PDA

View Full Version : Ideal lens set for a 4x5 field camera



Greg
22-Feb-2016, 18:03
While back bought a Chamonix 45. My main cameras are a whole plate and an 11x14. Love to use the both of them, but the 11x14 is anything but portable. Have been hiking with the whole plate in an older OutPack (large camera backpack). Room is tight for carrying camera, only one film holder (unacceptable), two lenses & accessories, with no room for water or food.

Think backpacking the 4x5 Chamonix for day trips a more practical choice. The camera, reflex finder, accessories, and probably 4-5 lenses will easily fit into to my ThinkTank backpack. Plus room for several holders, food, and water. The lenses I have and use on the whole plate and the 11x14 are overkills for a 4x5 and physically just large lenses. Only optics I have as of now for the 4x5 are 2 lenses:
65mm f/4 Nikkor-SW
500mm f/7 KOMURA

Would appreciate any advice on how to fill in optics between the 65mm and the 500mm.

Leszek Vogt
22-Feb-2016, 18:36
There are variety of ways you could go....and it's quite subjective. What do you shoot most ? Portraits, architecture, landscapes, etc. may require different lengths. From what I've seen here 90mm is quite popular WA....some people use 120/1 or 135/150. Some 'togs like to use 180-300 for portraits.

Personally, I prefer 250mm (or near that) for portraiture....also, just bought 152mm as an all around wide (er) angle...and will go from there.

Les

Greg
22-Feb-2016, 18:44
There are variety of ways you could go....and it's quite subjective. What do you shoot most ? Portraits, architecture, landscapes, etc. may require different lengths. From what I've seen here 90mm is quite popular WA....some people use 120/1 or 135/150. Some 'togs like to use 180-300 for portraits.

Personally, I prefer 250mm (or near that) for portraiture....also, just bought 152mm as an all around wide (er) angle...and will go from there.

Les

thanks,
Shoot classic landscape and nature, no portraits.

BrianShaw
22-Feb-2016, 18:52
For those purposes, get some "standard" lenses: 135/150 and 210. Maybe a 300.

Willie
22-Feb-2016, 19:24
Pick one lens - say a 150 or 180 or 210, and stick with it for the first few months to a year. Learn to use the camera and see with that lens.
You are looking at acquiring gear rather than photographing. Keep it simple and you will most likely not need very many lenses after you get used to your setup.

fishbulb
22-Feb-2016, 19:48
The 65mm is going to be tough to use on most cameras without a recessed lens board, unless the camera can support lenses that wide- you'll want to make sure the minimum bellows length is less than 65mm.

If you want lightweight, I'd get a Nikon 90mm f/8, a 150mm f/5.6, and a 300mm f/9.

Brian Schall
22-Feb-2016, 19:55
I preferred a 135mm over the 150; slightly wide normal lenses. Maybe a 90mm, 135mm and a 210mm to go with what you have.

mdarnton
22-Feb-2016, 20:18
For the cheap option, I'd do a 2X series between what you already have: 65/120/240/500. That has you buying two easy-to-find and cheap lenses, and makes regular steps. It would be totally usable. My personal preference is 1.66X, or for me, 65/108/190, but I also have a 250 and a 300 because I shoot a lot of portraits, and no 500 because I don't really use teles. But continuing the series strictly gives 65/108/180/300/500, which would work.

For me, I like even spacing, combined with a little walking, rather than trying to get everything possible or odd spacings, especially large ones.

angusparker
22-Feb-2016, 21:51
My advice would be to try and stick to one or two filter sizes and mix and match between Nikkor and Fujinons because they are cheaper, with modern shutters, and are multi-coated. The variation between different series in one brand is as much as that between brands and sometime Nikkor or Fujinon has a sweet lens at a particular FL. Since you are backpacking I'd go with max apertures of f8 of f9 for the longer lenses since they are lighter and f5.6 for the shorter ones since they are harder to focus in dim light. Then as for spacing I'd consider multiples of 1.5x or 1.66x. Personally speaking I find 90mm too wide and would rather start with a 125mm. Then over 300mm I'd consider a Telephoto design so that you don't have to rack out your bellows and avoid the windsock phenomena! The Nikkor T-ED is quite a bit better but much more expensive than the Fujinon T.

