Suggestions for 4x5 Lens Sets (3 lens, 4 lens and 5 lens sets)

[angusparker]

Since the question gets asked a lot by new-comers to LF, I thought I'd take the time to write up my thoughts as to what I would recommend for 3, 4, and 5 lens sets for a 4x5 view camera. The discussion is here in a blog post:

http://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blog/2016/3/good-lenses-for-a-4x5-view-camera

Here are the lens set recommendations below. The basic criteria were modern multicoated lenses with modern shutters and preferably one or two filter sizes. I own or have owned the 90% of these lenses above or lenses in the same range but different focal lengths.

For a moderately wide and light set of three lenses with a single filter size I would suggest the following:

Fujinon NW 125mm/5.6 (52mm filter/265g)
Nikkor M 200mm/8 (52mm filter/180g)
Fujinon C 300mm/8 (52mm/250g) or Nikkor M 300mm/9 (52mm filter/290g)

For a wider and still relatively light four lens set with only two filter sizes, I would suggest the following all Nikkor set:

Nikkor SW 90mm/8 (67mm filter/360g) or Schneider Super-Symmar XL 110mm/5.6 (67mm filter/425g)
Nikkor W 135mm/5.6 (52mm filter/200g)
Nikkor M 200mm/f8 (52mm filter/180g)
Nikkor M 300mm/f8 (52mm filter/290g)

For an even wider and faster set of five lenses with only one filter sizes, I would suggest the following:

Schneider Super-Symmar XL 80mm/5.6 (67mm filter/271g)
Schneider Super-Symmar XL 110mm/5.6 (67mm filter/425g)
Fujinon CM-W 150mm/5.6 (67mm filter/280g)
Fujinon CM-W 250mm/6.3 (67mm filter/510g)
Nikkor T ED 360mm/8 (67mm filter/800g)

If you have a favorite set and rationale for it why don't you share your ideas below.

[Alan9940]

Your 4 lens lineup is my go-to and preferred compliment of lenses for 4x5, albeit I have a Schneider Angulon 90mm (because I don't use this focal length very often) and a 135mm Caltar-II N. For a 3 lens set when weight is of no concern and/or I want/need more coverage, I use a Schneider 120mm Super Angulon, Schneider 210mm Symmar-S, and my trusty Nikkor M 300mm to round out the group.

[agregov]

Whoa, the full blog post linked above is just stellar. I wish I had that resource for building a lens kit when I first got into 4x5. Thank you for posting! Only possible consideration for someone thinking long term, if there is interest in possibly getting into 8x10 down the road, choosing some lenses that offer 8x10 coverage may not be a bad strategy. For example, the Fujinon 240 A/F9, Nikkor M 300/F8 and Fujinon 450 c/F12.5 are all very light lenses for 4x5 and offer coverage for 8x10. Only downsides are the Fuji lenses tend to be on the pricer side in the used market given their popularity. Also, the Fuji 450 needs a lot of bellows extension, likely not as common in a first (less expensive) 4x5 camera. Also, the 450 filter size is 57mm, so breaks the standardizing strategy for filters. But for those wanting to use the same lenses for 8x10 someday, might be a factor worth thinking about. BTW, I left off the Nikkor SW 150/F8 and Schneider Super-Symmar XL 150/F5.6, which support 8x10 coverage, as the Nikon is a copal 3 lens and heavy and the Schneider is very expensive used. Also, both require huge filters. So, IMO neither would be a good lens choice for a first 150mm lens for a starter 4x5 kit.

[Greg]

What has worked out for me for years is:

65mm f/4 Nikkor-SW with central ND filter
125mm f/5.6 Fujinon W gem of a lens
240mm f/9 G-Claron
500mm f/7 KOMURA tele that doesn't need all that much bellows extension
plus a very small 120mm single meniscus f/16 with simple shutter off a folding 620 camera.

Also use a 7" f/3.1 Darlot Portrait but always use it alone for specific shoots so don't consider it really part of the lens set

Fortunately I don't need to use filters for the work I do (each lens different filter size). Noticed that my focal lengths are spaced farther apart than most people's... have to think about that and why.

[Corran]

My standard 3-lens kit is 58mm XL - 90mm f/8 Nikkor - 150mm f/5.6 APO Symmar (w/ step-up) - all 67mm filter threads, though I usually use a CF with the 58mm.

If I add a lens it's usually my 300mm f/9 Nikkor with 52-67mm step-up ring, or if I want long, the Nikkor 360-500-720 set, again with a 67mm filter thread.

Depending on what I'm shooting I may add the 47mm XL (or substitute the 58mm with it) or add my 38mm XL if carrying my 6x12 holder as well.

All bets are off if I feel like shooting something less modern or interesting, like my faster lenses or Lanthars, etc.

[konakoa]

I have a slightly more restricted set of requirements for my camera, a Horseman FA as it has limited bellows. A three lens setup for this camera which has been excellent for me is a Schneider 120mm f/5.6, a Schneider 180mm f/5.6, and a Nikkor 270mm f/6.3 telephoto. Very light with these three, really haven’t needed or wanted anything else.

The Nikkor gets a bad rap for lack of image circle, but it seems as if it was tailor made for the FA. Sharp, sharp, sharp and doesn’t need all that much bellows extension. It’s better than my Nikkor 300 f/9!

[Greg]

Nikkor 270mm f/6.3 telephoto. The Nikkor gets a bad rap for lack of image circle, but it seems as if it was tailor made for the FA. Sharp, sharp, sharp and doesn’t need all that much bellows extension. It’s better than my Nikkor 300 f/9!

