PDA

View Full Version : Three lens backpacking set 90mm, 240mm, and...?



Yuri Saniko
1-Feb-2005, 11:37
Right now I have 2 lenses in my bag - 90mm SA and 240mm fuji-a. I also have 65mm SA but not carry it very often with me.
I want to add 3rd lens to have nice and light backpacking set (to use with wista dx-II).
Which lens in your opinion would be a better choise - 135mm or 150mm?

Ralph Barker
1-Feb-2005, 11:53
For backpacking purposes, I think I'd substitute the far more compact 110mm SS XL for the bulkier 90 SA, and then add a small 150.

Michael S. Briggs
1-Feb-2005, 11:56
The geometric mean of 90 and 240 is 147, so I suggest 150 mm as the lens midway between the two focal lengths that your already have.

Steve Hamley
1-Feb-2005, 12:04
Yuri,

I've shot both the 135mm and 150mm and prefer the slightly wide 135mm focal length. However, you'll just have to try them; I don't know of any advice or formula that would help much with such a subjective difference.

If I were going light, I'd ditch the 90mm SA and get the 80mm Schneider Super Symmar XL, a 135mm of your favorite flavor, and the Fujinon 240A.

Steve

Ted Harris
1-Feb-2005, 12:06
The only problem with substituting the 110 XL for the 90 SA is that 1) it weighs more although it is more compact (I think ... I can always find it when digging around cause it is the heaviest smallish lens in my kit) and it is very expensive. If you stick with the 90 then 150 or a 135 is the way to go. If you move up to 180 you generally also move up to a #1 shutter and more weight. BTW, I hate to mention it but I am replacing my 150 Apo Symmar with a 150 Apo Sironar W for the 5x7 coverage so the Schneider may be available. contqact me offlist if interested.

David A. Goldfarb
1-Feb-2005, 12:18
I'd go with a 150, if you already have a 90.

When I want to go really lightweight I'll carry a 90mm/6.8 Angulon, 135/235 symmar convertible, a set of Linhof 42mm drop-in filters and shade, and my Gowland 4x5" front-moves camera.

Kerry L. Thalmann
1-Feb-2005, 12:21
Yuri,

When I want to go REALLY light, I carry a three lens set of 90mm f6.3 WA Congo (144g in Copal No. 0), 150mm f9 Germinar W (131g in Compur 0) and 240mm f9 Fujinon A (243g in Copal No. 0). The 150mm is a good fit between the 90 and 240. While I use the 90mm WA Congo for backpacking, I would find the coverage too tight if it was my only wide angle for general purpose shooting (I use an 80mm SS XL and 110mm SS XL as my wide angles when I'm not backpacking).

There are several really light lenses available in the 150mm focal length. The little 150mm f6.3 Fujinon W weighs 136g in a Seiko 0 shutter. It is plentiful and inexpensive on the used market. It is a single coated tessar-type that has excellent performance and a bit more coverage than the typical tessar. The 150mm G Claron, is also tiny and light (especially if you can find one in a late style all-black Compur o). My favorite is the 150mm Germinar-W. It's a similar design to the G Claron (and Fujinon W) with similar coverage, but it's also multicoated. Heck, even an APO-Sironar-S in the 150mm focal length weighs only 229g and takes 49mm filters (to give you an idea, it's just a hair smaller and lighter than your 240mm Fujinon A).

If you want to reduce the weight further, but not sacrifice coverage, you might consider replacing your 90mm SA with an 80mm SS XL (268g). In that case, a 135mm might be a better fit. The lightest 135mm I know of that covers 4x5 is the APO-Sironar-N (or Caltar II-N) at 184g.

As you can tell, this is a subject I've given considerable thought. I haven't updated it in several years, but I have some more lightweight lens recommendation on my web site at:


http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/lightwei.htm (http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/lightwei.htm)

Kerry

Frank Petronio
1-Feb-2005, 13:05
Why not skip the intermediate lens altogether? Either you want information gathering wide vistas or the compression of a longer lens for details and far off subjects. The middle lens is a compromise that does neither, and usually you can avoid it by taking a few steps closer or further. I usually want one or the other - the "normal" stays in the bag unless I have my back to the wall (literally).

To me, I'd stick with the excellent lenses you already have and see how it works out. Maybe I'd upgrade the 90 to a faster, slightly heavier 90 with more even coverage (less vignetting, more movements) and keep the 240A if it is a good example (or trade up to another 210-300).

It's not as extreme a jump as one might think - the 90/240 are approximately equal to a 28mm and a 70mm on a 35mm SLR.