So my favorites to pick and choose from would be the following. Most are less then 400g, some less than 300g. Only the Teles are heavier.

Nikkor SW 90mm/8 (67mm filter)
Fujinon CM-W 125mm/5.6 (67mm filter)
Fujinon CM-W 135mm/5.6 (67mm filter)
Fujinon CM-W 150mm/5.6 (67mm filter)
Nikkor W 150mm/5.6 (52mm)
Fujinon CM-W 180mm/5.6 (67mm filter)
Fujinon A 180mm/9 (46mm filter)
Nikkor M 200mm/8 (52mm filter)
Fujinon A 240mm/9 (52mm filter)
Fujinon C 300mm/8 (52mm filter)
Nikkor M 300mm/9 (52mm filter)
Nikkor T ED 360mm/8 (67mm filter)
Fujinon T 400mm/8 (67mm filter)

Kerry's page here is a must read too: http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/lightwei.htm

For your subject matter anything over 300 is probably too long anyway. So perhaps 90/150/240 or 125/180/300 +/-10mm!

John Layton
23-Feb-2016, 01:58
I'd suggest that you either start with a single, "neutral" (perspective-wise) lens, like a 135 or 150, use this for awhile and get a sense of what more might be needed...or, perhaps, as you already know that you want to photograph "classic landscape and nature," and obviously have a bit of LF experience under your belt...that you choose three lenses - one moderately wide, one moderately "normal," and one moderately long - and with an equal percentage of angular progression between them.

With the above in mind...you might consider a 90/135/210 combo, which your 65mm, and then perhaps something close to 300mm, would compliment nicely in that the angular progression would be roughly equal between all...again, when measured as a percentage (in this case appx. 1.5x from short to long fl's). Furthermore, if you go with relatively modern lenses (circa 1980's and forward) you can realize good lens to lens consistency (performance wise), which can translate to better consistency and logistics in (wet darkroom) processing...and also the convenience/cost savings of an equal filter size (typically 67mm).

Then again, I admit that the above scenario also happens to be what works well for me...and we're all different!

barnacle
23-Feb-2016, 02:10
I have a 150 and a slightly wider 135; the next purchase will be a 90 and perhaps after that a 210. My sort of work doesn't call for wider or longer lenses.

90 - 135 - 210 seems a useful set without going overboard on either weight, complexity, or cost.

Neil

Tim Meisburger
23-Feb-2016, 02:30
90 - 135 - 210 is also what I normally carry, but if only one it would be the 135.

iml
23-Feb-2016, 03:33
It all depends. Landscape is a very diverse form. If you're a picking-details-out-from-a-distance kind of landscape photographer, you might prefer long lenses. If you're a put-a-rock-in-the-foreground-with-water-behind-it kind of photographer (Lee Frost), you'll probably mostly be using wides. I do a lot of landscape photography with all formats from 35mm up to 8x10, and for each format I only ever carry two lenses: a normal and a moderate wide (generally around 28mm equivalent). So, for 4x5 I carry a 90 and either a 127 or a 150. But that's just my own preference for my own style of shooting. Never taken a picture I liked with anything longer than a normal, except portraits.

Doremus Scudder
23-Feb-2016, 04:04
As mentioned, lens choice is highly personal and dependent on a number of parameters. With that caveat, I'll give you my choices along with my parameters and you can decide if that helps at all.

First, I backpack and day hike mostly and need a lightweight kit. However, I like a full complement of lenses and enough coverage for the occasional architectural shot. My field cameras are Wista DXs and a Horseman Woodman, both very light. I've settled on small lenses with smaller maximum apertures (which don't bother me at all for focusing brightness; others have complained).

Here's what I carry hiking in the outdoors (and what I would carry or substitute):

90mm f/8 Super Angulon on a recessed board to allow full movements (if I really need to go light, I'll substitute a WF Ektar 100mm; less coverage but a lot less weight. If I had it to do over again, I'd look for the Nikkor SW 90mm f/8 for its better coverage).

