PDA

View Full Version : which lens should I go for please??



croppitt
20-Jul-2013, 04:12
Hello everybody. This is my second post - thanks everyone so much for the how to use a 5x4 book recommendations -I feel much more confident using the camera now. So, my next question is my next new lens. I have a nice 150mm and 210mm both cammed for my linhof. But I am finding I often need to be slightly wider. I've saved up a bit of cash and want to buy the very best lens out there. (within reason). I really hate any distortion so i think a 90mm is wrong. So I'm thinking 135mm or 110mm, probably won't bother getting it cammed as I rarely use the rangefinder - What do you think? Any preference ( I know this is personal choice ) but are there any lens of those lengths that are really special in quality?
Look forward to hearing any comments - as always many thanks in advance. Kind regards John http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/images/smilies/confused.png

IanG
20-Jul-2013, 04:45
Why not go slightly wider and get a 90mm, there's no distortion with LF lenses, you'd be hard pushed to tell which images Ive made with a 90mm compared to a 135mm or 150mm.

Ian

Bruce Watson
20-Jul-2013, 04:54
I'm thinking 135mm or 110mm, probably won't bother getting it cammed as I rarely use the rangefinder - What do you think? Any preference ( I know this is personal choice ) but are there any lens of those lengths that are really special in quality?

I've got and love a 110mm SSXL (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=schneider+super-symmar+xl+110mm+f%2F5.6&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ta&Top+Nav-Search=). Sharpest lens I own, and I own a sharp set. It's bright, and it's sharp wide open so it's easy to focus. It's a pleasure to use, from capture to printing. It's also one of Kerry Thalmann's "future classics" (http://thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm) so I'm not the only one thinking it's a special lens. Just sayin'.

Larry Gebhardt
20-Jul-2013, 05:00
I have a 135mm and I like the spacing when I'm using a 90 and a 210. It's too close to your 150; I would carry one or the other, but not both. A 110mm goes nicely with a 150mm and 210mm pair. So does a 90mm.

Both the 135mm Sironar S and the 110mm Super-Symmar XL are very well regarded.

Brian Ellis
20-Jul-2013, 05:16
135, 150, and 210 would be a little too close for my tastes. My only wide angle lens was the 80mm SS XL which is an excellent lens and I thought it was a good compromise between buying both a 75mm and a 90mm. I did at one time own the 90mm f5.6 Super Angulon and it too was a fine lens. If you go that route I'd get the f5.6 version rather than the f/8. There isn't that much difference between them in size or weight and the wider maximum aperture comes in handy when composing.

croppitt
20-Jul-2013, 09:13
Thanks everybody - really helpful - so maybe
I should consider a 90mm to work along side the
150 and 210 - so which one? Needs to be the finest
One out there: suggestions ?
Thanks guys

Bill_1856
20-Jul-2013, 09:26
Get a 90mm. They're cheap, and you can always crop.

Otto Seaman
20-Jul-2013, 09:54
The 120 APO Symmar L is a cracking lens and I'd take it over a 110xl for 4x5. 90s are useful but too wide for "normal", I say "wide" whenever I see a shot made with them.

120 and 180 are a really nice normal combo.

John Kasaian
20-Jul-2013, 10:00
What's the finest is difficult to say---even among the same model by the same company some examples will be" finer" than others.
I'd opt for whichever of the major players has the larger image circle, or which is faster for use in low light. or size/weight that won't tax the lens board and front standards, depending on what's important to you (FWIW, my WA lens barely covers the format and is as and slow as a constipated snail!)

Alan Gales
20-Jul-2013, 11:08
The Nikkor SW 90mm f/4.5 lenses are said to be really nice. They are a bit pricey.

Bob Salomon
20-Jul-2013, 11:36
Modern 90mm lenses do not have distortion. Distortion means that straight lines will be bowed in or bowed outward. This is not the case with a modern 90mm or even with lenses as short as 23mm.

Do you mena foreshortening? That means that things closer to the lens are reproduced larger then things further away from the lens. Shorter lenses make this more obviouse then longer lenses. This is a matter of physics, not distortion, and is on all lenses regardless of focal length. By looking at the foreshortening you can tell if a shorter or longer lens was used if there is/are objects in the foreground to compare in the shots.

croppitt
20-Jul-2013, 14:03
I think what saying is weird curved corners one gets
on extreme wides like a 18mm or 20mm on a 35mm camera
So by the sounds of your general remarks by most
Of You kind people is maybe a 90mm or 120mm
I'll do some hunting on eBay and camera stores here in London
Many thanks to everyone - what a great, vast palace of knowledge!
John

Larry Gebhardt
20-Jul-2013, 14:29
I use a Caltar version of the Rodenstock Grandagon 90mm f/6.8. It's a good lens, but maybe not the finest out there. But with 90mm lenses weight comes into play for me. The Grandagon is good compromise over the faster lenses or the ones with more coverage vs the f/8 lenses.

Alan Gales
20-Jul-2013, 20:38
I use a Caltar version of the Rodenstock Grandagon 90mm f/6.8. It's a good lens, but maybe not the finest out there. But with 90mm lenses weight comes into play for me. The Grandagon is good compromise over the faster lenses or the ones with more coverage vs the f/8 lenses.

I own the same lens. I really like mine.

Robert Langham
25-Jul-2013, 20:55
135mm Nikkor or Schneider. There are even some 135mm convertible schneiders on ebay that are very affordable. 90mm pretty neat and affordable but hard to see through, though you will need one sooner or later.

Never pass up a deal on a good lens. You might even keep an eye out for a 300mm.

99322 Wall at Shiprock, New Mexico.

Jac@stafford.net
26-Jul-2013, 00:24
If you can live with only mild movements, then the Zeiss Planar 135mm f/3.5 is excellent. Mounted in the proper lens board, the Super Technika will close with the lens in place.

For wide angle, see if you can try out a Zeiss 75mm Biogon. It is heavy, has limited movements, but I like its character.

Don't forget to get matching cams if you plan to use the rangefinder.

jose angel
26-Jul-2013, 00:52
Croppitt, don`t confuse optical distortion and perspective distortion.
As Bob says, even very short lenses doesn`t show or if so, show very little optical distortion (barrel, pincushion).
To minimize the "ugliness" of perspective distortion you should level the camera... "curved corners" then get straight (which in the other hand, is a right tool for some effects, like dramatic perspectives). It depends on the subject and your idea.
I have pics taken with the 75mm on 4x5, low angle dramatic landscapes which doesn`t look odd. People photography is another topic.

If you already have a 150, a 135 or a 120 could be too close to my taste. Personally, I`d opt for a 90, or even a 110 if it`s the case of the 110XL which is a great lens (probably, my most used one). I don`t have a 90 but a Grandagon-N 75 which I like... so if I were buying a 90 I`d probably get the same route.
Don`t worry if it seems too wide for you... 90 is the moderate "classic" wide angle for 4x5". Maybe tomorrow you`ll find yourself looking for a 65. I have a 75, 110, 120... and my next will probably be a 55/58.

And I`d not mind if it is the "finest" or not... for "normal" sized prints the difference in 4x5" could be irrelevant. Just look for a good one. Personally, I`d opt for a faster version, easier for viewing and focus. But if you`re devoted to landscape photography, maybe the size of a slower version suit you better.

Jac@stafford.net
26-Jul-2013, 02:49
On that big auction site, item # 370856753213

jwanerman
26-Jul-2013, 08:32
I have a 100mm Wide Field Ektar that I have used successfully for many years. It is small, light, and inexpensive. Nothing could be sharper. Does not allow for a lot of movement but OK for front tilt for DOF increase. Makes for a good 100-150-210-270 set.

snommisbor
26-Jul-2013, 08:41
I have the Rodenstock Grandagon as well and it is really nice. I get great images, plus it is a pretty light and small lens. Got it from KEH and their version of EX is beyond me how they could call it EX. Other than not having it come out of the plastic wrapped in a seal Rodenstock box I swear it looked like a brand new flawless lens at an EX price.

Jim Galli
26-Jul-2013, 09:07
Years ago I stumbled into one of the Fuji 125mm single coated plasmat's. It's just terrific, and fills that gap, at least for me. Even the Super Symmar HM 120 came and went, and the Fuji was the keeper. I've also got a 4" Goerz Dagor that is NO slouch. The 110mm XL was never in my price range possibilities. I've not owned one. 110 - 120 is a good usable step between 150 and 90. I have a pricey f4.5 90 and never seem to use it. Lately, a 131mm Protar VII seems to come out of the bag as often as not.

Roboflick
26-Jul-2013, 09:45
The Nikkor SW 90mm f/4.5 lenses are said to be really nice. They are a bit pricey.

I have this lens. It's awesome and a joy to see the bright image on the ground glass. I've made 40 by 50
inch cibachromes with it. I paid around 500 for my copy.

SergeiR
26-Jul-2013, 09:56
The Nikkor SW 90mm f/4.5 lenses are said to be really nice. They are a bit pricey.

yep, they are awesome

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7391/8821327230_c61c3d4e73_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8821327230/)
Scan-130525-0006www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8821327230/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

and if you patient you can score one for 300-400$

anglophone1
26-Jul-2013, 10:31
I use a 75mm with no real distortion so a 90mm no problem, buy right, try it, if you don't like it sell it- you won't lose money!

kgm
26-Jul-2013, 15:11
One thing to keep in mind in deciding between wide angles is the amount of coverage. I have both the 80mm and 110mm Schneider Symmars. Both are excellent lenses, but the 110 has a much larger image circle (288mm). It allows me to use all of the rise on my camera without running out of lens. I've used 75mm and 90mm Super Angulons on the past, and I would choose the 110mm over any of them because of its coverage. All are good, sharp lenses. This is most important for architectural photography or other applications that require extensive rise or shift. Another thing to consider with some of the wider (75mm or 80mm) lenses is the need for a center filter. I find the light drop off at the edges of the 80mm Schneider to be too much without the center filter (which is not cheap - about $350 if I remember correctly for the Schneider). The 110mm is fine without it, in my opinion.

Jac@stafford.net
26-Jul-2013, 15:58
While not strictly large format, I use a Horseman 6x12cm with the Rodenstock 35mm. It is extreme, and IMHO requires front rise and a center filter and an aperture of f-16 or better.

Still, it is an astounding lens, a thing I never in my old life thought possible, but it is.

John Kasaian
26-Jul-2013, 16:46
90-150-210 is certainly adequate spacing and there are plenty of excellent 90mm's out there.

SergeiR
26-Jul-2013, 17:27
While not strictly large format, I use a Horseman 6x12cm with the Rodenstock 35mm. It is extreme, and IMHO requires front rise and a center filter and an aperture of f-16 or better.

Still, it is an astounding lens, a thing I never in my old life thought possible, but it is.

couldnt stick that one on Technika