A good set of 4x5 lenses starting from 47mm ?

[Kurt]

Dear Ellis

I'd like to inform you that ARCA-SWISS cameras handle lenses from 35mm. (Apo-Gra ndagon) But be aware the lens covers only 6x12cm. Still an interesting combinati on. A 26mm recessed lensboard is required. (standard is 13mm)

[Dave King]

Hey Chris, I use that same range of lenses, with 4 others in the mix. My 47 is the standard Super-Angulon F/5.6 however. Also have: 58 XL, 75 6.8 Grandagon, 9 0 6.8 Grandagon, 125 Fuji W 5.6, 150 Sironar-N 5.6, 210 Sironar-N 5.6, 300 Nikor M F/9. All mounted on Technika boards to save space and adapt easily to other cameras. Camera is Horseman LE (about $1300 from B&H, and IMHO, a bargin), and I shoot primarily with 4x5 Quickload and Readyload, and also 6x7 and 6x12 Horsem an 120 holders. All lenses and holders fit into a Domke Courier Satchel, and th e camera folds flat into a hard case. (BTW, I'm looking for the best folding fi eld camera that takes 47 to 300 Technika easily, w/ an international back. Anyo ne have ideas?)

I think you are on the right track with your lens selections. I wouldn't be afr aid that the 47 XL is too extream since you will also have the 90 for 'standard' WA shots. However, as an interiors shooter, I find the 58 a more useful lens t han the 47. It isn't too often I find myself wishing my 47 was an XL, but I use the 58 all the time. But if personal work is your primary interest at this poi nt, the 47 may prove most interesting.

[shadowleaves]

i know this is an old topic....(wow...more than 10 years old...)

but just to share my thoughts here -
47mm seems a bit too wide for me, and will be difficult to focus on most 4x5 cameras, but i think there're those who use 47mm on a recessed lensboard on 4x5.

I'm now using a lense combo that I'm finally comfortable with landscape photography:

65, 90, 150, 300, 450.

Rodenstock Grandagon-N 65mm/4.5 (very bright view. mostly for my 6x12 shots)
Fujinon SWD 90/5.6 (bright view for focusing. great color. very flat field; very sharp towards the edge)
Schneider APO-Symmar-L 150/5.6 (great angle of view for normal scenes. better than 210mm, i think, which is too "normal")
Fujinon-C 300mm/8.5 and 450mm/12.5 (great compact long lense, both copal #1)

all these lense are mounted on regular flat technika lensboards and have plenty of shift/tilt movement on the great Chamonix 045n-1 with a Chamonix universal lens bellow. Except that the 450mm/12.5 needs a $50 extension rack to work, all other lense work directly on the 045n-1 4x5 camera.

I know this is a really subjective question, and a bit foolish in a way, but I'l l ask anyway.

I'm going to get into LF photography and want to plan what lenses I want to get to have a reasonable setup. I'm not sure how many lenses I should plan to own. I 'm more used to owning zooms in 35mm, so I'm not particularly attached to any pa rticular focal lengths, but I guess I might find zoom withdrawal disturbing.

Anyway, I'm thinking that a 4 lens setup might be what to aim for. After all I d o 35mm photography too and there is a limit to how much gear to carry around.

I definitely want to get the 45mm Super Angulon XL because I love my 17mm lens f or 135. I love w-i-d-e lenses. From then on, I'm not sure. I figure I should pro bably get a "normal" 150mm lens. And then something longer - 300mm perhaps? And something in between the 47 and 150 - maybe a 90mm would give me an fairly even distribution of focal lengths. Being scientific I figure the 90 is 1.9x the 47, the 150 is 1.7x the 90 and the 500 is 2x the 150mm, with seems a reasonable appr oach.

I want to shoot various subjects, but including a lot of landscape. So how does it sound - a 47, 90, 150, 300 setup? Are there too many gaps, or is that a reaso nable setup? I would probably find that a too restrictive set of gaps on 35mm fo rmat but I guess 4x5 being a more slow and considered style the gaps would be le ss troublesome.

What are other people's favourite set of focal lengths to use?

[Bob Salomon]

"I definitely want to get the 45mm Super Angulon XL"

You can get a 45mm Rodenstock Apo-Grandagon but you can't get a Super Angulon XL in that focal length.

[Dave_B]

My backpacking rig and a pretty good range for most of what I see and want to photograph is a four lens set of 90-135-200-300. I use Nikkors for backpacking but other brands are fine as well.
Dave B.

[Tom Diekwisch]

The 47mm xl is a great lens and a good reason for 4x5 these days. Staying with Schneider, I'd use a 90mm xl, a 210mm Apo Symmar, and perhaps either the new 350mm or the 400mm Apo Tele Xenar. The 400 does not use much bellows draw. With this combination, you are covered for a lot of extreme perspectives using 4x5. As an alternative, you could use either the 300mm Fuji or the Nikkor M, or the Docter Optic Apo Germinar. All three offer excellent portability and performance.

[Scott Rosenberg]

whew... a VERY personal thing... you're going to get as many answers as there are shooters. this is something that will likely change several times over the course of your time in LF.

i shot with the following for many years...
58-80-110-150-210-300-450-600

i then reconfigured things to lighten my pack and ended up with the following...
80-135-200-300

the 4 lens kit has been working very well for me and i haven't found myself wanting for additional glass yet. the 135, in particular, has proven to be an extremely useful lens. in a pinch, i could get by with just the 135 and 300 lenses!

-s

[Ole Tjugen]

I've recently expanded my lens kit to include 47, 58, 65, 75 and 420mm in addition to the 90, 120, 135, 150, 165, 180, 210, 240, 300, 355 kit I had.

No, I don't use all of them all the time. But they all have their use. And they can all be used on flat lens boards on my camera - although it's best to change to bag bellows for the three widest.

[aduncanson]

I am also a fan of wide lenses on smaller formats, but my 90's rarely gets used on 4x5. I also would be wary about buying a 45 or 47mm ultrawide at the start.

What I do think makes sense to try to cover a wide range of focal lengths with only four lenses is 58mm, 80mm, 125mm & 240mm; or 65mm, 90mm, 135mm & 240mm. The 35mm equivalents are approximately 16, 23, 35 & 67 or 18, 24, 38 & 67. In those sets each lens seems far enough from its neighbors to give you a distinctly different perspective on your subject. That second set is still pretty widely spaced and it does leave a suitable step to get down to a 45 or 47mm if you decide you need it.

Another feature of these selections is that 240mm is somehow long enough to give a distant perspective on 4x5. It won't reach your kid kicking the soccer ball on the opposite side of the field or bring that moose up close from a quarter mile, but those are of course not good applications for an LF camera. It is more than long enough for a pleasing portrait.

[Ling Z]

"I definitely want to get the 45mm Super Angulon XL"

You can get a 45mm Rodenstock Apo-Grandagon but you can't get a Super Angulon XL in that focal length.

I don't think 45mm Rodenstock Apo-Grandagon can cover 4x5 as it's image circle is only 131mm @f22. Schneider 47XL is the widest angle lens for 4x5.