I've also used 90/180 and 75/150 as practical two lens combinations. They certainly make life simplier.

Be brave and your images will be stronger - "the safe way is a supermarket."

Yuri Saniko
1-Feb-2005, 13:29
Thanks! Unfortunately, both SS 80mm and 110mm are above my budget. I can't afford spending $1500 for the lens i will be using 10-15 times per year ;) But if someone know where to get used SS 80mm for 700-800, i would sell my 65 and 90 SA and get that lens.

CXC
1-Feb-2005, 15:12
I wouldn't bother splitting that difference. Instead, consider the longest lens that is practical and will work on your camera. For me that's a 450mm. My standard 3 lens kit is 110/240/450.

Frank Petronio
1-Feb-2005, 15:21
What CXC said. Nice set.

Kerry L. Thalmann
1-Feb-2005, 15:32
I wouldn't bother splitting that difference. Instead, consider the longest lens that is practical and will work on your camera.

His camera, a Wista DX-II has a maximum extension of 12". So, even with a top hat lens board, the longest non-telephoto he can use is a 300mm - not much longer than his current 240. He could go with a 400mm telephoto, but that's not really a lightweight solution. Given the camera and lenses he already has, a 150mm would seem to make the most sense. One other possible three lens set would be 90mm, 180mm (Fujinon A) and 300mm (either Nikkor M or Fujinon C), but this would require him to sell his 240mm and buy two new lenses.

The middle lens is a compromise that does neither, and usually you can avoid it by taking a few steps closer or further.

It's all a matter of personal preference, shooting style, subject matter, etc., but I personally like lenses in the 135mm - 150mm range for shooting landscapes. They are not my most used focal length, but I use them enough that I would sorely miss them if they were gone. I personally like lenses in the slightly wide to slightly long range better then lenses at the extreme. I do use more extreme focal lengths when necessary, but I make probably 85 - 90% of my images with lenses in the 90 - 240mm range. I generally carry 6 lenses for general purpose landscape photography - 80mm, 110mm, 150mm, 210mm, 300mm and 450mm. It varies with subject and location, but in general, I use the 210mm the most, followed closely by the 110mm, then the 150mm, 300mm, 450mm and finally 80mm. I do have a 55mm and a 600mm, but those reserved for special circumstances. Of course, that's just my personal preference. I know other landscape shooters who consider a 90mm a long lens on 4x5.

Kerry

Harley Goldman
1-Feb-2005, 16:43
Yuri,

It is definitely a matter of personal preference, but my backpacking lens kit consists of the SS XL 80mm, 150mm Sironar S and the Fujinon A 240. I am quite happy with the setup. It is a tough call on the 150 vs. 135. Perhaps you can borrow or rent one of each and see which one suits you the best?

Harley

Nicholas Fiduccia
1-Feb-2005, 20:19
I'd go with the 150. A 90/150/240 kit is more evenly spaced (the ratios of the focal lengths are 1.67 and 1.6 respectively) compared to the 90/135/240 which has focal length ratios of 1.5 and 1.78. Another reason is that a 150 will give larger coverage than the 135 provided both lenses are plasmat designs.

Alan Davenport
1-Feb-2005, 21:34
I think if it were me, I'd carry the 65 and the 90 (I would anticipate more wide vistas while backpacking) plus the 240 for the exception to that rule. If you're convinced you don't want to take the 65, then the 150. If you want to take some closeups of flowers and such, the 150 will get you close to 1:1 with most field cameras, more than that with some.

tribby
1-Feb-2005, 22:12
i'd have to echo what christopher punch hole said.

ECHO!

me

p.s. might even go two wider and three longer. never had much use for the 135/150 range.

Steve Clark
2-Feb-2005, 06:45
Do you have a lens that is small enough to fold inside your camera? Sometimes that convienience will help make your decision...

David K.
2-Feb-2005, 10:33
My 3 lenses in that range, are compact and reasonably light weight.

80 Super Symmar XL, 120 Super Symmar HM, and 240 Apo Ronar.

And the best part is that they all have the same image circle.....approx 211mm :-)

But seriously, they are all excellent lenses and I can highly recommend them for any application.

CXC
2-Feb-2005, 11:15
Kerry's point is well taken, with the Wista the 240 is fine as a longest lens. In between 90 and 240, I think anything from 135 to 180 would be about equally useful. Sufficiently equivalent, that is, to allow other features to be decisive, such as cost, availability, and compactness. IMHO, YMMV.

SOT: the best LF photographer that I personally know owns exactly two lenses, a 90 and a 210. He is not in the market for anything more.

Doug Dolde
30-Nov-2006, 19:34
I gots da 110XL, 210 APO Sy, 300 Fujinon A

Eric Leppanen
30-Nov-2006, 20:11
My lightweight 4x5 lens set is the same as Harley's: SS80XL, Sironar-S 150, Fuji 240A. I preferred the 150 because my particular shooting style uses normal lenses quite a bit, and also because my full lens set also includes a SS110XL. A nice thing about these lenses is that, while reasonably small and lightweight, they all have a decent amount of coverage. If I owned a 90 instead of an 80, I still would prefer a 150 because it's roughly midway between the 90 and 240, and because I like simply that focal length. Of course YMMV.

I do sorta regret not buying one of Kerry's ultra-light 150 Germinar-W's earlier this year, though...:)

Ole Tjugen
1-Dec-2006, 00:28
I have to confess that my "lightweight kit" includes two 150mm lenses!

There's a 150mm Apo-Lanthar which is just too good to leave behind, and a Germinar-W since it doesn't add much weight.

Add to that a 90/8 Super Angulon, a 121/6.3 Leimeyr Wide-angle Anastigmat, a 210/6.1 Xenar, and possibly a longer one (355 G-Claron) and a shorter one (65/8 Ilex wide angle).

Eric James
1-Dec-2006, 01:04
My three-lens set consist of a 90mm, a 240mm...and a 150mm; I agree with CXC that going long is desirable - but I would split the differance if your bellows can't focus a lens LONGER than 300mm at an appreciably-close distance. I like Eric L's spacing better than my 90 150 240, but the 80mm is over 2K with USA warranty, and I would advise staying clear of used 80mms with all the bad press they've received here and elsewhere (re: early versions soft wide open, and later version hazing over).

David Rees
1-Dec-2006, 01:06
Consider a Schneider 120mm APO Symmar, esp. the L version. This has an image circle of 189mm @f22 (conservative figure I believe), takes 52mm filters, and is very small and light. I have one mounted all the time on my Wista DX; it folds nicely inside the camera (only lens I have that does so). I find that I use it for 70% of my landscape work, and it really is an excellent performer. I got it because I couldn't afford the 110XL, and I now wouldn't swap -- it is a stellar performer, and it is far smaller and lighter. Final benefit - they seem to be fairly cheap 2nd-hand when they come up for sale - everyone wants the 110XL I guess.

If I could only have one lens for my Wista, it would be the Schneider 120mm APO L.

Frank Petronio
1-Dec-2006, 06:45
I don't know if you need a third lens at all. If you do architecture or have a specific professional need, it is nice to find the right focal length to control foreground versus background relationships. But for personal work, I tune my vision to the lens at hand, and tend to shoot with that lens - whether long or wide.

What I'm saying is that you might not make better photos simply because you have a "complete" lens kit. In fact, you may become a better photographer by having less lenses.

So even though many people have the 75/90 -- 135/150 - 210/240 combo, it doesn't mean you have to follow the herd. Afterall, if you really want to "cover" the range you'd have gotten a Canon 5D and big honking zoom.

Colin Graham
1-Dec-2006, 10:02
I wouldnt worry about it too much. I was going to stop at a 3 lens set (90, 150, 300), but ended up getting a 125, 200, and 240 too! Just cant stop progress!

Bob McCarthy
1-Dec-2006, 10:33
Without going over the top searching for ultralight lenses, I ended up with the 75SWD, 150W and 300C all Fuji. Wide is wide, not semi-wide, normal is classic 150 for 4x5 and the 300c is very sharp and light, and if I need a little longer, some cropping can save the day and work within the bellows range of my Technika. May add a pound or so over the lightest weight lenses but so what. I don't even notice the weight difference when carrying.

bob

David Karp
1-Dec-2006, 11:07
Its such a personal decision. Between the 135mm and 150mm, I would go for the 150mm. My choice would be an EBC multicoated used 150mm Fujinon W. Small, light, big image circle, very nice lens, good deals available.

The 135mm, for me, is just to "in-between." Another alternative would be a 125mm Fujinon W with EBC multicoating. Again, 52mm filters, small, lightweight, 198mm image circle, very nice.

Mark Stahlke
1-Dec-2006, 11:17
Since we're spending somebody else's money, I'll chime in here. My recommendation is to get the 135 with an eye to trading in the 240 for a 210 and a 300 in the future. That would give you an awesome 65/90/135/210/300 lens kit. (Sidebar: Is it possible to have too many lenses? I'm tying to find out. I'll let you know.)