Same for my 500mm f/7 KOMURA tele. Previous owner didn't like it because he couldn't use front movements with it. Never have been able to find lens specs for it, but coverage must be only a few mm's outside the corners of 4x5.

[angusparker]

Whoa, the full blog post linked above is just stellar. I wish I had that resource for building a lens kit when I first got into 4x5. Thank you for posting! Only possible consideration for someone thinking long term, if there is interest in possibly getting into 8x10 down the road, choosing some lenses that offer 8x10 coverage may not be a bad strategy. For example, the Fujinon 240 A/F9, Nikkor M 300/F8 and Fujinon 450 c/F12.5 are all very light lenses for 4x5 and offer coverage for 8x10. Only downsides are the Fuji lenses tend to be on the pricer side in the used market given their popularity. Also, the Fuji 450 needs a lot of bellows extension, likely not as common in a first (less expensive) 4x5 camera. Also, the 450 filter size is 57mm, so breaks the standardizing strategy for filters. But for those wanting to use the same lenses for 8x10 someday, might be a factor worth thinking about. BTW, I left off the Nikkor SW 150/F8 and Schneider Super-Symmar XL 150/F5.6, which support 8x10 coverage, as the Nikon is a copal 3 lens and heavy and the Schneider is very expensive used. Also, both require huge filters. So, IMO neither would be a good lens choice for a first 150mm lens for a starter 4x5 kit.

Good points. Although for the most part the size and weight penalties for an 8x10 lens are too great to make the same lens a good fit for 4x5. But like you said the Fujinon A 240/9 and the Fujinon C 450/12.5 are light and both do use 52mm filters. I think I'd discount the 450C simply because it's not a telephoto design and I've found shooting something that long on a 4x5 is almost pointless because of camera shake. The 240A though should definitely be give a gold star for it's astounding coverage! I agree with you on the 150mm range - there just isn't anything that would work for both formats.

[angusparker]

I have a slightly more restricted set of requirements for my camera, a Horseman FA as it has limited bellows. A three lens setup for this camera which has been excellent for me is a Schneider 120mm f/5.6, a Schneider 180mm f/5.6, and a Nikkor 270mm f/6.3 telephoto. Very light with these three, really haven’t needed or wanted anything else.

The Nikkor gets a bad rap for lack of image circle, but it seems as if it was tailor made for the FA. Sharp, sharp, sharp and doesn’t need all that much bellows extension. It’s better than my Nikkor 300 f/9!

Good point on when you have limited bellows - the Nikkor T series makes more and more sense even at short FL. Having tried to use my Fujinon C 450 on a 4x5 I can tell you that "blur" is the subject that I capture on most outings.

[Bill_1856]

Your basic everyday lens, plus one a little shorter and one longer. A good starting point is a triad of coated Kodak Ektars (all in Supermatic shutters). 100mm wide field, 127mm (or 150mm), and 203mm. They're all small, light, and relatively inexpensive.
It's easy to get bogged down with too much "stuff."

[Ari]

Not to hijack Angus' very worthy thread, but…
...I'm a two-lens guy, so my suggestion, for anyone who needs to pack small-ish, is a Nikkor 90mm f8 and a Fujinon 210 f5.6 (older, single-coated version).
They're both 67mm filters, combined weight is about 800g, and both give tons of movements on 4x5 (the 210 can easily serve as an 8x10 lens in a pinch).
Armed with a 90 and a 210, there's not much you can't do on 4x5.

[angusparker]

Not to hijack Angus' very worthy thread, but…
...I'm a two-lens guy, so my suggestion, for anyone who needs to pack small-ish, is a Nikkor 90mm f8 and a Fujinon 210 f5.6 (older, single-coated version).
They're both 67mm filters, combined weight is about 800g, and both give tons of movements on 4x5 (the 210 can easily serve as an 8x10 lens in a pinch).
Armed with a 90 and a 210, there's not much you can't do on 4x5.

Great proposal! I'll add a two lens set-up for the minimalist!

[Kirk Gittings]

Interesting info for initiates. I'm sort of like your 4 lens kit with one addition, 90, 120, 150, 210, 305. However I don't understand the importance you put on filter sizes. Buy filters for the largest lens and step up rings for the rest. Leave the rings on all the time and buy cheap lens caps in that size. That way everything is interchangeable. I thought everyone did such?

[Bill_1856]

The Dr. Staeble Polyplast set comes with a beautiful little Compound shutter, a fixed rear element and 4 interchangeable front elements , giving 105, 135, 165, and 195mm. Used without any front element, the rear element gives 210mm. (I got it years ago from Dagor77.)
Although each lens has a different maximum aperture,the aperture is marked on the lens rather than on the shutter so it reads directly with the aperture pointer.
The little box containing the three unused elements, also has three filters which fit all lenses (yellow, orange, and tobacco).
There is a slight focus shift when stopping down.
It is like the system used on Zeiss Contaflex cameras.

[neil poulsen]

What guides my lens selection is the following: I'm picky about camera position, and I like to fill the negative as much as possible. The whole point of 4x5 is the tonality that one can obtain from using a large negative. So, I tend to like "lotsa" lenses, because they give me the flexibility of filling the 4x5 frame, without having to compromise camera position.

So, my lens selection for landscape tends to be 105mm (Fuji SW), 121mm, 150mm, 180mm, 250mm, and 355mm.

For architecture, it goes a bit in the other direction: 75mm, 90mm, 105mm, 121mm, 150mm, 180mm, and maybe 250mm.

I have other lenses, so depending on the situation, I might add a little something on either end, like a 58mm or a 450mm. As for a 90mm, while it's the most used lens for architecture, I generally find it too short for landscape. The Fuji 105 SW was a nice addition, because I find that it comes in handy for both landscape and architecture.

By the way, I have a cart that I use for carrying equipment.

[IanG]

My landscape selection is 65mm f8 Super Agulon (or 75mm f5.6 Super angulon), 90mm f6.8 Grandagon N, , 150mmf5.6 Sironar N, 210mm f5.6 Symmar Sand I used to carry a 300mm f9 Nikon M as well but only used it twice in over 15 years.

Unlike Neil in the post above I'm rarely shooting in large wide open landscapes and I've found the 65mm has been useful, I've replaced or maybe supplemented it recently with a newer 75mm Super Angulon, I'm shooting post industrial landscapes (remains or traces of early industry) and archaeological landscapes so probably closer to Neil's architecture setup.

Ian

[fishbulb]

I like the idea of going with linear increases in focal length. For example, the four lens set has ~1.5x increases.

Extending it would be: 60/65 --> 90 --> 135 --> 200/210 --> 300 --> 450.

Meaningful increases in focal length without too big of gaps in between.

[Neil Purling]

Bill's suggestions are very good. My Graphic came with a 127mm Ektar which does cover 4x5, but I don't think it really has much coverage beyond shooting without movements at f16-22. If you have economy in mind a 210mm Schneider G-Claron would be a good partner for the mild wide angle Ektar and the 150mm version if you wanted to travel with only one lens.
I have used and passed on more lenses. The G-Clarons and a 150mm Linhof-selected Xenar were the most modern.

[DG 3313]

My 4x5 rig started with a Sironar N 210mm 5.6 then a new Grandagon N 90mm 6.8 and later added a Fuji 125mm 5.6 W, Nikkor 300mm 9.0 M, and a Grandagon 75mm 6.8. I use the 300mm the least and lately the 210mm or the 75mm the most.

[Professional]

Well, i am still very new to LF and i am trying to move within it slowly or wisely, but i feel to each his/her own and i can't get the right answer, and hence we all keep asking questions or looking for suggestions or recommendations, so also i am not hijacking this thread, but it is almost in the same boat.

I already have Rode 150 Sironar N and Schn 72 SA XL as brand new, and will skip the lenses i have for Graphlex that are on Graphlex lens boards, not sure what else to get, in my mind there are only 3 lenses i am really interested in to get but i can't make sure, and they are: 90mm, 210mm, and 300mm.

I have 72 so definitely not thinking about 65 or 75, and 90 isn't that much far but i feel 90 will have something in use beside 72mm, even in my digital side i have many or diffeerent lenses in that ULTRA/Super wide angle side, so why not doing the same, so if that 72mm is nealy as 17mm or 20mm equivalent that what is 90mm, 35mm for example? and i am also thinking to replace that 150 version i have with another 150 better version or quality even if it is least used, but not in rush.

I really don't know about another FL such as 110, 127, 240,...etc, so if i have 90 and 150 and 210 for example do i really need those lenses i started with in this line?

[angusparker]

Well, i am still very new to LF and i am trying to move within it slowly or wisely, but i feel to each his/her own and i can't get the right answer, and hence we all keep asking questions or looking for suggestions or recommendations, so also i am not hijacking this thread, but it is almost in the same boat.

I already have Rode 150 Sironar N and Schn 72 SA XL as brand new, and will skip the lenses i have for Graphlex that are on Graphlex lens boards, not sure what else to get, in my mind there are only 3 lenses i am really interested in to get but i can't make sure, and they are: 90mm, 210mm, and 300mm.

I have 72 so definitely not thinking about 65 or 75, and 90 isn't that much far but i feel 90 will have something in use beside 72mm, even in my digital side i have many or diffeerent lenses in that ULTRA/Super wide angle side, so why not doing the same, so if that 72mm is nealy as 17mm or 20mm equivalent that what is 90mm, 35mm for example? and i am also thinking to replace that 150 version i have with another 150 better version or quality even if it is least used, but not in rush.

I really don't know about another FL such as 110, 127, 240,...etc, so if i have 90 and 150 and 210 for example do i really need those lenses i started with in this line?

Like you said each to their own. Often people think in terms of a multiple for their lenses i.e. starting from the widest lens they multiply the focal length by a factor of 1.5 (or 1.66 if you want more range). So 90, 135, 200, 300 might be one progression for x1.5 for example. Or if you start with 72, 110, 150, 240/250, 350/360. For example, I find for me 110/125 is a sweet spot for moderately wide and I use that FL a lot. But that is a personal choice of mine. For 4x5 I typically head out with 80, 110, 150, 200, 300 and I usually drop the 80 unless I know there is a super wide shot.

[Professional]

Like you said each to their own. Often people think in terms of a multiple for their lenses i.e. starting from the widest lens they multiply the focal length by a factor of 1.5 (or 1.66 if you want more range). So 90, 135, 200, 300 might be one progression for x1.5 for example. Or if you start with 72, 110, 150, 240/250, 350/360. For example, I find for me 110/125 is a sweet spot for moderately wide and I use that FL a lot. But that is a personal choice of mine. For 4x5 I typically head out with 80, 110, 150, 200, 300 and I usually drop the 80 unless I know there is a super wide shot.

Fair enough, it is a personal choices or say subjective.

