++1!!Originally Posted by Ari
++1!!
Hi All,
Thanks for the suggestions you take time to give me. Very valuable.
At the moment my most used lenses are 110mm and 180mm (or 210mm).
300mm is super when I go hiking and take picture to the mountains.
Mario
Mario
Not to be too picky, but changing focal lengths does not change perspective, it changes framing. Without changing camera position (perspective), enlarging the negative just a bit more in the darkroom will achieve exactly the same effect as increasing focal length from 180mm to 210mm. There's only a 16% increase in focal length from 180mm to 210mm, so not that much more enlargement will be needed to achieve the same effect.
The reason I like focal lengths fairly closely spaced is to fill the negative. After all, we like 4x5 film for it's advantageous effect on tonality. Why sacrifice tonality by having focal lengths too distantly spaced? But, it's not likely that the minor increase in enlargement needed in this case will have a noticeable effect on tonality.
Carrying both a 180mm and a 210mm lens can be an advantage when composing an image on the ground glass. But the same advantage can be achieved by carrying a cut-out card. Lenses are expensive, they add weight, and they take up space. There comes a point where it doesn't make sense to over-burden one's own camera kit by having lenses that are too closely spaced.
Well said, and a point that, it seems to me, many large format users forget/ignore. The large format users who I have met -- and even some smaller format users, too -- seem to want to use as much of the compete image on the film as possible. A few, of course, only want to make contact prints. From my earliest days, starting out with fine grain 35mm film, I learned the importance of cropping under the enlarger. And when I added 4x5" to my mix, my cropping found new freedom. Sometimes I'll make two or three completely different photos from a single 4x5" negative.
I still need to find the correct distance for the camera and the perspective, but after that I worry less about the lens -- and often get a little more in the scene than needed -- for extra flexibility in the darkroom.
And cropping definitely lightens the backpack.
If you like the 300mm field of view you may like the Fujinon T 400 f8. It has less that 260mm flange to focal plane at infinity. I believe your VX125 has 300mm of extension.
http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm
Other than that you have excellent lenses covering a pretty wide range.
I just want to make a comment about the 72mm and 90mm lenses, especially in light of some of the remarks above about focal length. You say that you make photographs in urban areas. Depending on what kinds of photographs you make, one of these two lenses may be essential as a practical matter. I'm thinking, for example, about photographs of places like storefronts. Wide lenses are necessary if you don't want to be shooting from the other side of the street, or indeed from the middle of the street, or don't want cars in the way. Sounds like it's not an issue for the urban photography that you do now, but maybe something to consider for the future. Or maybe you find that the 110mm solves this problem, although I have my doubts about whether that focal length will cut it on narrow streets. I don't know where you are in Italy, but a few years ago I spent nine months in Sicily. In places like Ragusa, Noto, Scicli, Modica, etc., I would regard a wide angle 75mm or 90mm lens, although not both, as a necessity.
Last edited by r.e.; 26-Feb-2022 at 20:24.
Why a bulky heavy tele, Jeff? If there is limited bellows length, and one actually needs a 400 perspective, fine. But the Nikkor 300M is much smaller small, lighter, and distinctly optically superior. And on my own little wooden folder, a single-extension Ebony, simply by utilizing the base tilts front and back, then re-aligning the verticals, I can employ even a non-tele 360 Fuji A. Of course, A Fuji 400T is a fine lens in its own right; but teles are inherently front-heavy. You need larger diameter filters too.
Only best trade offs for lenses, the "best set" of LF view camera lenses is tied to images in mind and to be produced drives lens choice then it is up to the camera to properly support them. This set of lenses represents the last generation of LF view camera lenses produced. They are all optimized for images made between f16 to f32, margins at f11 to f45, high contrast, flare resistant, and all those modern LF lens design parameters that fit the needs of LF view camera image making from that era.
What is not ideal is the spread of lens focal lengths, IMO 150mm/180/mm/210mm are closely spaced. If the 110mm and 180mm lenses are currently most often used, the 150mm or 210mm could be much less needed.
Image cropping is an option, this can negate the need for close-spaced lens focal lengths, example:
Canon 14mm on FF digital or 114 degrees diagnoal.
Cropped down to what is no longer uber "wide angle" lens:
Cropped from that same image.
The wide angle lenses will require a bag bellows to get the best use of their image circles and center filters might be needed to even out light fall off.
The 300mm is good as a moderate longer than normal focal length lens. The Toyo VX is limited to just over 300mm or camera-bellows extension crimping the ability to usability of the 300mm lens. Alternative is to use a Tele-Photo design lens to reduce camera and bellows extension for longer than normal focal lengths. Smallest next focal length increment beyond 300mm is 360mm, better would be 400mm or more. Tele-Photo design LF view camera lenses do reduce camera-bellows extension needs, but the lenses tend to be larger/heavier and optical performance traded off relative to a non tele-photo lens design like APO ronar, APO artar and similar. There is a camera-bellows extension accessory for the Toyo VX that will allow more than 300mm of camera-bellows extension.
More varied lens set would include much longer focal length lenses up to and past 500mm, large full aperture lenses like f4.5 or f6.3 Tessar design lenses that have good optical performance at full aperture to about f16, wider angle lenses can be useful if needed.
Bernice
The Fujinon 400T telephoto has a 67mm front filter. I would agree with Drew that it's pretty bulky and heavy. My 400T is too large for the typical wooden field camera. When I do use it, it's on the front of a Rittreck 5x7, a pretty stout all-metal camera.
Given bellows length limitations, why not consider a shutter-mounted 270mm (10-3/4 inch) Goerz Am. Red Dot Artar? It's usefully longer than 210mm, really sharp, close in focal length to 300mm, and still works pretty well with 12" bellows. It's small and light enough to easily pack and use on a light 4x5 field camera. I use mine on a Toho FC-45X and it's a nice match.
Bernice - a long f/4.5 Tessar might weigh more than a folder 4X5 itself! I personally use a 450/12 Fuji C in the field when I want to go longer than 360, whether or my Norma monorail or solid 8x10 folder. But it's light enough, in a little no. 1 shutter, to be usable even on 4x5 field folders if they have enough bellows extension.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks