PDA

View Full Version : 210, 240 or 300mm?



gmed
19-May-2013, 09:46
I have a Chamonix 4x5 with 150mm and 90mm.
Id like to take close up photos of aspen trees and trees in general, and I want to know what lens is more appropriate for this.
210, 240, or 300?

Im leaning towards 240 and 300.

Gem Singer
19-May-2013, 10:16
A Nikon/Nikkor 300M or a Fujinon 300C are your best choices.

David Lobato
19-May-2013, 11:00
A Nikon/Nikkor 300M or a Fujinon 300C are your best choices.

+1 for the smaller shutter on these, and the 300mm focal length.

f5.6 versions of 240mm and 300mm lenses have big Copal 3 shutters and are heavy. How close you want to get matters. A longer focal length will need a bit longer bellows for close focusing.

gmed
19-May-2013, 11:13
I guess I need to clarify. I dont want to do close up as in macro. More like a closer perspective, narrow in. Sort of like the examples below from Dav Thomas.
as I see more examples, I think 300 is better suited for this.


http://peaklandscapes.com/landscape-photography-dav-thomas/recent-landscape-photography/

Bernice Loui
19-May-2013, 11:22
Depends on the imaging requirements..

Beyond the Fuji 300C and Nikkor 300M,

Apo Ronar, Apo Artar and an entire array of f9_ish lenses similar to these.

There are f4.5 Xenar, Tessar Heliar, Ektar. F6.3 Commercial Ektar and more that offer a different answer to this focal length. Then comes the f5.6 Plasmats..


Ideal choice is made based on knowing what the personality and qualities and problems with each optic and making a choice based on what the finished image is to be.


Bernice



A Nikon/Nikkor 300M or a Fujinon 300C are your best choices.

Brian C. Miller
19-May-2013, 12:27
<bahhumbug> See, gmed? You need at least 20 or 30 variants on each focal length for exactly the right occasion. Never mind that Dav Thomas used a 300mm Nikkor for most of those (as noted under each image), you need a huge variety of everything. </bahhumbug>

Camera. Lens. Film. Go photograph.

"Knowing what I know now, any photographer worth his salt could make some beautiful things with pinhole cameras." -- Ansel Adams interview. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/ansel/sfeature/sf_packing.html)

To answer your question precisely, the lens you need is the lens that is on your camera. Or use a pinhole. You want to photograph something up close? Walk up to it, common sense required. (YouTube: Do not do this with LF. You are made of meat. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81DCfygJWwU)) What to photograph it from far away? Walk away from it, and still common sense is required.

"Long" lenses compress the scene. "Short" lenses expand the scene. Also, you can crop a lot with LF film.

Go forth and photograph!

Fredrick
19-May-2013, 12:35
If you ever plan on upgrading to 8x10, one of the 300m f/5.6 plasmats is a good bet.


-Fredrick.

Lachlan 717
19-May-2013, 13:32
Fujinon 240mm A. For all the reasons previously written about this amazing lens, plus the additional bellow draw if you do want to get closer.

Ken Lee
19-May-2013, 13:47
Sort of like the examples below from Dav Thomas.

http://peaklandscapes.com/landscape-photography-dav-thomas/recent-landscape-photography/

If you admire the look he achieves, then why not ask Dav Thomas directly ? He has kindly shared the focal length of the taking lenses, but does he often crop afterwards ?

If his camera offered greater bellows draw, would he use even longer lenses ?

Better to find out in advance :cool:

jeroldharter
19-May-2013, 15:31
A Nikon/Nikkor 300M or a Fujinon 300C are your best choices.

+1

305 G Claron is another option that might be better if you are considering 8x10.

Heroique
19-May-2013, 15:35
Fujinon 240mm A. For all the reasons previously written about this amazing lens, plus the additional bellow draw if you do want to get closer.

I like this particular lens, too. More generally, I like the 240 focal length for tree details. And rock details. Of course, now that I think about it, this might be because I possess and use a 240. If I had purchased a 210 or 300 instead, I might be saying the same exact thing about that lens.

Please see my post below for additional complications...

Heroique
19-May-2013, 15:36
<bahhumbug> See, gmed? You need at least 20 or 30 variants on each focal length for exactly the right occasion. Never mind that Dav Thomas used a 300mm Nikkor for most of those (as noted under each image), you need a huge variety of everything. </bahhumbug>

The “one-lens-is-sufficient-if-you-know-how-to-see” approach wins a lot of sympathy from me, but it’s not my only subjective experience in the field.

I have a 110-150-240 kit (for 4x5), and I often find the jump between 150 and 240 pretty significant – not only for the type of tree shots GMED describes, which I also like taking, but for landscapes in general.

So my next lens will be a 180, not a 300 as one might suspect.

I discovered this need only after many, many trips into the field, and would never have expected it by reading books and threads alone. The 180 will nicely complement the 150 and 240, and replace neither. I love my 150 g-claron for many reasons, but one of them is not because it allows me to crop “180” shots. (Funny, but the gap between my 110 and 150 isn’t very noticeable to me.)

Most important of all, and there can be no doubt about this, the 180 will be the last lens I ever need. ;^)

Brian C. Miller
19-May-2013, 16:20
No, Heroique, I wrote about multiple lenses in each focal length. A person doesn't need to haul around a 300mm: Nikkor M & W & T, Rodenstock N & S & W & Ronar & Imagon, Schneider Symmar & G-Claron, Fujinon A & C & CM-W, Kodak Commercial Ektar, Kodak Ektar, Kodak Aerial, Bausch & Lomb, Wollensak, and a dozen or so other manufacturers and all of those variations.

Yes, they all have their individual, unique signatures.

And at some point a person just needs to click the shutter already, and move on to the next bit. LF cameras are slow enough to set up without the distractions of ... HEY THERE JUST WENT A UFO!! ... multiple lens choices. See? There you were with two lenses in your hand. And you didn't know if that film holder's film was actually unexposed or not.

gmed
19-May-2013, 16:35
Hi Brian, can I ask what lenses or lens you use?

Brian C. Miller
19-May-2013, 19:06
If it's my Super Graphic, I usually use a 135mm f/4.7 Wollensak Optar, which came with the camera. Why? Because it folds up with the camera, no problem. I flip it open, and I can be good to go in under 15 seconds. Yeah, glacial. With my Toyo 45AX, it's usually been my Nikkor 210, that came with the camera when I bought it. I also have a 75mm, a 135mm, and a 180mm. My 8x10 usually gets a Fujinon C 300mm.

Leigh
19-May-2013, 20:04
I have multiples of all three focal lengths, and use them all as appropriate to the subject.

For real closeup work I use a Rodenstock Apo-Macro-Sironar 180/5.6.

- Leigh

Heroique
19-May-2013, 20:19
I have multiples of all three focal lengths, and use them all as appropriate to the subject.

Just curious Leigh, how many of your focal lengths have multiples? Wait, I’ll check your profile...

Okay, your profile says you have “far too many lenses to list.”

Is it due to all the multiples? :D

Leigh
19-May-2013, 20:22
I have three 210's (one of which is currently up for sale), three 240's, and two 300's.

The kit includes almost every focal length from 65mm to 450mm (lenses with ICs large enough for 4x5).

Now I'm curious... How is that any of your business???

- Leigh

Heroique
19-May-2013, 20:31
I think it would make a unique and entertaining thread topic – reasons to carry multiples of single focal lengths. And BTW, I’m just having some fun here, so please take it with a grain of salt.

You would be the natural OP.

For example, I’d love to hear your three appropriate subjects for your three 240s, and why one 240 wouldn’t do the job. It might make me change my mind about the 180 above, and convince me I need a second 240 instead!

Leigh
19-May-2013, 20:38
I never claimed to "carry" multiple lenses.
Perhaps a refresher English course would be in order.

I have six LF cameras. The lenses are divided among them depending on the nature of the shoot.
I sometimes carry both 4x5 and 8x10 in the field, and have lenses for each since they have different lensboards.

The same is true of studio cameras, with both 4x5 and 8x10 Sinar F2's.
Although they take the same lensboards, the IC requirements differ.

- Leigh

John Kasaian
19-May-2013, 21:00
I have a Chamonix 4x5 with 150mm and 90mm.
Id like to take close up photos of aspen trees and trees in general, and I want to know what lens is more appropriate for this.
210, 240, or 300?

Im leaning towards 240 and 300.
Doesn't a lot depend on how long your bellows extend? I'm not familiar with Chamonix 4x5s so please excuse my lack of knowledge on the subject.

Doremus Scudder
20-May-2013, 02:37
Let's move back on-topic and see if we can help the OP decide how to spend his hard-earned cash on a lens...

When I consider adding a lens, and I have a couple of focal lengths under review, I almost always opt for the shorter of the two. One can always crop a bit to get the longer view, but not vice-versa.

I also like to think of focal-length "groups," i.e., "wide," "normal," "long," etc. A 210 on 4x5 is a longish "normal" lens, in the same group as a 150mm. Anything that one can shoot with the 210 one can also shoot with the 150 and do a bit of cropping. In other words, you already have a lens in that "area," so jumping up to the "long" lens area is more logical. So the choice is between a 240mm and a 300mm.

So, if I had the your current kit, I would likely jump to the 240mm lens. The difference between a 240mm and a 300mm is not that much and you can always crop a bit with the 240 to achieve the same image you can get with the 300mm.

With the 90, 150, 240 kit there are a lot more possibilities than with either the 210 (your 150 has that covered) or the 300 (the 240 will do that job for you plus give you access to some wider views). Then, as time goes by, you can fill in the gaps with other lenses that you find you need.

I have the Fujinon A 240 and would recommend it highly. Whatever focal length you decide on, if you work in the field and weight is an issue, look for one of the lighter-weight longer lenses. They have plenty of coverage and are significantly lighter than the plasmats in the same focal length. (FWIW, I don't like to carry a 210 plasmat in the field; too heavy. I have a 203 Ektar). Fujinon A, Fujinon C, Nikkor M, G-Claron, and a bunch of f/9 process lenses fit into this category as do some of the older Ektars. They all have maximum apertures around f/8 or 9 which allows them to be smaller. The only downside is a bit less light to focus with; I've never found this a problem.

I hope this helps.

Best,

Doremus

Heroique
20-May-2013, 03:19
Quick update – that makes five votes for 300, three votes for 240 (all for the Fuji A), and no votes for the 210. Give or take.

My recommendation remains go shoot some more, and let your two-lens field experience vote for your third lens. Don’t disenfranchise it. Its vote might even be against a third lens, or for an unusual combination no one recommends here.

Forum polls and photo books, as helpful as they try to be, can’t compete with just a few field trips, though it’s always interesting to hear what other people are doing.

Drew Wiley
20-May-2013, 16:30
Different people have different ways of looking at the world, so going around rating one focal length "better" than another is largely nonsense. And once you start
using a particular lens, after awhile you tend to start composing things the way it sees anyway. I tend to visualize the world with longer than "normal" lenses, and
have used 210,240,250,300, 360. and 450 all a great deal on 4x5. The jump from 210 to 240 is pretty modest, as is the jump from 240 to 300. This coming week
I'll probably backpack with just a 200 and 300. What I would avoid, however, is some big heavy clunker 5.6 plasmat.

Lenny Eiger
20-May-2013, 17:08
I have the 240A and it is indeed a sweet lens. However, have you consider walking closer to the trees?

If you shoot from farther away it won't be the same texturally. Longer lenses tend to flatten things a bit. I say pick up the tripod and move closer, unless there is some reason you can't, like a river in the way...


Lenny

Kodachrome25
20-May-2013, 17:42
I live among Aspen trees and own a 45N-2. When I am doing tighter or more compressed shots, I use either my Schneider 180mm 5.6, Fujinon 240 A or Schneider 350mm F/11. Since I use all kinds of lenses for these trees, other ones would be 65, 90, 135 and 150.

I would start with the 240A as a next lens past 150....

angusparker
20-May-2013, 19:34
I agree that the Fuji 240 and Nikkor 300 are great bets for the Chamonix which I also own. You can go as long as using the Fuji 450/12 with a bellows extension bar but I wouldn't recommend it - too much bellows for this light weight view camera.

Armin Seeholzer
21-May-2013, 01:56
I would also vote for the 240mm in my opinion it would be the Schneider G-Glaron!

Cheers Armin

Bernice Loui
21-May-2013, 07:56
Know what the image should be regarding foreground -vs- back ground object size ratio. This is what will determine the focal length required.

There are many small format zoom lens users that use variable focal length to frame and crop.. which is not the way to think when using a view camera.

A normal lens presents the objects in the foreground -vs- back ground similar to the way your eyes see them. A shorter focal length (wide angle) will increase the size of the fore ground objects relative to the back ground objects, a tele will increase the size of the objects in the back ground relative to the fore ground. How much depends on the specific focal length and image recording device size.

Forget the poll and voting, the only way to really know what focal length works for the image in mind is to use them. Do move the camera to get the composition desired rather than trying to change focal lengthen to achieve this. Moving the camera up-down, left-right even a small amount can alter the image and composition in very significant ways. Learning this skill is far more important than having a collection of various focal length lenses to try.

Once a favorite focal length has been chosen, then the choice of Dagor, Ektar, Xenar, Heliar, Artar and .... becomes relevant, but not until a specific focal length lens has been determined for the image in mind. Lens type choice is a factor in the overall image result.


Bernice

Drew Wiley
21-May-2013, 08:24
One cannot simply walk up closer to everything, and even if you could, the perspective changes, and the composition might not look the same at all. And cropping in after the shot equates to a degree of quality loss once the image is enlarged. A shallow depth of field has its own look, and this varies with focal length. At a certain
point, you just have to make an educated guess, acquire a lens, live with it, and either supplement it with another focal length later or replace it.

pdmoylan
21-May-2013, 17:28
To be able to choose a specific focal length you have to see with that field of view with your eye and what will be contained in the final image with that lens before you start setting up the camera. The question for the OP is, if you were to take a walk with camera in an ideal (for you) environment, and you saw something interesting or magical, what would be the correct focal length to produce that image.

Part of the process is Can you see in very wide or very long focal lengths? So that collection of trees in the near distance, how best to produce an image. You have a good start with knowing what you like in images (Dav's) so you just have to buy a lens and see if allows you to maximize your image making as you look at a scene - alternatively choose a lens, don't fret whether it is right at this moment, work with it and you will begin to "see" in that focal length. In other words you will have chosen a viewpoint from which to drawn details out of a scene. If you like the isolating qualities in Dav's images, then go with the long end. If you like getting closer physically to a subject use a shorter lens. Experimentation and what fits your natural vision of a scene has to be developed. Limiting yourself to one or two lenses will discipline your vision so that after a while you will realize you want a different focal length to meet your needs. Frankly, most of see with different focal lengths depending on the scene. By cutting through that and using one maybe 2 lenses, you are pairing down your options but creating a personal approach to imaging. Dav's work is a good example. He has a definable style by his limited choice of lens, light (soft) and choice of films. Of course he is rather stingy in his subject matter but there are infinite possibilities of imaging trees and landscapes. Choose a lens based upon what field of view and other characteristics if offers your creative eye, not those of others.

pdmoylan
21-May-2013, 17:46
... (this is what happens with a glass of wine before dinner) don't encumbered by too many lenses. Leigh who needs to get indignant before he is willing to share, has a plethora of different lenses in a variety of focal lengths so he can match his vision. But few of us can easily know the correct focal length all of the time. So part of the creative process is to choose a lens because it is there, and use it to it's strengths (love the one your with). Eventually you will find your vision and passion to capture it or not. But you never lose as long as you shoot. Choose the focal length that seems best for you (try DSLR comparitives and see which Focal length you tend to choose for a scene). Eventually you will get there. The great thing about lenses is perhaps like women. There is nothing like having ultimate intimacy with one lens. But for some, the passion comes with more concurrent choices so long as you can juggle them all. I do like that analogy!

PDM

barnninny
22-May-2013, 22:04
There are many small format zoom lens users that use variable focal length to frame and crop.. which is not the way to think when using a view camera.

It's not even the way to think when using a small format camera.


One cannot simply walk up closer to everything, and even if you could, the perspective changes, and the composition might not look the same at all.

Exactly. "Just use one lens for everything and move your feet" seems to be the hot advice these days, regardless of format. While I'm all for not getting so tied up in equipment that you don't fire the shutter, sometimes a flattened (or exploded) perspective is the thing you're after. You can't get those by moving your feet and cropping. You have to change your glass. A focal length is an entire point of view, not just a framing device.

As for the OP's OQ, I'm afraid I'm no help, having never used anything longer than my 150. I'm just reading along for the learning.

timparkin
31-May-2013, 03:44
I guess I need to clarify. I dont want to do close up as in macro. More like a closer perspective, narrow in. Sort of like the examples below from Dav Thomas.
as I see more examples, I think 300 is better suited for this.


http://peaklandscapes.com/landscape-photography-dav-thomas/recent-landscape-photography/


I know Dav and he calls his Nikkor 300M his standard lens. I love mine and it gives a lot of room for rise/fall - very useful.

Tim

p.s. I'll tell him he's being talked about ;-)

pasiasty
31-May-2013, 06:24
provided that:
- your camera has maximal bellows extension of 395mm
- the 300mm lens you choose has 300mm back flange distance
your minimum focusing distance will be about 1825mm, and your maximum magnification will be about 0,32

if you need to go beyond, choose a telephoto design, e.g. Fujinon TS 300/8 with 199mm back flange distance (min. focal distance: 759mm and max. magnification 0,82) - but check if you can fit such a bulky lens to your camera