Pick One Lens Manufacturer Only

[Eric James]

Here's another vote for Fuji, then

2) Schneider
3) Nikon
4) Rodenstock

When starting out with 4X5 photography I used this forum, photo.net and Kerry T's website to steer me in my lens selection. I decided to start with the Fuji 240A and I designed my kit around it. When expanding my selection, I quickly realized that the other manufacturers provide better offerings when weight and image circle come into play. If forced to choose only one manufacturer I could live with Fuji - my 240A and 450C are great lenses; and replacing my Sironar-s 150mm, and Nikon 90mm f8 wouldn't be too distressing. Giving up the Schneider 110XL would suck - fortunately I don't have to.

[Dan Fromm]

No offense Dan, but I can ALWAYS tell my Cooke shots form the others...

Well, Jack, I do admit to being an insensitive clod who doesn't appreciate or even see the finer points ... More power to those who are more sensitive to them.

It takes a huge effort to select 'em without prompting, but in an unblind test pictures taken with the two TTH lenses I use regularly can be told from those taken with my other lenses of about the same focal lengths. The short one offers a tiny bit better corners at (relatively) large apertures and the long one loses the ends of the frame to vignetting by the bellows. This last isn't really an attribute of the lens, it reflects one of my camera's shortcomings.

Cheers,

Dan

[Gary Tarbert]

recent deserter of the fold i geuss

[Jim Galli]

Cooke

[brian steinberger]

Definately Fuji

[Scott Fleming]

Schneider. Like that's a surprise ey? I always feel somewhat partial to any manufacturer or service provider that goes out of their way to get me all the info I need and keeps their prices in line. That they continue to inovate counts for a lot too. That the other big guy charges more for their lenses and does less in all the above categories certainly does not endear them to me.

[John Kasaian]

I can take a truly bad picture with any make lens!

"How do You do it?" You might ask

Just lucky, I guess! ;-)

This reminds me of a recent post on the Online Trombone Journal regarding trombones (I play sax, but trombone guys really have it together so I lurk around OTJ more than SOTW)

The gist of the post is that in days past you'd buy a bone and learn to play "it" rather than the current modus of buying a bone (or camera or...?) that has features that make a bloke look (or sound) good 'out of the box' rather than requiring the musician to get a good sound out of the instrument. An example was given of professional bone players back in the 30's who would practice with a new trombone at home for a month before even considering using it in a gig.

I wonder how relevant this is to LF photography?

Bellows move in and out---so do slides! ;-)

Do we expect too much from LF equipment? As photo stuff goes, LF is about as basic as it gets(maybe pinhole beats it, but then again there isn't much 35mm or 2-1/4 pinhole action that I'm aware of going on)

IMHO old school Goerz, Kodak, Wolly and Ilex rock! Even my Gennert (what the hecks a Gennert?) is pretty cool considering it cost like $20

The one manufacture lens thing is a good mental exercise I suppose, but the realilty I think is that it is the artist, not the brush, the 'tog not the lens, and the bone player not the axe that makes it happen.

[bruce terry]

Since Andre is running a tally (thanks), I've a couple of Goerz'z, period.

[Gary Smith]

I have a combindations or Fuji, Schneider and Dr. Optics lenses. My favorites are the Dr. Optics, its a shame that more weren't produced.

Gary

[Gary Tarbert]

Nikon being the recent deserter of the fold is the reason for their low rating i geuss