135mm f/5.6 Plasmat of some kind (Nikkor, Rodenstock, Schneider, Fuji are all about the same except for the older single-coated Fuji W series that has a bit more coverage. If I think I'll need more coverage here, e.g., when working in cities, I substitute a 135mm WF Ektar)

203mm f/7.7 Ektar - sharp, really light, folds up in my Wista and covers 5x7 (If I didn't have this lens, I'd probably carry the 180mm f/9 Fujinon A, which is just a bit wider but really small and covers well.)

240mm f/9 Fujinon A - again, light, sharp and full coverage

300mm f/9 Nikkor M on a top-hat lensboard so I can use it on my Wistas that only have 300mm bellows extension. This is my least used lens and I could just shoot the 240 and crop, but it's so light I usually carry it anyway. I'd leave it behind if I had to pare down.

If I'm going into canyons, cities or other places where I think I'll need more wide shots than long, I'll leave the 300mm out and add a 75mm to the mix. Mine's a Fuji SW f/5.6, but is about the same as offerings from the other main manufacturers

Since you have a 65mm, I'd suggest you add a 90mm, 135mm, something in the 180-210mm range and a longish lens (the 240mm Fujinon A is superb as is the Nikkor 300mm M)

When shooting cities, I'll carry a slightly different kit: the 135mm WF Ektar is certainly there and I'll carry both a 180mm Fujinon A and a 210mm compact lens of some kind (Fujinon L or G-Claron; the 210mm Plasmats are just too big for me) since I seem to need them both for "across the street" shots.

FWIW, I own a 450mm lens that I use rarely (Nikkor M) and a 150mm lens that I've used exactly twice; 135mm is my most-used focal length and I love the 135mm Wide Field Ektar when extra coverage is needed. It's just a small crop to get the same view as 150mm and the extra angle of view is really a boon to me.

Best,

Doremus

Ken Lee
23-Feb-2016, 04:31
If you can't choose lenses which take the same filter size, you can place step-up rings on your smaller lenses so that they all take the same filter size: the largest one in your set.

Doremus Scudder
23-Feb-2016, 09:31
If you can't choose lenses which take the same filter size, you can place step-up rings on your smaller lenses so that they all take the same filter size: the largest one in your set.

Ken makes a good point and one I neglected to address in my earlier post.

I standardized on two sizes for my filters: 52mm and 67mm. That's only because I couldn't find a 90mm lens I liked with a smaller filter size than 67mm. So my 90mm and my 75mm take 67mm filters, all the rest are 52mm or stepped up to 52mm from whatever size. Step-up rings are easy to find and cheap. So, when I'm concerned with weight, I can just take the 67mm set and a 52-67mm step-up ring and still use my 90mm and my 75mm. When I'm really concerned with weight I take the 100mm WF Ektar and the 52mm set of filters.

Doremus

Luis-F-S
23-Feb-2016, 10:23
You did say for backing? I think that means for outdoors and small. I would carry a 6" Dagor in Copal 0, an 8 1/4" or 9.5" Dagor in Copal 1 and a 12" Artar in Compur 2. If you want something wider, you could add a 4 3/8" WA Dagor in Copal 1 or a 90 Angulon in Compur or Copal 0. Use gels for the filters. Also, IMHO, for B&W, MC is highly over rated. L

fishbulb
23-Feb-2016, 10:45
For the cheap option, I'd do a 2X series between what you already have: 65/120/240/500. That has you buying two easy-to-find and cheap lenses, and makes regular steps. It would be totally usable.

Good advice, I retract my earlier 90/150/300 comment. 65/120/240/500 would be a great setup covering a wide range of focal lengths.

Fuji 125mm f/5.6 and Fuji 240mm f/9 would be my choice for those focal lengths in a reasonably lightweight package.

IanG
23-Feb-2016, 11:01
I carry a 65mm f8 SA, a 90mm f6.8 Grandagon, 150mm f5.6 Sironar and a 210 f5.6 Symmar as my standard kit with my Wista. I've recently added a 360mm f5.5 Tele-Xenar and a 75mm f5.6 SA which will replace the 65mm. the telephoto is for a specific project so I won't carry it all the time.

I have a 300mm f9 Nikon M but found it's rather impractical as it needs maximum bellows extension and I've used it twice on a 5x4 in 25 years.

Like Doremus I also have a light weight kit and that is a 90mm f6.8 Angulon, 135mm f5.6 Caltar (Symmar) and 203mm f7.7 Ektar or a 210mm f6.3 Osaka Commercial (Congo - Tessar type), these get used with my Super Graphic (or sometimes a Crown Graphic) usually in Turkey & Greece.

Ian

IanG
23-Feb-2016, 11:11
You did say for backing? I think that means for outdoors and small. I would carry a 6" Dagor in Copal 0, an 8 1/4" or 9.5" Dagor in Copal 1 and a 12" Artar in Compur 2. If you want something wider, you could add a 4 3/8" WA Dagor in Copal 1 or a 90 Angulon in Compur or Copal 0. Use gels for the filters. Also, IMHO, MC is highly over rated. L

I like your suggestion of a short Dagor I've recently bough a 1913 120mm f6.8 Dagor, I've not yet tested it with film but the digital results show it's contrast is very close to a coated lens.

You're right that LF plain coated lenses are often under-rated, I can't see any differences between images shot with them compared to my MC lenses except colour shifts with very early coated lenses, but these days I only use B&W anyway so it's not an issue. Non of my coated LF lenses flare in conditions where my DSLR zooms are unusable :D

Ian

Jac@stafford.net
23-Feb-2016, 12:03
Would you consider a convertible lens? Get at least two focal lengths in one lens. They are compact, lightweight and affordable.

angusparker
23-Feb-2016, 13:19
If you can't choose lenses which take the same filter size, you can place step-up rings on your smaller lenses so that they all take the same filter size: the largest one in your set.

Yes but .. they can be fiddly when unscrewing a filter from them and you need to buy new lenscaps if you want to keep the step-up rings on, so there is a trade off. Better if you can to stick to one or two filter sizes IMHO. 52mm and 67mm really are the two most common sizes for 4x5 at least for modern lenses.

Alan Gales
23-Feb-2016, 13:46
Yes but .. they can be fiddly when unscrewing a filter from them and you need to buy new lenscaps if you want to keep the step-up rings on, so there is a trade off. Better if you can to stick to one or two filter sizes IMHO. 52mm and 67mm really are the two most common sizes for 4x5 at least for modern lenses.

I do as Ken suggests. I have bought Nikon pinch caps from China for dirt cheap. You are right that step up rings can be a little fiddly. As with anything, there is usually no perfect answer for everyone.

cjdewey
23-Feb-2016, 13:55
So my favorites to pick and choose from would be the following. Most are less then 400g, some less than 300g. Only the Teles are heavier.

Fujinon CM-W 125mm/5.6 (67mm filter)
Fujinon CM-W 135mm/5.6 (67mm filter)
Fujinon CM-W 150mm/5.6 (67mm filter)


Note that there are also Fujinon NW series lenses (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9uFL03LdgeMJ:www.subclub.org/fujinon/byseries.htm+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us), some of which take 52mm filters. I didn't know about these for months, because they aren't on the big list of lenses. But I picked up the NW 135/5.6 recently (tiny and inexpensive), and it's now in my ThinkTank bag, along with Chamonix F1, and Nikkor 90, 200 and 300. That's my hiking/landscape kit. I'd love to add wider and longer lenses to my kit, but I probably wouldn't pack them unless I knew for certain that I'd use them.

jnantz
23-Feb-2016, 14:33
hi OP

if you can't decide what to get and want a whole lot of different lenses
you might think about getting a copal shutter ( the one the same size as the polaroid press shutters )
and a whole bunch of g claron cells and make yourself a g claron casket set. casket sets are a great thing to have
whether it is a modern one ( like a home made gclaron one, or a wisner ) or a vintage one ( if you do a search on this site using "casket set" as search terms
you will find lots of information about them ) or you might look for a double or triple convertible lens which will allow for 2 or 3 lenses in 1 ..
often times in older glass, never huge amounts of $$ so you can afford to buy the film and use it.
my favorite 4x5 field camera lens is probably an ilex seminet. which offers sharpness if stopped down, or a painterly quality when shot wide open.

im not a fan of modern glass. while i have mostly schneiders ( and a symetregon mixed in there )
too clinical/sharp and nowadays expensvie for my tastes.

