Originally Posted by crowgraphy
I was trying to determine if you needed a sync connection or not. To use flash, you do. There are some nice lenses from the 1950s that would work for you, such as the Ektars.
Kent in SD
I was trying to determine if you needed a sync connection or not. To use flash, you do. There are some nice lenses from the 1950s that would work for you, such as the Ektars.
Kent in SD
In contento ed allegria
Notte e di vogliam passar!
Regarding 135 versus 150... A lot of that choice depends on if you want a normal, not a slightly side normal as normal in your kit, and how you want to space your kit. I moved to 8x10 shortly after starting 4x5, but the lens kit focal length problems are the same. Assuming you want to keep things to two or three lenses, here are some options...
135 and 210 ... Maybe for portrait and landscape this is all you need?
90 and 150 and 210 ... The classic kit
90 and 135 and 210 ... Variation of the above
120 and 150 and 210 ... Nice kit if you never want to go wide
75 and 110 and 180 ... If you like mainly wide and 180 is your idea of long.
So, you can see that your first lens choice might not matter as you find your way. I started with a 210 on 4x5 and thought I didn't need it and sold it later. But guess what I just bought for my 8x10 now? A 450, which is almost like 210 on that format.
Another solution would be to never sell the lenses you buy because you will probably go back and forth about what you want/like focal length wise for a couple years, at least I have.
Great info John and thanks!
this option looks more interesting to me
90 and 150 and 210 ... The classic kit I guess I can use 150 for landscape also?
Thanks again
Girish Sharma
Yes. You will find a variety of opinion here on focal lengths, but that kit should cover everything you might want to do on 4x5.
Later you can add an in between where you feel you need more choices and then still only have a very manageable four lens kit.
Correction, I guess the true classic kit is 90, 150 and 240. That would be focal lengths spread by a factor of 1.5.
If I were you I would start with just a 210 and shoot with that for a box or two of film.
210 vs 240... close enough, but that is my opinion of the difference between 135 and 150.
In addition to the classic kit, I eventually added a 300 and have found it to be extremely useful.
My advise to someone getting into LF (or any format), though, is to get started shooting before investing in a "full kit". I concur with John's recco to get a 210 and burn up some film. I worked for 25+ years before adding the 90 and 300 and by the time I wanted them I really knew why I was spending the money.
You can get a lot of mileage from a convertible Symmar, and 203mm F7.7 Ektars can still be had reasonably if you're patient(and it's cousin, the 203 Wolly is also a good bet, maybe even a bit less costly) I happen to like Velostigmats for portraiture.
The thing about lenses is too many folks get anal about 'em. Prints from ANY quality LF lens will blow the socks off their lesser format bretheren---what matters is the subject and how you use whichever lens you happen to have on hand, IMHO
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
Good advice here. Stick with one lens, one film, and one developer until you KNOW exactly what you are going to get when that negative is dry.
One man's Mede is another man's Persian.
tThe 240mm shutter is too big and heavy on my Symmar. I like 210mm much better.
another vote for the 210 only for now.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks