PDA

View Full Version : 240mm too close to 180mm?



Ron Marshall
15-Mar-2005, 13:54
Although there is no objective answer to this question...

The longest lens I have for my 4x5 is a 180mm.
I am thinking of either a 240mm Fuji compact or 300mm Nikon compact.
Then eventually a Fuji 450mm f12.5.

My question is would a 240mm be too close to the 180mm, so that I would end up not using one of them?

Steve Hamley
15-Mar-2005, 14:03
Ron,

IMO, no. I use both a 180mm and a 240mm, and the spacing is about right. BTW, there is no Fujinon 240mm compact (C-series, of which the 450mm f/12.5 is a member); there is a 240 Fujinon A, which is very small and in a Copal 0.

Steve

Andre Noble
15-Mar-2005, 14:21
My vote is to go next to a 300mm lens.

Eric Leppanen
15-Mar-2005, 14:27
Ron,

My 4x5 lens lineup goes 150-240-300-450, which works well for me. The gap between the 150 and 240 is the maximum I would find acceptable (normally I prefer no more than a 1.5x spread between lenses), so I agree that a 180-240 solution could work well too.

Other folks have found 180-240 to be too close, and have gone either 180-300-450 or 180-270 (G-Claron)-450.

This recent thread on that "other" LF forum might be helpful:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Aulz

Doug Meek
15-Mar-2005, 14:29
I have both the Fuji 180 and 240. Perfect spacing - I use them both all the time.

Gem Singer
15-Mar-2005, 15:27
Hi Ron,

The simple (subjective) answer to your question is, "I don't believe that those two focal lengths are too close together". I routinely use a 180, a 250 for both the 4X5 and 5X7 formats.

Andre Noble
15-Mar-2005, 18:06
He can have the 180, 240, and 300, but his next lens should be the 300 first. Agreed?

Ron Marshall
15-Mar-2005, 18:07
Thank-you to everyone for the shared wisdom.

I am leaning toward the 240mm, as that better suits my shooting needs.

Scott Atkinson
15-Mar-2005, 19:32
On the longer side of things, I carry 180-240-300-450 (or, sometimes, 500/720 for the 450). Whenever I leave out the 240, like I did on a recent trip, I regret it. That said, if I were to have just one lens between the 180 and 450, I'd still probably take the 300, though the 240 is more flexible for detail work. Another strategy is to swap out the 180 for a 200 or 210, then get the 300...but you may then have a gap on the short side! The good thing about the 240 Fujinon and 300 Nikkor-M or Fuji-C combo (I use the Fuji) is that they're small, light lenses, and it's not a back-breaker to pack two.

Alan Davenport
15-Mar-2005, 19:41
Certainly there is personal preference to consider, but I don't think 180 and 240 are necessarily too close together. My own kit jumps from 150mm to 254mm, and although I don't find that too much of a gap, I'd also be happy if a 210 found its way into my bag.

Nicholas Fiduccia
15-Mar-2005, 23:21
I find that converting the focal lengths to their 35mm equivalents is often helpful in considering proper spacing. The conversion factor I like to use is 3/10. So, a 180 in 4x5 would be equivalent to a 54mm in 35mm. A 240mm would be like a 72mm. Would you carry both a 54 and a 72mm for 35mm kit. I would not.

Another way is to take the ratio of the focal lengths: 240/180 is 1.33 which is outside of my preferred spacing ratio or 1.4 to 1.7, but not by much. This decision depends how much glass you want to be carrying to cover a good focal length range. If your lenses are more closely spaced, you will be carrying more lenses than a wider spaced set covering the same range. It's really up to you. Good luck!

MIke Sherck
16-Mar-2005, 07:00
I carry an Ektar 127, a Fuji 180, and a Rodenstock 240. Usage is real close to 5%/55%/40%. I tried 300mm before I got the 240 and based on a year and a half of shooting, sold the 300, bought the 240 and am buying a 360mm. My "ideal" 4x5/5x7 kit would be 125mm-ish, 180mm, 240mm, and 360mm. Something longer than 360 would be nice but things get rather expensive at that point.

CXC
16-Mar-2005, 09:20
For 4x5 I usually carry 80 - 110 - 240 - 450. I have a 180 but don't use it much; I prefer a longer "normal" lens. I also have a 355 that I quit using with 4x5 once I figured out that my Walker could in fact accommodate it via movements.

If you are enlarging, but not too big, then it is not all that crucial what lenses you have between the widest and longest. In a way they are a convenience, or maybe a luxury. Were I to do it over, instead of the 7 lenses I currently have, I would go with 90 - 210 - 450. Few will agree with me though.

One useful exercise is to get a piece of cardboard and cut a 4"x5" hole in it. Carry it around for a day and frame up some images with it, using one eye. Hold it 180, 240, 300, and 450mm away from your eye and ask yourself which you like better, which are not so useful. Better yet, frame it up first without measuring, then see what the "ideal" lens would have been. Costs nothing and is worth way more than other folks' advice.

Ole Tjugen
16-Mar-2005, 09:45
"Too close"? Not in my opinion - but I tend to use the "slow zoom" option quite a lot. One of my cameras only has a lensboard for 165, 180 and 240mm (all in Compur #2 shutters) - and I miss the option of using 90, 120, 150 and 210 lenses. More lensboards are ordered!

My longest lens at the moment is the 420mm rear half of the 240 Symmar convertible. That might change too...

Ellis Vener
16-Mar-2005, 12:31
Last month I did an interview of portrait and conceptual still life photographer for the April issue of "Professional Photographer". 99% of the time he shoots 4"x5" (sometimes 8"x10' and sometimes 6x6cm) . His lens kit is; 90mm, 110mm, 135mm, 150mm, 180 mm,210mm, 240mm, 300mm & 450mm. All are Rodenstock Sironar & Grandagon lenses except for the 110mm which is the Schneider SuperSymmar XL.

Yuri Saniko
16-Mar-2005, 13:20
My solution was G-Claron 270mm f9 - beautiful lens, very sharp and compact. I think it's a great replacement for 240mm and 300mm lenses. Also, it is the longest lens you can comfortable use on most of wood field cameras with 300-320mm bellows (like my Wista-DX for example)

Alan Davenport
16-Mar-2005, 19:05
My current kit includes 90mm, 150mm and 254mm lenses. I think my next acquisition will be a 360mm or 400mm, but I'll need a telephoto lens for those lengths (Tachihara 4x5.)

A question for those with tele experience: am I correct in guessing that most LF telephoto lenses will require about 2/3 of the bellows draw (at infinity) as compared to the focal length? i.e., that a 400mm tele will need around 265mm of bellows? My Tachihara can [just] handle a 300mm lens (non-tele) so I don't want to get something I can't use.