Further random thoughts:
1.) Pick one. Buy it used. If, after trying it out, you think you might prefer the other then sell it and buy the other (used). The advantage of buying used is that you can probably resell for about the same price you paid.

2.) Do you prefer wider views or narrower? Only you can decide. If you're not sure then see random thought number 1.

Cheers,
Mark

Ole Tjugen
1-Dec-2006, 11:32
It is possible to have too many lenses, although I'm not quite ready to admit it yet.

The last time I took my 4x5" for a walk, I brought 65, 90, 121, 135, 150, 150, 165, 180, 210, 240, 300 and 355mm lenses. That's 11 lenses - and I had 10 sheets of film!

I ended up using 90, 150, 165, 210, 240 and 355mm. And the 240 converted to 420mm for good measure. Which brings me to another point: Convertibles. If your camera has enough bellows, consider a convertible lens. That gives you one good lens and one usable longer one for the same price as one, with no added weight. I have and use - ehrm - several of them.

naturephoto1
1-Dec-2006, 11:40
It is possible to have too many lenses, although I'm not quite ready to admit it yet.

The last time I took my 4x5" for a walk, I brought 65, 90, 121, 135, 150, 150, 165, 180, 210, 240, 300 and 355mm lenses. That's 11 lenses - and I had 10 sheets of film!

I ended up using 90, 150, 165, 210, 240 and 355mm. And the 240 converted to 420mm for good measure. Which brings me to another point: Convertibles. If your camera has enough bellows, consider a convertible lens. That gives you one good lens and one usable longer one for the same price as one, with no added weight. I have and use - ehrm - several of them.

Hi Ole,

And you wonder why you sprained your back again???;) :eek:

Rich

Doug Dolde
4-Dec-2006, 16:04
For some reason even though I have the Schneider SS 110mm XL I have an unexplainable desire to own the SS 150mm XL. It really isn't because I need something in between 110mm and 210mm;

In fact I could probable live with the 150mm and not have the 110mm or the 210mm but something like the SS 80mm XL or 90mm XL and an APO Tele Xenar 400mm. Then I'd own the 80 or 90-150-400 kit.

I am writing this more for my own clarification but welcome any comments or suggestions.

Lightbender
6-Dec-2013, 22:07
If you are teetering about what lens you want, then you should not get another lens.

When you find that you cannot do X because you need Y, only then you should buy Y lens.

I must agree that you should not bother with a 3rd lens at this time. Get out there and shoot some film!

-from someone who has more lenses than film.

uphereinmytree
10-Dec-2013, 21:26
+1 on the long lens! I like 125mm Fuji, 240mm xenar and 450mm nikkor . If you don't have long bellows, try a 400mm Fuji telephoto. Maybe try 75mm 180mm and 360mm

Vaughn
11-Dec-2013, 08:55
Almost 9 years later, I wonder what Yuri went with...:)

Drew Wiley
12-Dec-2013, 16:42
Since I shoot in several formats, I space my lenses so I can hopscotch their applicability. But I do lean to the long side. A typical trio for 6x9: 125,180, 300.
For 4x5: 180 (or 200), 240 (or 300), 360 or 450 (maybe both). For 8x10: 240 (or 250), 360, 450, sometimes 600. Unless architecture is involved, or something
analogous, I generally leave the wide angles behind.

Ari
12-Dec-2013, 20:16
I went a whole summer with just a Grandagon 115 and a Fuji 210.
With those two FLs, there's not much you can't do.

Regular Rod
13-Dec-2013, 05:41
Right now I have 2 lenses in my bag - 90mm SA and 240mm fuji-a. I also have 65mm SA but not carry it very often with me.
I want to add 3rd lens to have nice and light backpacking set (to use with wista dx-II).
Which lens in your opinion would be a better choise - 135mm or 150mm?

You could use convertible lenses like the Symmar and reduce your payload yet still have a similar range of the focal lengths you seek...

For 4x5 I usually carry just a 90mm Angulon and a 150mm Symmar, which converts to a 265mm simply by removing the front element.

RR

RHITMrB
14-Dec-2013, 14:40
I wouldn't bother splitting that difference. Instead, consider the longest lens that is practical and will work on your camera.

His camera, a Wista DX-II has a maximum extension of 12". So, even with a top hat lens board, the longest non-telephoto he can use is a 300mm - not much longer than his current 240. He could go with a 400mm telephoto, but that's not really a lightweight solution. Given the camera and lenses he already has, a 150mm would seem to make the most sense. One other possible three lens set would be 90mm, 180mm (Fujinon A) and 300mm (either Nikkor M or Fujinon C), but this would require him to sell his 240mm and buy two new lenses.

The middle lens is a compromise that does neither, and usually you can avoid it by taking a few steps closer or further.

It's all a matter of personal preference, shooting style, subject matter, etc., but I personally like lenses in the 135mm - 150mm range for shooting landscapes. They are not my most used focal length, but I use them enough that I would sorely miss them if they were gone. I personally like lenses in the slightly wide to slightly long range better then lenses at the extreme. I do use more extreme focal lengths when necessary, but I make probably 85 - 90% of my images with lenses in the 90 - 240mm range. I generally carry 6 lenses for general purpose landscape photography - 80mm, 110mm, 150mm, 210mm, 300mm and 450mm. It varies with subject and location, but in general, I use the 210mm the most, followed closely by the 110mm, then the 150mm, 300mm, 450mm and finally 80mm. I do have a 55mm and a 600mm, but those reserved for special circumstances. Of course, that's just my personal preference. I know other landscape shooters who consider a 90mm a long lens on 4x5.

Kerry

I know I'm responding to a post made almost 9 years ago, but I thought I'd add that this is my strategy as well - my three-lens set for hiking is the Nikkor-SW 90/8, the Nikkor-W 135/5.6, and the Nikkor-M 300/9. Light and small and the longest lens is much longer than the next longest.

Drew Wiley
16-Dec-2013, 11:30
A convertible lens set would in fact probably be bulkier and heavier than a trio of very lightwt lenses. Then you've got other issues - potentially fiddling around with lens cells in damp or dusty conditions, having all your eggs in one basket with respect to shutter performance etc. And I doubt the actual optical performace would
be equal to what one can expect with something like a dedicated Nikkor M or Fuji A etc.

Regular Rod
16-Dec-2013, 12:32
A convertible lens set would in fact probably be bulkier and heavier than a trio of very lightwt lenses. Then you've got other issues - potentially fiddling around with lens cells in damp or dusty conditions, having all your eggs in one basket with respect to shutter performance etc. And I doubt the actual optical performace would
be equal to what one can expect with something like a dedicated Nikkor M or Fuji A etc.

I'm puzzled why you should state that as a probable fact...

The lens I suggested weighs 300g including shutter and is 47mm long. This gives focal lengths of 150mm and 265mm.

RR

Drew Wiley
16-Dec-2013, 13:22
OK - so you're only working with only two configurations, rather than a casket set. But even then the weight savings is negligible, and I'd still be very skeptical about the optical performance if you're doing any significant degree of enlargement, or suitability for color work.

Regular Rod
16-Dec-2013, 13:58
I can only write from my own experience. My 4x5 camera folds with the Symmar still installed so I don't have to worry about storing it in my bag. The Angulon is mounted on a 4x4 panel and that sits in a wrap taking up very little room. Weight is not so important with lenses, space is the thing at a premium. I will have a look at colour work with the Symmar at 265mm. I must confess most of my images are monochrome and so far I have not used the Symmar at 265mm for anything other than monochrome.

RR

Drew Wiley
16-Dec-2013, 14:41
If it works well for you, that's all that counts. I have to switch hit between color and black and white, and work with multiple formats as well, so that dictates a
somewhat different perspective on lens choice.

Lightbender
16-Dec-2013, 22:09
Almost 9 years later, I wonder what Yuri went with...:)

LOL how on earth did i accidentally resurect that thread???

FACE+PALM

Regular Rod
17-Dec-2013, 02:49
lol how on earth did i accidentally resurect that thread???

Face+palm

:)

rr

venchka
3-Jan-2014, 10:28
Alas, I also fell for the Ancient Thread Trap. Oh well, perhaps someone new can make use of this good information.

My choice: The 125mm/5.6 Fujinon-W, EBC, 46mm filter size in a Copal 0 shutter. The lens is almost as small and light as my Kodak Ektar 127mm/4.7 and provides a larger image circle. The 46mm filters are shared with my rangefinder lenses. A 46mm-55mm step up ring allows the use of my 55mm polarizer from SLR lenses. My off road, cross country kit is comprised of two Fujinon-W lenses: The 125mm/5.6 and the 250mm/6.3 with 67mm filter ring-shared with my Pentax and Hasselblad medium format lenses. Yes, the 250/6.3 is a brick. Yes, I longed for the 240/9.0 Fujinon-A. However, the price of the 250mm lens was soooo right that I couldn't resist. Total investment for both lenses: < $450.

Wayne

PureQuill Photo
7-Jan-2014, 21:02
:)

rr
Because some questions are timeless.
Toddlers still want to know where babies come from LOL!
The more things change the more they stay the same...