[angusparker]

Interesting info for initiates. I'm sort of like your 4 lens kit with one addition, 90, 120, 150, 210, 305. However I don't understand the importance you put on filter sizes. Buy filters for the largest lens and step up rings for the rest. Leave the rings on all the time and buy cheap lens caps in that size. That way everything is interchangeable. I thought everyone did such?

I just have an aversion to step-up rings:


If you keep them attached you need to buy new lens caps - extra cost and things to keep track of.
When you unscrew the filter you invariably seem to get the step-up ring attached to it - hassle
You can't use a center filter with a step-up ring - this only affects a few lenses and when you are shooting E6 film.


Finally, there is a solution where you can have your cake and eat it - a Lee filter system with its set of "ring" adapters. But again more cost and weight.

[Ari]

I don't mind step-up rings because I only have two lenses, and will probably use only one, maybe two, filter(s).
But if I had several lenses and wanted to use half a dozen different filters, I'd be tempted to go with a Lee-type filter holder rather than try and keep all my lenses to the same filter diameter.

[Kirk Gittings]

I don't mind step-up rings because I only have two lenses, and will probably use only one, maybe two, filter(s).
But if I had several lenses and wanted to use half a dozen different filters, I'd be tempted to go with a Lee-type filter holder rather than try and keep all my lenses to the same filter diameter.

Why? it's simple and cost effective.

[angusparker]

I don't mind step-up rings because I only have two lenses, and will probably use only one, maybe two, filter(s).
But if I had several lenses and wanted to use half a dozen different filters, I'd be tempted to go with a Lee-type filter holder rather than try and keep all my lenses to the same filter diameter.

Yes, plus you can get a great lens hood and polarizer that attaches on the front.

[Kirk Gittings]

Yeah but I have the best filters in the world for all my lenses :)

[Ari]

Why? it's simple and cost effective.

I wouldn't want to limit my lens choice on the basis of filter diameter.

[Kirk Gittings]

I wouldn't want to limit my lens choice on the basis of filter diameter.

?? What I described doesn't limit anything.

[Kirk Gittings]

I just have an aversion to step-up rings:


If you keep them attached you need to buy new lens caps - extra cost and things to keep track of.
When you unscrew the filter you invariably seem to get the step-up ring attached to it - hassle
You can't use a center filter with a step-up ring - this only affects a few lenses and when you are shooting E6 film.


Finally, there is a solution where you can have your cake and eat it - a Lee filter system with its set of "ring" adapters. But again more cost and weight.

? 1)Lens caps are cheap (77mm $5) and you have to keep track of the dedicated one too-nothing changes there.
2)Never have had that problem.
3)true, but not a problem for me as I don't use them-never owned one even for color.

advantage? I have the finest filters in the world for all my lenses. 6 lenses, 6 filters-one set.

[orgraph]

I use for traveling:
1. Congo 90/6.3 - Fujinon 150/6,3 - Nikkor 300/9
2. Congo 90/6.3 - Symmar 135/5.6 - Fujinon 180/9 - Nikkor 300/9
3. Congo 90/6.3 - Congo 120/6.3 - Fujinon 180/9 - Claron G 240/9 - Nikkor 300/9 - (Congo 400/8)

Of course, I have about 15 lens for different purpose.

[Doremus Scudder]

My focus is on portability, but I need coverage too for shooting in the city, which I do a lot. I usually carry four or five lenses, which I vary according to need. So...

My "cityscape" 4 (5)-lens kit: 90mm f/8 Nikkor SW, 135mm f/6.3 WF Ektar, 180mm f/9 Fujinon A, (210mm f/5.6 Fujinon L or 203mm f/7.7 Ektar), 240mm f/9 Fujinon A

Interestingly, I find myself using all these quite a bit in the city, with the 240mm being the least-used. And, even though 180mm and 210mm are rather close to each other, with the limited camera positions available in cities, I enjoy the luxury of carrying the one extra lens. I could just leave the 210mm behind though, and crop the 180mm. This kit sacrifices light weight for more coverage at the short end of the scale. I just love the WF Ektars...

My "lightest-weight" 4-lens kit: 100mm f/6.3 WF Ektar, 135mm f/5.6 Plasmat of some kind, 203mm f/7.7 Ektar, 300mm f/9 Nikkor M

I leave out the 300mm often here to end up with just 3 lenses and make things even lighter, especially when backpacking.

My "standard" landscape 5-lens kit: 75mm f/5.6 Fujinon SW, 90mm f/8 Nikkor W, 135mm f/5.6 Plasmat of some kind, 203mm f/7.7 Ektar, 240mm f/9 Fujinon A, 300mm f/9 Nikkor M.

Of these, I'll only carry five at a time, leaving either the 75mm or the 300mm out depending on anticipated need. In close-in canyon country, I don't need the 300mm and I don't usually need a 75mm for expansive landscape shots. This is my usual kit for extended day hikes or short overnighters.

I own a 450mm Nikkor M that I use occasionally, but usually only close to the car (Road-trip shots, etc.) since I need a larger, heavier camera to be able to use it (my more-portable cameras are lightweight wooden folders like the Wista DX or SW).

Like Kirk, I have step-up rings so I can carry just one size filter. However, I have two filter sizes, 67mm and 52mm. All my lenses are stepped up to 52mm, or come with 52mm filter threads except the 90mm Nikkor SW and the 75mm Fujinon SW. When carrying theses and trying to cut back on weight, I grab my filter folder of 67mm filters which also has a 52-67mm step-up ring in it. Often, though, I'll carry two filter wallets, one with 67mm filters and one with 52mm filters. When being really light, I cut the larger lenses out and just carry a few 52mm filters.

