One lens only for light weight 4x5 camera - suggestions?

[newmoon2night]

I'm thinking of getting a lightweight 4x5 field camera for around 95% landscape and 5%architectural photography. I'd say the majority of my landscapes tend to be 'compact area' (i.e. within woods, or shots of a river etc) rather than all encompassing vistas.

I really want to keep this set up minimalist and as simple as possible, just one lens, and I'm leaning towards the idea of using a reflex viewer (and no loupe)

I'm also wanting to keep the cost in check, but ideally would like a new or very nearly new lens.

I'm in the UK but may well buy from US (if the choice ends up being a Nikon lens I don't have a choice anyway, and have bought from US many times before anyway).

I'm thinking along the lines of something in the 105-135mm range and have the following shortlist:

Nikon 120mm F8 SW
Schneider 120mm F5.6 Apo Symmat L
Nikon 135mm F5.6 W
Rodenstock 135mm F5.6 Apo Sironar S

Pricewise the Nikon 135mm appeals most. At $550 is will convert to around £550 by the time I've paid duty and postage.

The Nikon 120mm at $800 will come out at about £800.

The Rodenstock 135mm I can get in the UK for about £680, and the Schneider 120mm would work out at around £720.

There is a used Rodenstock 135mm Sironar N available in the UK at £365 - is this a reasonable price and buy, and what is the difference between the 'M' and 'S' lenses?

So any advice anyone can give would be really appreciated.

Thanks,

[Eirik Berger]

I guess the seller mean Sironar "N". I have the Rodenstock APO Sironar N 135mm f/5,6 and it was my first lens in LF. It is small and produces excellent results. I am not sure what benefits you get from the "S" version, but it must be marginal. The lens folds up nice within most field-cameras. I use a lightweight Toyo 45CF.

I like this focal length for 4x5". It is a light wide angle and suitable for many purposes. I have used it for both landscape, arcitechture, (large) interiors and close up work. Even now when I have a bunch of lenses, this is the lens I use the most.

[newmoon2night]

I guess the seller mean Sironar "N". I have the Rodenstock APO Sironar N 135mm f/5,6 and it was my first lens in LF. It is small and produces excellent results. I am not sure what benefits you get from the "S" version, but it must be marginal. The lens folds up nice within most field-cameras. I use a lightweight Toyo 45CF.

I like this focal length for 4x5". It is a light wide angle and suitable for many purposes. I have used it for both landscape, arcitechture, (large) interiors and close up work. Even now when I have a bunch of lenses, this is the lens I use the most.

Hello Erik.

Thanks for the reply. The 'M' was my typo - it is 'N' and on eBay at http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/RODENSTOCK-APO...3A1%7C294%3A50

[Aender Brepsom]

You can't go wrong with that 135mm Apo-Sironar-N lens. It'll be as sharp as you could wish for. There is no real need to pay almost double the price for the S-version, which has a slightly larger image circle and 75 degrees of coverage versus 72 degrees for the N-version. In real life, those things won't matter for your landscape shots. The price is fair, considering that it is the most recent version. I'd go for it.

[Ed Richards]

The Nikon 120mm SW is completely different from the other lenses. It is a little slower, it is much heavier, but it has unlimited movements, while the others will not allow much movement at all. I think it is the prefect one lens solution, because of the flexiblity of the movements. I used it as a one lens system for a while when my gear was stolen, and only missed my 90mm when I was in a place where I could not back up enough.:-) If you only shoot landscapes with no movements, it is a waste, but if you want to use movements, it is the only one those choices that gives you enough image circle.

[Carsten Wolff]

E.g. an older (single coated) 125mm/f5.6 Fujinon-W would also do it for me.
Reasons: Small & light, quite cheap, sharp, good coverage.
The 125mm mean pleasant angle-of-view as a standard light wide.

[Frank Petronio]

I like your approach. It's such a relief from the ~~~ who come in all hot to shoot large format and think they need to drop thousands of dollars on a rack of lenses in order to take a good photo. "I like my 80-200mm zoom on my digital so I need a 1200mm for my 4x5..." Right.

However... some of the 135 Nikkors have a reputation as being slightly softer than the other brands... you probably wouldn't notice this though, just repeating gossip.

You should be able to find a major brand 135/5.6, like the Rodenstock Sironar-N or Schneider Symmar-S, in nice shape for a 1980s-era model in the mid-$250 range or so in the USA on eBay or forums like this if you are patient. Maybe $100 more for a current model, although you would be hard pressed to tell a difference in the images since the lens designs don't change that much. In any event, choose based on condition, not age. Make sure the shutter is working nicely.

[venchka]

E.g. an older (single coated) 125mm/f5.6 Fujinon-W would also do it for me.
Reasons: Small & light, quite cheap, sharp, good coverage.
The 125mm mean pleasant angle-of-view as a standard light wide.

I was about to type the same thing. The 125mm Fujinon-W came in several incarnations. I recently purchased a multicoated version that takes 46mm filters in a Copal #0 shutter. I can't imagine a smaller lighter lens. Perfect for packing long distances. The field of view is quite pleasing as well. A friend has a similar EBC version and his takes 52mm filters. The price is so good and the size so small that this could be a second lens and not overburden you. I paid less than $250 USD for mine.

For half that price or less, you could get a nice 127mm Ektar. You will give up a bit of coverage but you won't lack for image quality.

Staying in the $200 range or less, the 203mm Ektar is a stellar lens.

For less than $500 you could have a really nice brace of lenses in the Fuji 125mm and Kodak 203mm. Total weight and bulk hardly more than the modern lenses on your list.

I'm all for minimal weight and bulk. However, having a spare lens/shutter along far from civilization is priceless.

Don't overlook the re-badged Caltars either.

[John Kasaian]

A 127 Ektar will give up a lot of coverage. The 203 Ektar is a fine lens, but you might find it would be of limited use for your architectural work if you need something wide. If the Ektars strike your fancy, I'd look for a 135mm Wide Field.

Dagors and Angulons are always good bets as well, and the older Schneider Symmar "convertible" will gives you two focal lengths in one lens---that's a lot of bang for your buck!

[venchka]

Perhaps I was misunderstood.

I mentioned the 127mm Ektar with a coverage qualification because I own it and have personal knowledge of it's abilites. I mentioned the 203mm Ektar as part of a pair matched with the 125mm Fujinon-W.

Back on topic:

A high quality low weight low volume medium wide lens substantially under the OP's budget: 125mm/5.6 Fujinon-W with 46mm or 52mm filter ring and either single or multicoated.