YMMV

cjdewey
23-Feb-2016, 14:35
I have a 300mm f9 Nikon M but found it's rather impractical as it needs maximum bellows extension and I've used it twice on a 5x4 in 25 years.

The Chamonix has close 400mm of extension. The Nikkor M 300 is quite usable, if your arms are long enough.

IanG
23-Feb-2016, 14:44
The Chamonix has close 400mm of extension. The Nikkor M 300 is quite usable, if your arms are long enough.

On a still bright day with no wind, yes :D Any wind and slower shutter speeds then no chance.

Ian

IanG
23-Feb-2016, 14:47
hi OP

if you can't decide what to get and want a whole lot of different lenses
you might think about getting a copal shutter ( the one the same size as the polaroid press shutters )
and a whole bunch of g claron cells and make yourself a g claron casket set. casket sets are a great thing to have
whether it is a modern one ( like a home made gclaron one, or a wisner ) or a vintage one ( if you do a search on this site using "casket set" as search terms
you will find lots of information about them ) or you might look for a double or triple convertible lens which will allow for 2 or 3 lenses in 1 ..
often times in older glass, never huge amounts of $$ so you can afford to buy the film and use it.
my favorite 4x5 field camera lens is probably an ilex seminet. which offers sharpness if stopped down, or a painterly quality when shot wide open.

im not a fan of modern glass. while i have mostly schneiders ( and a symetregon mixed in there )
too clinical/sharp and nowadays expensvie for my tastes.

YMMV

In theory you can do the same with Symmar cells, Schneider sold convertible Symmar sets in the 1950's but they were short lived and there's little information about them available now.

Ian

cjdewey
23-Feb-2016, 15:13
On a still bright day with no wind, yes :D Any wind and slower shutter speeds then no chance.


That's part of the deal when using a large, light camera. Shorter/faster lenses don't eliminate that challenge; just allow you to make another tradeoff. (If I had really understood all the tradeoffs involved in LF photography, I wonder if I'd have taken the plunge.... Ah, well, it's too late, now ;-) )

Maris Rusis
23-Feb-2016, 15:16
What I actually carry into the wilderness with my Tachihara 4x5 is:
A Schneider Super Angulon 75mm f5.6 with step-up adapter to 77mm filters; no vignetting with movements.
A Nikkor-W 210mm f5.6 also for 77mm filters.

The wide-angle is for spaces and places. The long normal is for things. And I can make up the difference between the two by foot-zoom or by cropping. 4x5 film can be very forgiving of loose framing and very generous with sharpness and detail.

angusparker
23-Feb-2016, 16:35
Note that there are also Fujinon NW series lenses (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9uFL03LdgeMJ:www.subclub.org/fujinon/byseries.htm+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us), some of which take 52mm filters. I didn't know about these for months, because they aren't on the big list of lenses. But I picked up the NW 135/5.6 recently (tiny and inexpensive), and it's now in my ThinkTank bag, along with Chamonix F1, and Nikkor 90, 200 and 300. That's my hiking/landscape kit. I'd love to add wider and longer lenses to my kit, but I probably wouldn't pack them unless I knew for certain that I'd use them.

Very true. The ones that are 52mm filter are MC, but there are also earlier 46mm filter sized ones that are Single Coated. The whole mystery is explained here for Fujinon lenses: http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm

Alan Gales
23-Feb-2016, 17:58
Let's see. You own a 65mm and a 500mm and you don't shoot portraits.

You all ready have a wide angle. I own a 121mm lens that is a nice moderate wide focal length. Feels to me like a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera. You need a 150mm or 180mm for normal. The Nikkor M 300mm is excellent for something a little longer. Maybe a 420mm Fujinon if you need something between 300 and 500?

Jim Noel
23-Feb-2016, 19:07
There is no such thing as an "ideal" lens.

BrianShaw
23-Feb-2016, 19:26
There is no such thing as an "ideal" lens.

