Need a lens to go with my 110mmXL

[David Grandy]

When I got a used Toyo field camera it came with a 90 mm SA. At the time I thought that a 210 would be the next most logical step to take, and I bought a 210 Symmar. A few years and a few lenses later I was able to buy a 300 mm f9 Nikkor M for a very reasonable amount of money. Now I find that I use the 300 for almost everything I would have used the 210 for.

The Nikkor M is no bigger than my 210 although a stop and a half slower . When I first got this lens I thought that the slowness of this lens would make focusing difficult. When the lens arrived, I proved to myself that that wasn't a problem by rushing out to make some pictures. Shooting under those conditions was probably a case of a new toy biting hard! Well it wasn't until I was processing the film when I realized that I hadn't noticed that the groundglass was dark.

Although I don't know exactly why this is, it seems that the light travels more directly to your eye in a lens of this focal length and appears bright, while a wide angle appears darker. Let me put it this way: the 300 is slightly brighter than my 90 f9 and significantly brighter than my 65 f8. I know that this is only "apparent" brightness but what the heck.

The 300 mm focal length corresponds with a lens of around 85-105 mm in the 35 mm format. It is kind of funny since the 300 is like a 85, 90, 100 or 105 depending on which reference source you choose to read! Anyway it's a short general purpose/portrait lens and very useful.

If there's a down side to a 300 it would be that you'll need a camera with a lot of bellows draw. 300 mm is needed just to focus this lens at infinity and twice that to focus at 1:1. You probably won't do much 1:1 but you will be focusing closer than infinity. To split the difference I'd suggest at least 450 mm of bellows draw.

Even if you can afford one I wouldn't buy one of the 300 mm f5.6 lenses unless you are sure that there's an 8x10 in your future. These lenses are the size of your foot, probably weigh more than your foot and are much more expensive than the 300 M.

I DO use this 300 for 8x10 and it has plenty of image circle to cover that format. In fact the bellows gets in the way before I lose lens coverage - and that's in 8x10, not 4x5. In 4x5 you couldn't come close to running out of lens!

So having a 110 and a 300 would be lot like having a 35 mm and an 85 in 35 mm format. and that is probably a good place to start.

[Jim Bancroft]

Hi Steven-

I think you'd be well advised to stay within the designed constraints of your RSW and get the best 180mm lens you can (my preference would be foa either a APO-Symmar or APO-Sironar-S). This will maximize the camera stability/extension and if you take a couple of steps closer to your subject (or crop a little)the image will be pretty close to a what you'd get with a 210.

[Glenn Kroeger]

I think the real question is whether you are going to stop at 2 lenses, or ultimately get 3 or more. I like the 110-180-300 combo and find that there is certainly enough difference between a 110 and 180 to have both... BUT, if I were to have only two lenses, 110 and 180 wouldn't be a big enough spread, and 180 would definitely no be long enough. That is why I originally recommended the 240A Fujinon but at the time, didn't realize the bellows limitation. You could go with a 180mm, and then pick up a Fujinon 300T telephoto. It might just focus on a flat board, but will definitely focus on a short "top-hat" board.

[Wayne_6692]

One thing not mentioned in this thread (but it's been mentioned many times before) is that you just can't go screwing in any old filter on the XL series lenses, many will contact the front element's surface. Don't use the 67mm filter as your largest, find another size. I settled on 86mm since that is what the center filter has for female threads - you may want something smaller. Just keep in mind that if you intend to use multi-coated filters that Hoya tops out at 82mm - you'll need to buy Heliopan or B+W to go larger.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Oops, in my earlier post I didn't take into account the limitations of your came ra. It sounds like a 180mm is the longest practical focal length. In which cas e, you pretty much have your answer.

WRT to filters on the 110... Yes, some 67mm filters do not fit properly (I've ha d problems with Tiffen, but a couple of my B+W 67mm filters work fine). It real ly varies from brand to brand. Since I already had a complete set of 67mm filte rs, I didn't want to have to go out and buy an entire new set of larger filters for a lens that has 67mm threads. My solution was to just take the glass out of an inexpensive 67mm UV filter and leave the aluminum ring mounted on the front of the lens. This gives me a 67mm - 67mm spacer ring that has eliminated all of my problens using 67mm filters on this lens. In theory, you might get some vig netting or limit your coverage if you stack too many filters on the front of thi s lens with the spacer in place. In practice, I never stack more than two filte rs (and rarely even two). So, it hasn't been an issue. Also, the rear of this lens is threaded for 52mm filters (which happens to be the size of the filter ki t I use for backpacking). When using filters on the rear, be sure to focus with the filter in place, make sure you are using a good quality filter and that it is clean, and I even then, I would not recommend more than one glass filter on t he rear of a lens.