Best,

Doremus

[gary mulder]

With my Linhof Technika the set contains;
Schneider super-symmar 80/4.5 XL
Schneider apo-symmar 120/5.6 L
Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S 150mm f/5.6
Fujinon-A 240/9
Nikkor M 300mm/9

They all fit inside a closed technika. Apart from the 80mm they all take a 52mm filter.

[Greg]

What has worked out for me for years is:

65mm f/4 Nikkor-SW with central ND filter
125mm f/5.6 Fujinon W gem of a lens
240mm f/9 G-Claron
500mm f/7 KOMURA tele that doesn't need all that much bellows extension
plus a very small 120mm single meniscus f/16 with simple shutter off a folding 620 camera.

Also use a 7" f/3.1 Darlot Portrait but always use it alone for specific shoots so don't consider it really part of the lens set

Fortunately I don't need to use filters for the work I do (each lens different filter size). Noticed that my focal lengths are spaced farther apart than most people's... have to think about that and why.

Over the summer changed my 4x5 lens set to
65mm f/4 Nikkor-SW
90mm f/4.5 Nikkor-SW
150mm f/9 G-Claron
210mm f/9 G-Claron
305mm f/9 G-Claron
500mm f/7 KOMURA
Whole 4x5 system easily fits inside a ThankTank backpack

[xkaes]

? 1)Lens caps are cheap (77mm $5) and you have to keep track of the dedicated one too-nothing changes there.
2)Never have had that problem.
3)true, but not a problem for me as I don't use them-never owned one even for color.

advantage? I have the finest filters in the world for all my lenses. 6 lenses, 6 filters-one set.

I agree completely, although some might say that I don't have the finest filters in the world. I mostly use Hoya HMC filters. My filter standard is 77mm. I have step up rings for nearly all of my lenses -- from 37mm Mamiya FISHEYE to 600mm Fujinon T. Step-up rings from 40.5mm to 72mm -- to 77mm. Works great and saves a lot of money and weight. I have a metal front and rear 77mm stack caps, so all of my filters are in one place. I had to pass on a couple of wide-angle lenses that had filter threads wider than 77mm, but I passed them up because of their size, weight, and cost -- NOT because of their filter size. My widest lenses -- 37mm, 47mm, 75mm, and 105mm -- all work great with my 77mm filters (even a polarizer on a FISHEYE!).

[angusparker]

I agree completely, although some might say that I don't have the finest filters in the world. I mostly use Hoya HMC filters. My filter standard is 77mm. I have step up rings for nearly all of my lenses -- from 37mm Mamiya FISHEYE to 600mm Fujinon T. Step-up rings from 40.5mm to 72mm -- to 77mm. Works great and saves a lot of money and weight. I have a metal front and rear 77mm stack caps, so all of my filters are in one place. I had to pass on a couple of wide-angle lenses that had filter threads wider than 77mm, but I passed them up because of their size, weight, and cost -- NOT because of their filter size. My widest lenses -- 37mm, 47mm, 75mm, and 105mm -- all work great with my 77mm filters (even a polarizer on a FISHEYE!).

Great to hear that you are happy with step-up rings. Certainly a more flexible option than sticking with one filter size. The one other advantage of going with a filter system like the Lee is of course grad filters which as they are square or rectangular can be shifted up and down the scene. Something that can’t be done with screw on grads. This can be quite advantageous when you are dealing with a film with limited dynamic range - which in practice really means Velvia 50/100.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[consummate_fritterer]

What has worked out for me for years is:

65mm f/4 Nikkor-SW with central ND filter
125mm f/5.6 Fujinon W gem of a lens
240mm f/9 G-Claron
500mm f/7 KOMURA tele that doesn't need all that much bellows extension
plus a very small 120mm single meniscus f/16 with simple shutter off a folding 620 camera.

Also use a 7" f/3.1 Darlot Portrait but always use it alone for specific shoots so don't consider it really part of the lens set

Fortunately I don't need to use filters for the work I do (each lens different filter size). Noticed that my focal lengths are spaced farther apart than most people's... have to think about that and why.

If the spacing works well for you then don't worry about it. If you sometimes need intermediate focal lengths then you could add 90mm, 180mm, and 355 or 360mm to your kit. That's very good spacing, IMO.

-- I replied to an old post. Sorry.

[xkaes]

Great to hear that you are happy with step-up rings. Certainly a more flexible option than sticking with one filter size. The one other advantage of going with a filter system like the Lee is of course grad filters which as they are square or rectangular can be shifted up and down the scene. Something that can’t be done with screw on grads. This can be quite advantageous when you are dealing with a film with limited dynamic range - which in practice really means Velvia 50/100.

Standardizing on a particular filter size with step-up/down rings does not negate the ability to use a "filter system" in any way. On my 77mm-adapted lenses, I use the Cokin P system -- which, I think works up to 82mm. So I'm all set with ND and color grads. My only problem is to get it to fit on the rear of my Mamiya 37mm Fisheye. Oh well, another problem for another day!

[angusparker]

Standardizing on a particular filter size with step-up/down rings does not negate the ability to use a "filter system" in any way. On my 77mm-adapted lenses, I use the Cokin P system -- which, I think works up to 82mm. So I'm all set with ND and color grads. My only problem is to get it to fit on the rear of my Mamiya 37mm Fisheye. Oh well, another problem for another day!

True but I find using a step up and a Lee step up ring for its system redundant and fiddly. I standardized on 52mm and 67mm for my LF lenses and 77mm and 95mm for ULF since Grimes customizes a few lenses for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[LabRat]

I standardized my filter sizes to just ser. VI, VII, & VIII, as I mostly use vintage (Ektar's, Dagor's, Tessar's, small Heliar's, TR's etc) lenses, and found the series adapter rings for each lens, and different lens shades etc...

But I use the filters for different formats too, so I have to remember to grab the filter set out of different cases/bags before going out shooting with a different format (and spotmeter etc)...

Steve K

[coisasdavida]

Great post! I have been thinking about which of my 9 lenses to get rid of, great help.

[angusparker]

Great post! I have been thinking about which of my 9 lenses to get rid of, great help.

I reckon more people buy lenses based on these kinds of posts but it’s good to hear some sell. I’ve put a new rule in place this year: buy one sell one!

[Jac@stafford.net]

75mm Biogon
135mm Planar

On Super Technika V with matching cams. That's the way it was delivered decades ago.

[Luis-F-S]

i reckon more people buy lenses based on these kinds of posts but it’s good to hear some sell. I’ve put a new rule in place this year: Buy one sell one!

Heresy!!!!!

9 1/2" Dagor, 6" Dagor, 4 3/8" WA Dagor!
for four, add a 12" Dagor, for 5 you can add a 3 5/8" WA Dagor, or 90 Angulon.

[coisasdavida]

I reckon more people buy lenses based on these kinds of posts but it’s good to hear some sell. I’ve put a new rule in place this year: buy one sell one!

At some point a couple years ago I had around 35 cameras. Aproaching 20 now, aiming at 12/15 and will still be more than enough.
I have to get rid of half my lenses

[rfesk]

I have almost the identical set up including adapters! I don't have a 300mm lens in shutter however.


My focus is on portability, but I need coverage too for shooting in the city, which I do a lot. I usually carry four or five lenses, which I vary according to need. So...

My "cityscape" 4 (5)-lens kit: 90mm f/8 Nikkor SW, 135mm f/6.3 WF Ektar, 180mm f/9 Fujinon A, (210mm f/5.6 Fujinon L or 203mm f/7.7 Ektar), 240mm f/9 Fujinon A

Interestingly, I find myself using all these quite a bit in the city, with the 240mm being the least-used. And, even though 180mm and 210mm are rather close to each other, with the limited camera positions available in cities, I enjoy the luxury of carrying the one extra lens. I could just leave the 210mm behind though, and crop the 180mm. This kit sacrifices light weight for more coverage at the short end of the scale. I just love the WF Ektars...

My "lightest-weight" 4-lens kit: 100mm f/6.3 WF Ektar, 135mm f/5.6 Plasmat of some kind, 203mm f/7.7 Ektar, 300mm f/9 Nikkor M

I leave out the 300mm often here to end up with just 3 lenses and make things even lighter, especially when backpacking.

My "standard" landscape 5-lens kit: 75mm f/5.6 Fujinon SW, 90mm f/8 Nikkor W, 135mm f/5.6 Plasmat of some kind, 203mm f/7.7 Ektar, 240mm f/9 Fujinon A, 300mm f/9 Nikkor M.


Of these, I'll only carry five at a time, leaving either the 75mm or the 300mm out depending on anticipated need. In close-in canyon country, I don't need the 300mm and I don't usually need a 75mm for expansive landscape shots. This is my usual kit for extended day hikes or short overnighters.

I own a 450mm Nikkor M that I use occasionally, but usually only close to the car (Road-trip shots, etc.) since I need a larger, heavier camera to be able to use it (my more-portable cameras are lightweight wooden folders like the Wista DX or SW).

Like Kirk, I have step-up rings so I can carry just one size filter. However, I have two filter sizes, 67mm and 52mm. All my lenses are stepped up to 52mm, or come with 52mm filter threads except the 90mm Nikkor SW and the 75mm Fujinon SW. When carrying theses and trying to cut back on weight, I grab my filter folder of 67mm filters which also has a 52-67mm step-up ring in it. Often, though, I'll carry two filter wallets, one with 67mm filters and one with 52mm filters. When being really light, I cut the larger lenses out and just carry a few 52mm filters.

Best,

Doremus

[Salmo22]

Nikkor SW 90/8
Nikkor SW 120/8
Fujinon A 180/9
Fujinon A 240/9
Nikkor M 300/9

[abruzzi]

lately my 3 lens kit for 4x5 has been either:

100mm f6.3 WF Ektar
168mm f6.8 Dagor (or 165mm f4.8 Dogmar)
203mm f7.7 Ektar

or

105mm f8 Fujinon
150mm f9 G-Claron
210mm f6.1 Xenar

One commonality between both kits is they lean towards small lenses, with the exception of the Fujinon. And the G-Claron is the only plasmat among the bunch. If I add anything to either of these kits, its usually on the long side--a 250 Fujinon, 355 G-Claron, 360/500 Nikkor T. In the wide end I can go down to 75mm with a Nikkor SW 75mm f4.5 or 65mm with a Super Angulon 65mm f8, but I rarely use those lenses on 4x5 (sometimes on my new 6x9 kick.)

[xkaes]

One commonality between both kits is they lean towards small lenses, with the exception of the Fujinon.


Well, you could always trade it in for a Fujinon 105mm f5.6. They don't come much smaller than that. Yes, I know the image circle is small, too!

[Bernice Loui]

Image goals easily decided what lens then camera required to support them.


