First lens for 4x5

[6x6TLL]

I just picked up my very first (well, almost first) LF camera, a 4x5 format.

Now I'm looking for a lens.

Having shot medium format (6x6) for 20 years, I understand that doubling the focal lengths I like best should give the approximate equivalent focal length in 4x5.

In almost all cases, I've always found 80mm (same as 50mm in 35mm film/digital cameras) just a touch too wide, and prefer something between 90-120mm. My first and favorite MF lens was a 110mm/f4 Macro PS, currently it's a 90mm f/4 APO Symmar Macro, and I occasionally use the 80mm f2 Xenotar with 1.4x Longar teleconverter for a 112mm/f2.8 equivalent.

While the "normal" focal length for 4x5 is 150mm, I'm wondering if I would be happier going with something closer to 180-210mm as a first lens. I'm primarily looking at the Rodenstock APO Sironar S (or W if I can find one for a reasonable price) as well as the Schneider APO Symmar L, both seem to be very highly rated, very sharp, and with excellent color and contrast, as well as reasonably light and portable (not the lightest, but not the heaviest either). It's always easy to make a lens look softer or put a filter on it, so I'd like to get a good sharp lens to start with, and go for a "character" lens later, should I continue pursuing LF.

Suggestions? Am I correct in looking at 180mm - 210mm, or will that make it difficult to take "normal perspective" photographs? I hope/expect in a few years to end up with a 3 or 4 lens setup, wide, normal, tele/portrait and possibly a specialty lens. For now I want to stick to the basics and learn, and am looking for a good solid lens to start with.

Thanks!

[docw]

All of what you said makes sense, so pick a lens and go with it. My first lens was a 180mm Wollensak (it came with the camera) but I prefer slightly shorter so I soon got a 150mm and I used that for a long time. Now I have a 90mm, 150mm, and two 210's (one is a nice old 10" Commercial Ektar).

So pick one and use it a lot until you feel the need for another.

[AJ Edmondson]

The only lenses I carry anymore are a 180mm APO Symmar and an older 135mm Fujinon ( in essence the equivalent of the 135mm WF Ektar). For me the 180mm works better than 210 (but I don't do portraits) and I prefer it over the 150mm despite the fact that there isn't a lot of difference between the 150 and 180 FOV. I vote with docs.

[Bob Salomon]

I just picked up my very first (well, almost first) LF camera, a 4x5 format.

Now I'm looking for a lens.

Having shot medium format (6x6) for 20 years, I understand that doubling the focal lengths I like best should give the approximate equivalent focal length in 4x5.

In almost all cases, I've always found 80mm (same as 50mm in 35mm film/digital cameras) just a touch too wide, and prefer something between 90-120mm. My first and favorite MF lens was a 110mm/f4 Macro PS, currently it's a 90mm f/4 APO Symmar Macro, and I occasionally use the 80mm f2 Xenotar with 1.4x Longar teleconverter for a 112mm/f2.8 equivalent.

While the "normal" focal length for 4x5 is 150mm, I'm wondering if I would be happier going with something closer to 180-210mm as a first lens. I'm primarily looking at the Rodenstock APO Sironar S (or W if I can find one for a reasonable price) as well as the Schneider APO Symmar L, both seem to be very highly rated, very sharp, and with excellent color and contrast, as well as reasonably light and portable (not the lightest, but not the heaviest either). It's always easy to make a lens look softer or put a filter on it, so I'd like to get a good sharp lens to start with, and go for a "character" lens later, should I continue pursuing LF.

Suggestions? Am I correct in looking at 180mm - 210mm, or will that make it difficult to take "normal perspective" photographs? I hope/expect in a few years to end up with a 3 or 4 lens setup, wide, normal, tele/portrait and possibly a specialty lens. For now I want to stick to the basics and learn, and am looking for a good solid lens to start with.

Thanks!

Actually putting a diffusing filter or soft focus filter on a lens to soften it is not at all the same as a soft focus lens.
A filter attachment will diffuse the shadows into the highlights. A soft focus lens diffuses the highlights into the shadows.

That is why a soft focus lens, if available, is the better choice!

[Alan9940]

Based on your preferred lenses for the smaller formats, I'd highly recommend a 210mm focal length as your first lens. That was my very first lens 40 years ago and I still enjoy using it to this day. Sounds like you're leaning more toward the plasmats for a 210mm, but don't rule out something like the Calumet Caltar-IIe 210/6.8 or the Rodenstock equivalent. These lenses are quite a bit smaller and lighter and are quite sharp! I use the Caltar lens on a Wista 4x5 for long hikes when weight is a concern.

