I need an extra wide lens

[Oren Grad]

Following up on the points made by xkaes:

The Chamonix 45F-2 specifications say minimum bellows draw of 52mm, so you should be OK without a recessed board. At maximum compression the standard bellows will probably allow little or no movement, but the 65/5.6 SA does not have an image circle large enough for much movement on 4x5 anyway. The question then becomes whether you require substantial movements in order to render the interior scenes the way you want them to look, or whether pointing the camera up and down where needed will produce an acceptable rendering.

If you really do need substantial movement to get the job done, you probably need the 72/5.6 SA-XL along with a bag bellows, which unfortunately will be much more expensive than the 65/5.6 that you linked.

One other question is whether you are photographing on negative or transparency film. If the latter, you might need to think about a center filter.

Good luck!

[MartyNL]

The point I wish to make is that a universal bellows is not a substitute for bag bellows. Both the over compression of the universal bellows and the consequent forces exerted upon the front and rear standards has the potential of damage to the bellows and / or camera and misalignment of the uprights. I would prefer to SAVE the o.p. from costly repair or replacement.

I have a 65mm schneider sa and there is as good as no room for movements on 4x5". And as mentioned, it's critical for the lens to be centred otherwise there will be vignetting due to the small image circle.

[Neal Chaves]

Following up on the points made by xkaes:

The Chamonix 45F-2 specifications say minimum bellows draw of 52mm, so you should be OK without a recessed board. At maximum compression the standard bellows will probably allow little or no movement, but the 65/5.6 SA does not have an image circle large enough for much movement on 4x5 anyway. The question then becomes whether you require substantial movements in order to render the interior scenes the way you want them to look, or whether pointing the camera up and down where needed will produce an acceptable rendering.

If you really do need substantial movement to get the job done, you probably need the 72/5.6 SA-XL along with a bag bellows, which unfortunately will be much more expensive than the 65/5.6 that you linked.

One other question is whether you are photographing on negative or transparency film. If the latter, you might need to think about a center filter.

Good luck!

Swing and tilt of the back place no demand on covering power and can be used effectively in architecture and interiors.

[Alan Klein]

You've probably read that Chamonix recommends a wide angle bag bellows for lenses from 75mm and wider.
Let me assure you, this isn't a marketing ploy, you can't beat a good set of wide angle bellows for shorter focal lengths. I believe it's money well spent, a good investment for now and in the future. I wouldn't want to be without mine especially from +/- 90mm and below.
And certainly in the abscence of a recessed lensboard a bag bellows might be a necessity rather than a luxury.
You would think, Chamonix would have them in stock.

I have a Chamonix 45H-1 4x5 with modified bag bellows that allows some more room over the standard bellows but not as much as the full bellows. My modifed gets a little tight with my Nikkor 90mm f/4.5 which is a big lens due to the 4.5 My 75mm Fujinon f/5.6 fits better. They both work just a little tight.

[Alan Klein]

Both my 75mm and 90mm lenses are center mounted on Chamonix wooden 4x5 boards.

[Alan Klein]

Just a reminder that your Chamonix 45F-2 has asymmetrical tilt on the rear standard if tilting the front becomes an issue.

[Oren Grad]

The point I wish to make is that a universal bellows is not a substitute for bag bellows. Both the over compression of the universal bellows and the consequent forces exerted upon the front and rear standards has the potential of damage to the bellows and / or camera and misalignment of the uprights. I would prefer to SAVE the o.p. from costly repair or replacement.

When his lens arrives, it will be easy enough for Patrick to determine whether the universal bellows on his camera causes that kind of strain on the standards when compressed to the FFD of his 65 SA, which is probably somewhat longer than the focal length. If so, then a bag bellows would certainly be wise.

Swing and tilt of the back place no demand on covering power and can be used effectively in architecture and interiors.

Good point. Patrick will need to figure out whether the scenes he wants to record will require parallel movements.

[Greg]

For what's it's worth... Years ago I had and used a 4x5 Chamonix with their Universal bellows and my 65mm SW Nikkor. The bellows never prevented me for making front standard movements (almost always rise).

[PatrickMarq]

Following up on the points made by xkaes:

The Chamonix 45F-2 specifications say minimum bellows draw of 52mm, so you should be OK without a recessed board. At maximum compression the standard bellows will probably allow little or no movement, but the 65/5.6 SA does not have an image circle large enough for much movement on 4x5 anyway. The question then becomes whether you require substantial movements in order to render the interior scenes the way you want them to look, or whether pointing the camera up and down where needed will produce an acceptable rendering.

If you really do need substantial movement to get the job done, you probably need the 72/5.6 SA-XL along with a bag bellows, which unfortunately will be much more expensive than the 65/5.6 that you linked.

One other question is whether you are photographing on negative or transparency film. If the latter, you might need to think about a center filter.

Good luck!

I completely did not think about a center filter. I have one for the 90mm

[PatrickMarq]

I’m going to take the images with HP5+ / Foma creative 200.