Bernice




Great post! I have been thinking about which of my 9 lenses to get rid of, great help.

[angusparker]

Image goals easily decided what lens then camera required to support them.


Bernice

Absolutely right. A wide aperture is key when trying to focus on dark and gloomy subjects. The good news with 4x5 is the weight and filter size penalties for f5.6 versus f8 are not as severe as in 8x10. My 8x10 lens suggestions are here: https://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blog/2016/11/good-lenses-for-an-8x10-view-camera

[abruzzi]

Well, you could always trade it in for a Fujinon 105mm f5.6. They don't come much smaller than that. Yes, I know the image circle is small, too!

I do sort of wonder why small wides went by the wayside? I guess it has to do with people needing/wanting more and more image circle, but the WF Ektar and the regular Angulon are tiny compared to the equivalent focal length Nikkor SW, or Super Angulon.

[John Layton]

I've often wished for an updated, modern series of F/9 ultra compact lenses of different focal lengths, with conservative coverage...enough to allow for a decent amount of tilt for most landscape use - combined with rise or fall when necessary (or base tilt does the same) to conserve available coverage - with the advantage of stunning performance out to the edges...at the expense of a huge image circle - to have as a compact set in addition to the typical large aperture (5.6) plasmats and wide angles. Something like a 65/90/135/210 set for 4x5, with matching (48mm?) filter diameter, to pack with my Gowland Pocket View. Would be great!

[LabRat]

The most important point is deciding the one important lens you would leave on camera to do over 75% of your shooting with... Then other lenses can be added to your needs...

Wides can make a difference (when needed), but longer lenses don't make a big difference compared to other smaller formats...

My two lenses FL used most of the time are 135mm (WF Ektar) and a 270mm process lens...

Go with what your eye usually sees...

Steve K

[linhofbiker]

I was re-reading my Zone VI newsletters by Fred Picker. In one he asked Ansel Adams what lenses he would recommend for 4x5. The answer was use just these two: 121mm Super Angulon and the 210 Symmar. Fred said at that point (in the news letter) about 90% of his photographs were taken with these two lenses. Fred Picker was very opinionated and many people had issues with him, but re-reading these letters did show that he knew a lot about the photographic process and had a lot to offer.

[xkaes]

I've run across a lot of photographers who took the Schneider (of course) 120mm & 210mm pair as gospel. I suppose if you are only going to play with two lenses they are as good or bad as any.

But for me, the 120 is not wide enough and the 210 is not long enough.

[Havoc]

Just SWD 75MM, CM-W 125MM and CM-W 250 mm. Sometimes add a 90mm or a 150mm. I'll take a 2 lens outfit over a 5 lens set any day. It makes no sense to take lenses that are too close together.

[Doremus Scudder]

I've run across a lot of photographers who took the Schneider (of course) 120mm & 210mm pair as gospel. I suppose if you are only going to play with two lenses they are as good or bad as any.

But for me, the 120 is not wide enough and the 210 is not long enough.

For me, the 120mm/121mm (Super Angulon) and the 210mm (f/5.6 Plasmat) are both simply to large, heavy and bulky. Fred Picker touted these two lenses for whatever reason, and the focal lengths are fine. However, for us lightweight fans, there are better alternatives in these ranges with just about as much coverage: 135mm WF Ektar, 203mm f/7.7 Ektar (or the Nikkor M 200mm or the 210mm G-Clarons).

And, if you need wider or longer, adding a 90mm wide works too, since the size is manageable; and the 240mm Fujinon A or the Nikkor M 300mm are both relatively small. My 90mm f/8 Nikkor SW is the largest lens I own.

Best,

Doremus

[Bernice Loui]

IMO, if the exposure aperture is f16 to f45, why lug around a hunk-O-f5.6 modern plasmat when a different optical formula does easily equal or better?

It is possible during the Fred Picker era, modern lenses like those hunk-O f5.6 plasmats were easy to obtain (know this as fact) new or used with good predictable performance and all that.

If you're deep into lightweight field folder, makes zero sense to lug around two lenses that can weigh more than the camera..
If about 210mm and 121mm is the target focal lengths, better choices could be a 203mm Ektar or 8 1/4" dagor or similar non-plasmat lens formula.
The 121mm could be a 120mm f6.8 Angulon, wide angle dagor, wide field Ektar or similar non-Biogon style wide angle..

Another example of lens choice driven by image goals and how the specific image goals and environment should decide..

~BTW, for the Linhof TK23s, current lens set: 58mm Super Angulon XL, 75mm f4.5 Grandagon, 5" f4.7 Kodak Ektar, 180mm f4.8 Zeiss Sonnar(boat anchor of a lens), 300mm f9 APO ronar, 500mm f9.5 Tele Congo.. and this varies depending on what the image goals are..

~5x7 Sinar Norma with Sinar shutter for barrel lenses: 115mm f6.8 Grandagon, 165mm f6.8 Angulon (in barrel), 300mm f10 APO saaphir (Boyer, in barrel. alternates 10" f6.3 C. Ektar, 240mm f4.5 Xenar, 12" f6.3 C. Ektar), 480mm f9 APO ronar (in barrel)...and this varies depending on what the image goals are..


Bernice




For me, the 120mm/121mm (Super Angulon) and the 210mm (f/5.6 Plasmat) are both simply to large, heavy and bulky. Fred Picker touted these two lenses for whatever reason, and the focal lengths are fine. However, for us lightweight fans, there are better alternatives in these ranges with just about as much coverage: 135mm WF Ektar, 203mm f/7.7 Ektar (or the Nikkor M 200mm or the 210mm G-Clarons).