[Peter Lewin]

Given your preference for slightly longer lenses, I would opt for either a 180, or more likely a 210 lens. When I bought my first view camera, now about a half century (!) ago, the now defunct Olden Cameras recommended a 180 Congo 6.3. A bit later, Fred Picker (Zone VI) who was something of a LF guru in the 1970s, recommended a 210 as one’s first lens. The 180 is now my “travel lens” because it is very small, but because my “vision” is wider than yours, a 150 has become my “go to” lens, but I still carry a Schneider Symmar-S 210/5.6 in my standard backpack.

[drew.saunders]

There are lots of 210/5.6 plasmats available used from the "big four" lens manufacturers: Fuji, Nikon, Rodenstock and Schneider. Look for a clean lens with a good shutter. If you'd prefer portability, the Nikkor-M 200/8 is a very tiny, very nice lens, and was my 2nd LF lens (after a 120/5.6). For Schneider, the APO-Symmar L replaced the APO-Symmar, and has a bit more coverage, which may be overkill, so you might be able to save some $ by going for the older APO-Symmar.

[chassis]

Long is good, but so is wide. I like traditional portraits done on 4x5 with 300mm, and also with 120mm lenses. On 6x7 I like people images with a 50mm which corresponds to around 100mm on 4x5. Depends on the image you are seeking. Really can’t go wrong. Even a 150mm normal lens can make nice portraits with the right camera position.

Go with your gut and get the 210mm now, but be thinking about where you want to take your imaging.

[Bruce Barlow]

210.

[Two23]

If you think about it, the difference between a 180 and a 210 isn't that great. In 35mm equivalents it's roughly 60mm vs. 70mm. Hope that helps you get a sense of perspective.


Kent in SD

[Jim Jones]

My favorite lens for 4x5 was an old Ektar f/7.7 203mm. It was inexpensive, sharp, light, and compact. It also worked well on a 5x7.

[Mark Sawyer]

Anything with a reliable, accurate shutter between 135mm and 240mm. Be open to letting your vision do some growing. If you find you take to large format, you'll get (at least) another lens or two anyways.

[Leszek Vogt]

Agree w/Mark. Just saw 150mm Apo Ronar on the 'bay (and several 240mm too) which could also fit the bill. Granted, it may not have the bokeh that one might wish for, but it's a decent optic. I think everyone here recognizes that anything (mostly) below F5.6 will get expensive quick. Pls don't make me define "expensive", since the variables of use tends to be all over the map. Good luck shopping.

Les

[Two23]

The other thing to remember is as you increase format size, the DoF for given lens decreases. An f5.6 lens might perform more like an f4 or even f2.8 does on your MF camera. No difference as far as shutter speed in low light of course. The DoF on an f2.8 lens on 4x5 would be razor thin to the point of being unusable, I would guess. My f5.6 lenses are often too shallow DoF on my 5x7.


Kent in SD

[6x6TLL]

Wow, thanks for all the comments and advice!

Based on what Doc, Kent and other's have said, I'll see what I can find between 180-210 and start there. I'm thinking a larger aperture (f/5.6) not because of DOF, but rather it will make it easier (initially) to focus and pay attention to the technical aspect (focus, movements, etc) on the GG, and figured that starting with a "future classic" (e.g. the Rodenstock or Schneider) would provide me with a lens I'll have and use for the rest of my photographic journey, rather than getting something I'll end up replacing sooner rather than later (although that may happen at some point too, it's fun just to try out different things).

My budget is flexible, but I'd like to keep it under $1k. I know I could get a bunch of different lenses (including an APO Sironar-N or APO Symmar) for between $2-400, but everyone keeps raving about how exceptional the Sironar S and Symmar L are, which makes me think I might as well bite the bullet and start with a great piece of glass that I'll have for the rest of my shooting career.

At my current phase in my photography, I like sharp, crisp, contrasty, modern looking photographs. So my choice to try out LF is not to make everything look like it was shot in the 1800's, but rather the larger neg and ability to use movements as part of the composition and image expression.

Bob, excellent point on the difference in rendering with a SF lens vs regular one with a filter, thanks for pointing that out.

