible that there is something wrong with the lens but much more likely that there was something wrong with my technique for the f45 shot, as if there was something wrong the lens, it should be unmasked by wider apertures and more hidden by smaller.

For near far perspectives I do mean compositions that look good on the groundglass - usually with the near objects around 6-7m away and objects on the horizon. I use the longer lenses as others have stated, to bring emphasis onto the distant objects and be very selective about what is in the frame. The above composition (typical for how I would use this lens) still requires a focus spread without tilts of around 9-10mm movement of the standards and this borders on f64 to accomodate. With tilts, I can get this down to between 4-6mm. The suggested table for focus spread on the LFinfo site uses f45 from over 5mm spread.

I guess my question has been answered though: People obviously use and highly value their longer lenses and I will have to slicken my technique and practice acheiving focus more quickly. Perhaps using shorter lenses (65, 90 and 180) have made me lazy about thoroughly checking focus across the groundglass. But the time increase that each shot requires will costly in faster light and I suspect that in those situations I will be shooting with a shorter lens and cropping.

[Ole Tjugen]

My most used landscape lenses for 4x5" are 90, 240 and 360mm. If I need wider than 90mm, I'll put the same lens on a 5x7" camera. Same at the other end - if I need narrower than 360mm on 5x7", I'll go back for the 4x5" camera.