And, if you need wider or longer, adding a 90mm wide works too, since the size is manageable; and the 240mm Fujinon A or the Nikkor M 300mm are both relatively small. My 90mm f/8 Nikkor SW is the largest lens I own.

Best,

Doremus

[Greg]

I finally settled on the following:
90mm f/4.5 WA Nikkor
180mm f/5.6 FUJINON-W
330mm f/6.8 IA Raptar
600mm f/12 FUJINON T

The 330mm f/6.8 IA Raptar is a convertible and can also be used as a 508mm or a 647mm optic. OK for enlarging to 8x10 but the 600mm FUJINON T is noticeably sharper when enlarging 11x14.

Although I learned to shoot 4x5 with a 210mm, it just always seemed to be a tad bit too long for my tastes. The 180mm isn't all that much shorter, but to me just enough to make a definite difference. If I had to shoot with only one lens, the 180mm would be my choice.

[linhofbiker]

Taking Ansel Adams/Fred Picker recommendations for 4x5 as 120 and 210 what would the equivalent be for 5x7 and 4x10?

8x10 (or 4x10) would be 240 and 400 (210 and 360 for 4x10?)
5x7 would be 180 and 300.

Wide angle (80 degrees) Dagor, or the old Doppel Anastigmat Symmar 6.8 from plus or minus a hundred years ago could double for several formats. And they are small compared to modern plasmats with their 5.6 aperture.

I have Doppel Anastigmat Symmar 6.8 in 120 240 and 270.

Maybe I should sell the 121 SA but keep the 165 SA that is really huge but is good for 4x10.

I seem to collect lenses like fine old wines that should not be drunk but savored in the imagination only.

[Alan Klein]

Since the question gets asked a lot by new-comers to LF, I thought I'd take the time to write up my thoughts as to what I would recommend for 3, 4, and 5 lens sets for a 4x5 view camera. The discussion is here in a blog post:

http://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blog/2016/3/good-lenses-for-a-4x5-view-camera

Here are the lens set recommendations below. The basic criteria were modern multicoated lenses with modern shutters and preferably one or two filter sizes. I own or have owned the 90% of these lenses above or lenses in the same range but different focal lengths.

For a moderately wide and light set of three lenses with a single filter size I would suggest the following:

Fujinon NW 125mm/5.6 (52mm filter/265g)
Nikkor M 200mm/8 (52mm filter/180g)
Fujinon C 300mm/8 (52mm/250g) or Nikkor M 300mm/9 (52mm filter/290g)

For a wider and still relatively light four lens set with only two filter sizes, I would suggest the following all Nikkor set:

Nikkor SW 90mm/8 (67mm filter/360g) or Schneider Super-Symmar XL 110mm/5.6 (67mm filter/425g)
Nikkor W 135mm/5.6 (52mm filter/200g)
Nikkor M 200mm/f8 (52mm filter/180g)
Nikkor M 300mm/f8 (52mm filter/290g)

For an even wider and faster set of five lenses with only one filter sizes, I would suggest the following:

Schneider Super-Symmar XL 80mm/5.6 (67mm filter/271g)
Schneider Super-Symmar XL 110mm/5.6 (67mm filter/425g)
Fujinon CM-W 150mm/5.6 (67mm filter/280g)
Fujinon CM-W 250mm/6.3 (67mm filter/510g)
Nikkor T ED 360mm/8 (67mm filter/800g)

If you have a favorite set and rationale for it why don't you share your ideas below.

You could use a step-up adapter so you can use one larger set of filters.

Currently I have lenses of the following sizes 75, 90, 150, and 300mm for 4x5. Which midsize to buy: 210mm or 240mm?

[Bernice Loui]

Or use a camera mounted filter holder and 100mm square filters which can easily eliminate the entire set of threaded adapters.

The 210mm would be most common next up from the 150mm, 240mm is kinda close to 300mm

Another way, 180mm > 240mm/250mm > 360mm.. if the camera can support a 360mm lens.

Next question would be what kind of 210mm or about 8" focal length lens? This can be determined by exposure aperture to be used and image rendition ala lens personality to be rendered on film.


Bernice



You could use a step-up adapter so you can use one larger set of filters.

Currently I have lenses of the following sizes 75, 90, 150, and 300mm for 4x5. Which midsize to buy: 210mm or 240mm?

[angusparker]

You could use a step-up adapter so you can use one larger set of filters.

Currently I have lenses of the following sizes 75, 90, 150, and 300mm for 4x5. Which midsize to buy: 210mm or 240mm?

That’s true but a pain and the filters don’t always play well and come off. I think it’s better to simply stick to one size if you can.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[xkaes]

I settled on 77mm for my filter size -- an artifact left over from my RB67 days. Works out great for all of my LF lenses with step-up rings, of course -- super wide to super tele -- even my RB67 37mm fisheye, which I adapted to my 4x5. I use the 77mm filters on the REAR of the fisheye.

[Alan Klein]

Or use a camera mounted filter holder and 100mm square filters which can easily eliminate the entire set of threaded adapters.

The 210mm would be most common next up from the 150mm, 240mm is kinda close to 300mm

Another way, 180mm > 240mm/250mm > 360mm.. if the camera can support a 360mm lens.

Next question would be what kind of 210mm or about 8" focal length lens? This can be determined by exposure aperture to be used and image rendition ala lens personality to be rendered on film.


Bernice

What do you suggest?