I'm gradually purchasing my large format gear but I'm not sure which wide lens to get. I'm interested in landscapes so was thinking of either a 47mm or 58mm. Am I right in thinking the 47mm is about equal to 17mm on 35mm and the 58mm equal to 20mm 0n 35mm?
If so, would the 47mm start to give some sort of mild fisheye effect?
A rule of thumb is to multiply a 35mm lens length by 3X, to get the corresponding length for 4x5.
By that reckoning, a 47mm lens on 4x5 is equivalent to 1/3 of 47, or 16mm: quite short. A 58mm lens on 4x5 would be 1/3 of 58, or around 20mm, also quite short.
These would be considered ultra-wide lenses.
Popular 4x5 wide-angle lenses for landscape are somewhere between 90mm and 120mm. These would be between 30mm and 40mm on a 35mm camera. They are easier to focus, and don't suffer from as much light fall-off or apparent distortion. Some of them are tremendously sharp.
The practice of thinking in terms of 35mm equivalents is not always a useful way to consider LF lenses, especially when thinking wide. Most folk just 'see different' when shooting LF. Also, how often do you really use a lens wider than 24-28mm in 35. If like most people it is very seldom then you will likely use a 47 or 58 even less in 4x5. My 58 A XL is absolutely my least used lens. I use a 75 with reasonable frequency and suggest you try that before thinking wider. Ken is also right that many never want shorter than 90mm.
I have a 90 on the wide end (I'm fairly new to LF so I might be closer to where you are) I really don't feel a need for anything wider. then again I never used anything wider than a 24mm (well I had a 16mm fisheye for a while but that was just for fun) and my favorite was (is) a 28mm. What I would suggest is that you pickup one of the 90mm lenses that can be had for $300-$400 and see what that gets you (if you don't have one already), the wider lenses tend to be big $$ but I don't know what sort of budget you have. I find that to use all the movements my SA 90 gives me I would need to get a bag bellows so this is going to be even more of an issue with wider lens (I think a lot of cameras cant even focus a 47mm without a recessed board). I have at times considered trying to get something like a 75mm, but I don't know how much use it would really see.
Lenses shorter than about 75mm are extremely wide on 4x5. For general landscape they are less useful than lenses in the 75 to 120mm range, because of the emphasis they give to the forground.
I have a 55mm; its perspective and its exagguration of forground are great for some shots, but I don't use it often. In fact my kit used to be 75-110 on the long end, but I changed the 110 (great lens) for a 90 because, for what I like to shoot, the 75 was often too short and the 110 not short enough. The 90, for me, is perfect. When I want to go wider than 75 it is to emphasize the foreground.
Short answer: it really depends what you prefer to shoot.
I'm also a relative beginner in LF (shooting only 2+ years), but I'd also suggest trying the 90mm first.
Although in 35mm world I used 19-35mm lens at the wider setting (up to 24mm) a lot, I did not feel the need to go wider [than 90mm] when shooting 4×5"/9×12cm. Only once or twice. On the other hand, when composing for 6×12cm panoramic compositions, I longed for a 75mm lens quite a lot. But that is a bit different.
The best solution is the 90mm. It's wide, enough for most. If you need to go wider, you will still use the 90mm (or thereabouts) a lot, even if you had a 75mm/65mm. So it's the best start.
Jiri Vasina
www.vasina.net
@ Google+ | @ Facebook | @ flickr
My books @ Blurb (only heavily outdated "Serene Landscape").
4 x 5 is quite different from 35 mm and using a view camera is different from using an SLR. First the aspect ratios are different, 24:36 = 2:3 as opposed to 96:120=4:5.. You can think of 35 mm format as 24 x 30 (aspect ratio 24:30=4:5) contained in the larger format 24:36 frame with room for moving the frame 3 mm on either side. That would be the equivalent of shifting your view camera front or back to the side by 12 mm to either side. Alternately, if you prefer the 2:3 aspect ratio, you can select an 80 x 120 mm selection from your 4 x 5 image by cropping. In the first case, you would use a multiplier of 4 to find equivalent focal lengths; in the second case you would use a multiplier of 10/3 = 3.333. Since most print paper formats are closer to the 4:5 ratio, I prefer the first method and use a multiplier of 4, but it is up to you.
As noted above, the possibility of movements also changes things. the only way you can accomplish the same result with 35 mm is either to use a shift lens or to use a wider lens than you would otherwise and crop.
As the others have said, most people find that they don't need anything wider than 90 mm for landscape photography. I have a 90 mm and a 75 mm lens, and I almost never use the 75 mm for landscapes. In fact, I often use my 150 mm or my 300 mm in circumstances where I would not use a longer lens with smaller formats such as 35 mm. I just visualize things differently with the view camera. I got the 75 mm to deal with architectural subjects which I couldn't get back far enough from. Because you don't usually view prints close enough relative to a short focal length of the taking lens, there are so-called wide angle distortions in the print unless the subject is basically flat and perpendicular to the lens axis. They just don't look very natural, and the coverage advantages of using a wide angle lens can often be accomplished by rise/fall or shift.
I use a 58XL on a Cambo Wide when I'm inside slot canyons and there just isn't room to move, but outside canyons it never gets used. It's just too wide, and for reference I used to use a 15mm with my F3. On lenses that short there is also the difficulty of keeping the standards parallel, so IMO the only real way to use such wides is on a LF point and shoot like a Fotoman, Cambo Wide, etc.
Despite the fact that the 47 and the 58 only differ in f.l. by 11mm, there is a huge difference in perspective, feel, and usability. Rent both lenses first so you can make an informed buying decision.
They are ill discoverers that think there is no land, when they can see nothing but sea.
-Francis Bacon
All good advice so far, I'd say! The 90mm lenses are also much more common and a bit less expensive than the ultra-wides, so they're a good place to start. And even if an ultra-wide lens turns out to match your vision well, it's still likely that you wouldn't want it as your only lens.
"I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."
Aw man, you're going to hate me for this. If you're like me you won't listen either. But I'm going to try anyway because it may help you avoid some of the pitfalls I (and many others) have experienced.Originally Posted by Dave Saunders
LF isn't 35mm. Much of what you learned using 35mm isn't going to be useful in LF. Not that 35mm is bad in any way, it's just a completely different method of photography.
The big thing is you will no longer "frame with your feet." I did this all the time in 35mm -- put the camera up to my face and move around searching for the right perspective while looking through the view finder. This style is even more prominent when people are using zoom lenses.
With LF you'll spend a lot more time walking the scene without the camera. You have to find the right perspective first, then setup your tripod and camera in the right spot the first time. Then you'll pick a lens that lets you capture what you want from that perspective.
The best way IMHO to learn how to work with LF is to buy a "normal" lens like a 150mm or 135mm lens. I know, I know -- I never even owned anything close to "normal" in my 35mm days. But with LF, normal lenses are surprisingly useful. In particular when you are learning how to use movements. This is so because the detail on the ground glass is much easier to see -- you can see when things are in, and out, of focus much easier. With ultrawides the scene detail is just tiny and it can be quite difficult to control the plane of focus because of this.
After you've spent sufficient time with a normal lens (you'll know how long that is) you'll have a better understanding of how LF works and how you work with LF. This in turn will give you a better understanding of which lenses you actually do need. Buy new lenses one at a time and learn them. It really is the best way.
Come here and ask questions as you go. This really is a great resource with a lot of people who have stood where you are standing right now. If you want the benefit of their experience, you have but to ask.
Good luck to you on the start of this new adventure.
Bruce Watson
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks