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

[Chris Bitmead]

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?

[Alan Gibson]

47 to 300 strikes me as a very wide range. I'm not sure what camera would be com fortable with that, but that's another question entirely.

Like 35mm, you may find that you gradually acquire various lenses, but usually o nly take a small selection. And this will depend on whether you have a pick-up t ruck, or rucksack.

I have 47, 58, 72, 135, 180. I would like a 90. Yes, I am a wide-angle freak. I don't miss anything longer than 180 (but I rarely use anything longer than 105mm in 35mm).

On a rucksack trip, I often take just the 47 and 72.

[Ellis Vener]

Well Chris, it sounds like you have elected to go with the Arca-Swiss F-C camera . Good choice! a 47mmXl is closer to a 12mm rectilinear then it is a 17mm, The r eal world horizontal coverage on 4x5 is about 120 degrees(long side of format). One thing people always forget when they make the comparison between 35mm lenses and LF lenses is that the LF format is much squarer (1:1.25 ratio)than the 35mm ratio (1:1.5). With longer lens this doesn't mean a lot, but with super and ult rawide lenses it does. I would go with maybe the 55mm Apo-Grandagon or the 58mm Super Angulon XL instead. Otherwise the rest of the combo sounds about right to cover 99% of LF needs. Since you are doing landscape work, may I suggest the fol lowing specific lenses? the 300mm f/9 M-Nikkor,sharp and small; and the 90mm f/8 Nikkor SW, also sharp a nd small plus bigger coverage than the similarly f-stopped Grandagon or Super An gulon lenses. Keep in mind your filter size needs. 82mm filters are heavy and ex pensive.

[Chris Bitmead]

Yes you guessed right, I've settled on the Arca-Swiss. It's taken a long time to decide, but I'm now sure this is the camera for me.

Let me see. I just did a quick calculation and I figure that the 47 XL is equivi lent to a 12.55mm lens on 35mm format.

That's certainly wide, but why would you want to disuade me from it? I'm willing to accept that maybe the gaps are too big. In that case I might perhaps think a bout opting for 47-72-110-150-<something> instead. Is that what you are really s aying?

[Ellis Vener]

Hi Chris, I am trying to talk you out of the 47XL as part of an initial kit of lenses beca use my experiences with it tell me that it is a specialty lens for 4x5. Now if y ou are also getting a 6x9 or a 6x7 roll film back with your camera, then that is another kettle of fish. I really do think you will be better off starting with the 58mm XL or a 65mm, plus the 90/150/300 combo. You may really want the 47XL o r the 45mm Apo-Grandagon (which also covers 4x5), in which case nothing I say co uld or should persuade you to buy otherwise. Good luck!

[Sergio Ortega]

Chris, Take Ellis' advice on the 47mm XL. Extreme wide angles, like the 58 XL or 65 Super Angulon on the 4x5 format, are tough enough to use well. Ultra-wide angles, like the 45 Grandagon or 47 Super Angulon, will just about drive you nu ts.

These are strictly specialty lenses. Expensive too! I would strongly urge you t o rent one, see how you like using it, and decide whether you really want to sin k that much money into a lens that you may not use very often, if at all.

Using one of these ultra-wide lenses for the 4x5 format is defintely not like us ing a 14mm in 35mm format. The logistical problems of setting up a 4x5 shot wit h one of these lenses would be difficult to describe. With a 6x7/6x9/6x12 roll film back it's a different matter.

Since you asked, my favorite set of 4x5 lenses for landscape, architecture, and general photography: 305 G-Claron, 210 Symmar, 120 Nikkor SW, 90 f8 SA, and 75 f5.6 SA.

Good luck with your selection, Sergio.

[Alan Gibson]

Interesting advice from Sergio. I'm glad I didn't have that advice before I boug ht 47XL. It was in fact one of my first 5x4 lenses. "Ultra-wide angles, like the 45 Grandagon or 47 Super Angulon, will just about drive you nuts." Well, perhap s I was already nuts. This is my favourite 5x4 lens, and I like it so much, I ev en built a camera especially for it, so I wouldn't have to take a tripod whereve r I went.

Is it a speciality lens? Well, yes, but it depends on what photography Chris cur rently does, or wants to do. Try-before-buy? Yes, by all means. I suspect this l ens is the sort you either love or hate, with little middle ground. Logistical p roblems? Well, I suppose it is fiddly, tilting such small angles to get Scheimpf lug, I would like a screw-driven rear tilt, but it's not really a problem.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone to get, or love, this lens. If someone has tri ed it and hated it, then so be it. I'm just trying to balance Sergio's and Ellis 's opinions.

[Sergio Ortega]

this is an interesting debate, Alan. As you can tell from my lens selection, I' m not that much of a ultra-wide fan in LF; I suppose it just does not fit my ow n particular photographic vision.

Personal taste aside, Chris did express a definite desire to get a 45/47mm ultra -wide for the 4x5 format. My comments to Chris were predicated on the assumptio n that he would be using a standard view camera, capable of handling such a wide range of focal lengths--45mm to 300mm. I've not used the Arca line of view cam eras, so I'm not sure what the minimum usable focal length would be. My caution ary advice to Chris is based upon the style of field view camera I use.

I think Alan's choice of camera for his ultra-wide (47mm) photography reveals th at these lenses are not easily used on normal view cameras. I rented and used a 58mm XL SA with my view camera, for some interior architectural shots in 4x5 us ing transparency film, and it was quite a challenge. Lots of vignetting and lig ht fall-off, difficulty seeing the image on my standard ground glass, and so on. I imagine the same lens, or even the 47mm XL, on something like a Cambo Super Wide, similar to what Alan is using, would have been much easier to contend with .

I believe the advice that Chris should start out with either a 75mm or 90mm wide angle lens for 4x5 is sound. If he finds, after dealing with and mastering all the inherent idiosyncrasies of WA lenses and view cameras, that he really has t o have a 47mm, then he'll probably be better equipped to work with such a lens.

[Ellis Vener]

Sergio, Chris, Alan, etc. As they say practice makes perfect. I do like wide angles very much, I also like telephotos very much, I just don't think you should start such an extreme w/a. But as Alan points out if it fits the way Chris shoots then it really doesn't ma tter what I think. The Arca Swiss F-line series of cameras by the way can be use d with lenses as short as 43mm (if one existed) before needing to resort to a sp ecial recessed lens board as the standard Arca-board is already recessed 13mm. Y ou need a bag bellows of course. Cheers!

[Rob Adams]

I share your love for ultra wide angle lenses. I have the 58mm super angulon XL and love it. YOu may want to consider it. $300 cheaper allows for another len s (almost.) I have a 300 mm f8.5 fuji as well.

You seem to be on a similar path..

have fun.

Rob