Best of luck in explaining that to a physicist! 😝

Alan Gales
23-Feb-2016, 21:17
There is no such thing as an "ideal" lens.

Sure there is. It's called the 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar. Unfortunately, it's only ideal on an 8x10 camera so I guess you do have a point since the OP is asking about 4x5. :D

John Kasaian
23-Feb-2016, 21:27
Hmmmmm.....I don't think anyone really knows what's ideal until they've been shooting awhile and have collected the glass that they are well satisfied with. Until then, it's a crap shoot.
Nearly everyone has a use for a good 210mm (or 203, or 215---all close enough) so I'd suggest getting one of those and let your experiences guide you.

Alan Gales
23-Feb-2016, 21:36
Hmmmmm.....I don't think anyone really knows what's ideal until they've been shooting awhile and have collected the glass that they are well satisfied with. Until then, it's a crap shoot.


Yeah, we all have to learn the hard way. At least the hard way is fun! :)

IanG
24-Feb-2016, 02:32
Hmmmmm.....I don't think anyone really knows what's ideal until they've been shooting awhile and have collected the glass that they are well satisfied with. Until then, it's a crap shoot.
Nearly everyone has a use for a good 210mm (or 203, or 215---all close enough) so I'd suggest getting one of those and let your experiences guide you.

I managed without a 210mm for many years and never felt I needed one, eventually I bought one and I do like the FL for some shots. A lot though depends on what you are shooting I find wide angle lenses are more useful.

Probably what's most important is which of the range of lenses you carry that you actually use the most and why. In my case it's my 150mm lenses (or the 135mm) which I use for approx 70% of my work, the 90mm lenses around 25% and the 65mm and 210mm (or 203mm) the other 5%.

Ian

fishbulb
24-Feb-2016, 07:46
Yeah I use the 135 most of the time. 300 occasionally - it is nice to get close to scenes I can't reach on foot. 75 and 90 rarely. Don't have a 210 anymore, never used it.

mijosc
24-Feb-2016, 08:39
I have 65mm, 90mm, 150mm, and 300mm. This seems to be a good set for me. The 65mm gets used the least and is the first one to be side aside when weight is an issue. The 90mm and 150mm are used the most, but 300mm is growing on me.

moltogordo
28-Feb-2016, 03:15
My field combo is a 90mm Schneider, a 180mm Nikkor, and a 240mm Schneider. In spite of the bevy of riches, 90-95% of my outdoor shots are taken with the 180mm, which I prefer over the 135 or 150mm lengths. The slight extra magnification gives me the image I want.

I use the 90mm pretty much only when I'm using a rollfilm back. Even in 35mm, I didn't use wides much, mostly a 55mm and a 100mm. That did me for pretty much everything. I'm looking at replacing the Schneider 240 with a 400mm f8 Fuji. I do like longer lenses on landscapes once in a while, but I'm one of those rare "normal" lens guys.

As has been said many times in this thread, we're all different.

erie patsellis
28-Feb-2016, 06:56
My typical field outfit is 65/90/150/210/300, they just fit (on sinar boards) in the bottom of a large ammo box type dry box, with the F, bellows, meter and filters on top. Makes for a nice, reasonably small and easy to carry outfit. I don't hike, per se, but don't mind carrying this more than 50' from the car.

rfesk
28-Feb-2016, 07:15
My little Sironar-N 135/5.6 lens is my 1st choice when out in the field. It is either already folded up in a Busch Pressman or mounted (via an adapter)on my Sinar F2. It often gives me the perspective I want. If not, I always have a 90/8 Nikkor or a Fuji 240/9 along just in case. Also have a 65/6.8, a Sironar-N 180/5.6 and Ektar 203/7.7 and others but they are usually left at home.

Jac@stafford.net
28-Feb-2016, 10:09
My little Sironar-N 135/5.6 lens is my 1st choice when out in the field. It is either already folded up in a Busch Pressman or [...]

Side question if I may: If you use the rangefinder, does it work properly with the Sironar-N? The Busch instructions warn that replacing the original lens with an equal focal length does not assure the RF to be accurate.

Thanks in advance.