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

[newmoon2night]

This thread might help you decide:

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=41763

It sounds to me like you need/want a slightly longer than normal lens; those compact scenes, "intimate landscapes", etc seem to be a little easier with a slightly long lens.

You might want to look at Roman Loranc's work, for years he used only a 210mm lens.

Cheers, Steve

Steve
Thanks for the post, and this is exactly what my wife Ann tells me (she's an artist with a fantastic visual eye).
To add to this, all except one photograph I've ever thought good enough to frame and hang on the wall has been taken with a standard (or very slightly wide of standard) or short telephoto lens!
My best 35mm results come from my 85mm lenses.
So this may be the sensible way to go!
In looking at wider angle lenses maybe I'm being too conventional, rather than going my own way.

[dsphotog]

For landscapes on 4x5 I use, in order of frequency:
135, 210, 90, & rarely a 65.

I'd start with a 135, or 210, and see what works for you.
If you buy used, you can resell without much loss.

I won't throw gas onto the "Who makes the sharper lens" fire.
Most any modern lens will make sharp negs.
Shoot lots,& have fun!
David Silva
Modesto,Ca

[timparkin]

Hi ..

I have a 80,110,150,240,360 and find myself using the 110mm most and 240mm second.. Have a look at http://www.timparkin.co.uk for an idea what sort of photographs I take..

I have thought about a lightweight kit and I think I would end up with the 110 if it were just one lens (with possible a 135 Sironar being a lightweight close second) or a 110 and 240 if I could use two lenses (or replace the 240 the 200mm f8 Nikkor M - very light lens)..

so ... 110/240 for a total weight of 680g or a 135/200 for a total weight of 400g

[Peter De Smidt]

A 203mm Ektar.

[Kirk Fry]

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testin...0mm_thru_163mm
Fuji W f/6.3 150mm 140g Seiko #0 1970's
f/11 60 60 48
f/16 48 60 54
f/22 54 60 54
A super lens if you can find one and it covers about 260 mm
The newer ones do not cover as much.

KFry

[Larry Gebhardt]

70% of my shots are made using my 135mm Sironar S. So that would be my choice. Add the 200mm Nikon and I have a perfect lightweight kit.

[Doug Dolde]

My most used lens when shooting 4x5 was the Super Symmar XL 110mm. I'd pick this for my one and only.

[Frank Petronio]

While the online jury is pushing you towards a longer lens for "intimate" landscapes I'll circle back to the 110-150 range as being the best all-around single lens. I think getting closer with a slightly wide lens makes a more interesting photo than the typical long shot, whether it be a person or a patch of foliage (sometimes the same thing!).

[Eric Brody]

I'll add my two cents. When I bought my Toyo 45A, way back in 1982, I got a Fuji 210 on the advice of the salesman. He was wise. I used that only for over two years doing landscape photography in the Pacific northwest. I learned a lot. I next got a 90, too short as an only lens, and then a 150, both Nikkors.

I'd like to suggest either the 210, pick the maker, if you're a slightly long lens person, or a 150, if you like a slightly wider approach. There are lots of good lenses; any of the modern plasmats by Fuji, Nikon, Schneider, or Rodenstock are likely to meet your needs. A 150 will have reasonable coverage, more than most 135's, and is likely inexpensive. A 180 is an interesting idea too, though I have never used one.

I agree with Frank, I like your approach. Many people, coming from small format cameras think they need lots of lenses, spend lots of money on gear they use rarely, and spend too much time in the field deciding which lens to use. Spend your time with basic composition, zoom with your feet, if possible, and you'll have both better photographs, more fun, and way less angst.

Good luck.

Eric

[cobalt]

203 Ektar.
152 Ektar.
127 Ektar.