Advice appreciated - lens kit

[Ron Marshall]

For what kind of subjects was 75mm not wide enough?



I did. So far I have Horseman LE45 with Geronar 210mm. I liked LF, so I decided to stick with it.

The 75 did not emphasize the forground enough for me in some subjects and did not have a large enough angle of view. But I didn't use 75 that often and I don't use the 55 that much either. I use the 90 ten times more often than the 55, and it is a better fit for me than the 110 it replaced.

90-150-210-300 is a good kit. Don't worry about having 67mm filter threads; four of my lenses have step-up rings (to 67mm) (about $20) parmanently attached.

[Mark Sawyer]

Of the subjects that you list, which one(s) is the G-Claron 305mm f9 for? In particular, is it the lens that you intend to use for portraits?

It is, as well as for some still life. Is it a bad lens?

I think by the time you figure in the bellows extension, you may find 305mm just a bit long for portraits and still-lifes. Maybe a 240mm or 260mm?

[J D Clark]

As others have noted, what you normally use with a 35mm camera might not be how your vision works with a 4x5 camera. I observed that myself firsthand before reading that it was others experience as well.

I have, over the years, kept a spreadsheet of the negatives I print, and the lenses used for them. What I have observed is that for greater than 85% of the prints I make, I use a 110mm Schneider Super Symmar XL and a 210mm Schneider APO Symmar. For me, a 75mm would be too wide for "normal" wide angle work, and 305mm would be too long. The only time I end up using lenses wider than 80mm is at Anasazi sites where there is very little space.

I end up using the 210mm for nearly 50% of the negatives I expose. I carried a 150mm lens for many years, but ultimately only 2 of my prints were made with that lens, and I've since sold it.

The 110mm Super Symmar is a bit expensive, but you could use a 90mm lens that would fit a 67mm filter. Replacing my 210mm Schneider with the 210mm Nikkor would give you a lens with a 67mm filter thread.

Good luck!

John Clark
www.johndclark.com

[Kevin Thomas]

Like you when I took my first steps into LF I used the comparison between my 35mm lenses and LF lenses to help me choose my kit. Similarly I also favoured my 20mm over my 24 and 28mm primes in 35mm. Personally I have found that this method doesn't really prepare you for the way your photography changes once you move format.

With a little hindsight I would suggest you search the forum on the topic of using a 75mm or 90mm lens in LF. You will find many people extolling the usefulness of the 90mm and discussion of the difficulties of using a 75mm. By the way if you do purchase a 75mm I should allow for the purchase of a center filter especially for shooting colour and you may need a tilting loupe to check focus in the corners.

I have both a 75 and 90mm - I bought both in the same week and from my first outing with them I could see why the 90mm is so popular in LF. The Grandagon 90mm F6.8 has a 67mm thread if you are prepared to sacrifice a bit of speed.

From experience I know buying your first LF lenses without any experience is a pain - if at all possible I would look at local camera clubs and see if they have any LF enthusiasts who will let you have a look at their gear and share some of their experience.

[axer]

Thank you guys for all those pieces of advice, you were very helpful. Yet, I still did not decide whether to go 75mm or 90mm, but I am not in hurry. I can live with my Geronar 210mm, reading and watching as much as possible before making decission. Unfortunatelly, I do not have a possibility to have a look at sb elses gear to help me to decide.

[CarstenW]

I just decided on my LF kit too, and based on my favorite MF lenses (Contax 645) being 35mm and 120mm, combined with lots and lots of people saying that wides feel wider and longs feel longer on LF, I bought 90mm and 210mm lenses. Soon I will know if that was a good decision.

[Adam Kavalunas]

If you are like most of us, your lens lineup will change numerous times. I stared with a 75, 135, 180, 240 and 300. It then changed to a 65, 120, 180, 300. For me, I've always found the need to go wider and wider. I'm now purchasing a 55mm and replacing my 65mm (which is for sale here ) I found the 65mm to be about a 18-20mm or so in 35mm terms. Great lens. When I had the 75mm, it just never seemed wide enough to me. The only lens I've never replaced is my Nikon 300M. And ironically, its by far my least used lens. My latest lens lineup was based on a 58mm thread size. But going to the 55m will change that. Don't be afraid to have a few different thread sizes. If you get the shot, its all worth it in the end......

[axer]

I decided that I'll be looking for something really wide - 75-80mm, and after that I'll be looking for a 150mm. Thanks again for your help.

[Arne Croell]

When I started with LF in 1991, I decided essentially on the same focal length: 75-150-300mm, and it worked fine initially. That is a linear factor of 2 between the focal length. Since I do b/w and enlarge I could always crop to intermediate coverage or so I thought. What became clear after a while (for me anyway) was that the factor of 2 was too much - if the cropping got close to that value, e.g. taking a 135mm equivalent out of a 75mm negative, I ended up with a medium format negative and gave away too much of the LF advantage. I also never used the 75mm as much as I thought I would in its own right. So I augmented the initial lineup with 2 intermediate ones, a 210mm (which you already have) and a 120mm, later changed to a 110mm. That's a linear factor of about 1.4 (square root of 2) and works great for me.
The filter standardization helps, I also standardized on 67mm, but only as the largest size - everything else is done by step-up rings. Saves weight and volume - the 305 G-Claron's image circle is a bit overkill for 4x5, a lighter and smaller lens like a Nikkor-M 300mm or Fujinon-C 300 or similar (Apo-Ronar etc.) is more than enough if you don't need coverage for 8x10.