It's unfortunate that your camera has such a limited bellows draw. It sounds li ke it is only really designed to be a wide angle camera, and if you try to use l enses (non-telephoto) longer than 180mm you're asking it to do something it was never intended to do. Personally, I like using longer than normal lenses (240mm , 300mm and 450mm). Obviously, I have chosen a camera to support my personal sh ooting style. I am a little curiuos why you bought this particular camera if th e 110 XL is the shortest lens you plan to use on it. Just about any camera made will easily handle the 110, and most will also easily handle longer lenses as w ell. I'm sure the Ebony is a work of art and a joy to use, but by design, you'v e pretty much limited yourself to 180mm on the long end. The 180mm focal length is quite nice, and as others have mentioned significantly different than 110mm. I think you'd be very happy with a 180mm APO Sironar-S or APO Symmar and eithe r lens will take the same 67mm filters as your 110 (the APO Symmar has 58mm filt er threads, so a 58mm - 67mm step-up ring will do the trick). Given the limtati ons of your camera, I think either of these two lenses would be your best option .

Kerry

[Steven Meyers]

Kerry, and all! Really appreciate all this input! Bellows limitation on the Ebony RSW does really suck, but I guess I was looking for something different. After many Years of packing 6x7 gear around, my knees are shot, so I wanted somthing light and a non folder easy and fast to use. Otherwise my lazy ass wouldn't get out and make any pictures. Plus I wanted to force my self to see a little different as I was never into wide angle stuff. I really visulized the 110 being all I need. My taste in landscapes is very simple(love David fokos)My second lens I was thinking it would be nice if it got me a little closer so I wouldn't have to stand in the (water-ocean) to get the shot!I knew I could easily sell the RSW if I wanted to get into longer lenses. So for now, I just wanted a slightly wide and maybe one other for different closer perspective.Also I do have a few 67mm filters from my Pentax 6x7 stuff.I thought the filter issue was most applicable to the 80mm XL? Is this an issue with all the XL lenses? I'am a little obsessive compulsive sometimes, currently I have no interest in doing landscape work like I did with the 6x7 for years. I do have a full Toyo G studio camera that I use for table top stills. I have a Rodenstock Geronar 210mm, after calling on sales people,they are claiming a vast improvement if I get a Symar 180 or 210. Its rare that I can get out for a week at time to do fun landscape stuff so I was reluctant to use Geronar only to come back and find it stinks compared to the enlargements from the 110 xl. I got the Geronar with the camera both really cheap! Steve M. Need a break from- http://www.xray-art.com

[Steve Gangi]

Kerry's note about do-it-yourself adapters is a good one. Another thing people used to do was to mount filters behind the lens. A gelatin filter (Kodak Wratten) and some tape was all it took. Unfortunately, gel filters are a bit fragile compared to glass ones.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Steven,

Just to calrify where I'm coming from, I am not personally overly fond of ultraw ide lenses. Just not my cup of tea. For general purpose shooting, I usually ca rry a six lens set of 75mm, 110mm, 150mm, 210mm, 300mm and 450mm. The 75mm is m y least used focal length, but when you need something that wide, you really nee d it. Although the spacing of 110, 150, 210 may seem a little close to some, th is is my most used trio of lenses and probably gets used for over 80% of my imag es. If I was to personally limit myself to two lenses, it would probably be 110 and 210. I'd miss the 150, but I could always shoot wider with the 110 and cro p in a pinch.

When I want to go REALLY light, I carry a three lens set of 90, 150 and 240. Th at gives me a decent range of focal lengths with a minimum amount of weight (all three are very compact, lightweight lenses).

Just sharing what works for me. Your personal style and needs are likely differ ent. So, what works best for me might not work for you. Given your current cam era, 110, 180 probably makes the most sense. And, it you ever decide to get a c amera with longer extension, the 110, 180, 300 progression is nicely spaced.

Kerry

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I find myself like kerry using the middle lenses more than any other...my trio is 90, 120 and 150. The 210 and the 65 get used rarely and the 300 and 450 0nly on the 8x10 and 12x20.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

"I thought the filter issue was most applicable to the 80mm XL? Is this an issue with all the XL lenses?"

As far as I know, the "filter issue" is only with the 110 XL. I'm not sure abou t the 150 and 210 (haven't used them), but I do know for a fact that 67mm filter s fit the 80mm SS XL just fine. After the obvious snafu with 67mm filters on th e the 110 XL, I think Schneider went overboard to make sure the same thing didn' t happen on the 80mm SS XL. The front barrel is WAY oversized on this lens so t hat there is no potential problem using 67mm filters on the front. However, the point may be moot. I found fall-off sufficient enough to require a center filt er with this lens (for use with high contrast color transparency films, YMMV). So, I still can't use my 67mm filters on it. The proper 67mm center filter is t hreaded on the front for 86mm filters (of which I have none). Like the 110 XL, it is threaded on the rear (for 40.5mm filters in this case). So, it is still p ossible to use a filter on the rear when using the center filter on the front.

In any case, it is the 110 XL that has the problem with SOME 67mm filters. My 6 7mm - 67mm spacer works for me. A potentially better solution would be a step-u p to a slightly larger filter size (maybe 67mm - 72mm or 67mm - 77mm). That wou ld give the benefit of a spacer, plus reduce the chance of vignetting (although I have not personally found it to be a problem on 4x5 using my stright 67mm - 67 mm spacer).

Kerry