Doc's original point is not lost on me either, and the same strategy I followed with MF. I bought one lens and lived with it for a few years and really got to know it inside and out, before going on to add a second lens, and doing the same thing all over. It really taught me a lot (and saved me a bunch of money, lol!). I'll get one lens now, use it for a while and really get to know it well before looking for another. Another advantage is that after a while, you start to notice what kind of shots you're unable to take because you don't have the right focal length. Making the next lens an easy choice (I rented a 40mm and 50mm after spending a year or two with my 110mm on 6x6, and preferred the angle of the 40mm. A few years later I added a 150mm telephoto).

[John Kasaian]

Sounds like a good plan.

[Luis-F-S]

Just about any 210mm in a modern shutter will work just fine. You don’t need the greatest, sharpest lens made unless you want to throw money away. Most lenses are better than most photographers.

[Bob Salomon]

Just about any 210mm in a modern shutter will work just fine. You don’t need the greatest, sharpest lens made unless you want to throw money away. Most lenses are better than most photographers.

Luis, “you don’t need the greatest, sharpest lens made” unless you are after the sharpest lens with the least roll off center to edge with the best color reproduction, the least chromatic abberation and the least distortion!

[Luis-F-S]

Bob most lenses are better than most photographers

[Two23]

You could well find you photo different things or make different compositions with 4x5 than what you did previously. Happened to me. When starting a new format I have a "road map" in mind for lenses. My antique lenses are 100/150/240mm; modern ones are 90mm f4.5 Nikon, 135mm f5.6 Rodenstock, 180mm f5.6 Fuji, 300mm f9 Nikon. Don't discount Nikon et Fuji as they are excellent.


Kent in SD

[Bob Salomon]

Bob most lenses are better than most photographers

Then the photographers need more training if they can’t take full advantage of their cameras and lenses!

[6x6TLL]

You could well find you photo different things or make different compositions with 4x5 than what you did previously. Happened to me. When starting a new format I have a "road map" in mind for lenses. My antique lenses are 100/150/240mm; modern ones are 90mm f4.5 Nikon, 135mm f5.6 Rodenstock, 180mm f5.6 Fuji, 300mm f9 Nikon. Don't discount Nikon et Fuji as they are excellent.


Kent in SD

Hi Kent,

that's a great point. How can you create a road map without knowing much about the format at the beginning?

Yes, Nikon and Fuji are both on my list, the W and CM-W series both look interesting, especially for wide and long lenses. It seems to me from the research I've done that for the "normal" lens (135-210 or so), the Rodenstock and/or Schneider seem to be everyone's favorite and one to beat. I.e. "pry them from my cold, dead hands" kind of favorite. Hard to ignore those kinds of endorsements!

Luis, I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with you, because I'm not sure I understand you. Could you elaborate?

At the moment I plan on getting one lens for a newly acquired LF camera. Something normal-ish, and of high quality. I'm not interested in buying something "to learn on" and then selling it and upgrading to something new, and repeating over and over. Why waste all that film and time? That's what camera manufacturers want us to do. Buy and replace. I like to go for quality from the beginning, and if I decide in a year that I don't every want to do LF again, I'm sure I can still get whatever price I paid for a used lens here or on eBay, whether it be a $200 or $1000 lens... At the risk of sounding defensive, I've been shooting MF for over 20 years - learning to work in LF will be new to me, working with film to create interesting and (hopefully) compelling images is not.

But I'm not clear what your point was. Quality of the gear doesn't matter? I'll definitely agree that most (all?) of us are far to concerned with the gear (myself included) when it's the photographer's vision and knowledge that is 90% of the shot. That said, you wouldn't want substandard kit getting in the way of your vision, would you? And with quality gear, you can't blame the gear if your pictures suck! Lol. Quality gear also (IMHO) tends to make the process smoother by getting out of the way and facilitating the task at hand.

[Bob Salomon]

“That's what camera manufacturers want us to do. Buy and replace.”

In all of the decades that I was Product and Sales Manager for Linhof, Wista and Rodenstock that was never a goal.

Cameras and lenses were made for different market segments. Students on limited budgets - Rodenstock Geronar lenses. Field use - Linhof TK, Master Technika, Kardan Standard, Wista folding cameras. Studio Linhof monorails, other then the Standard and TK series.

Yes, companies like Linhof made it easy to own multiple types with lens adapter boards and universal viewing accessories but the goal was not to start someone with a lower cost camera and build them up to a more expensive one. Each Linhof, in this case, was a complete, functional camera on its own.

Sinar took a different approach. They, starting with the P series, made one single camera with many accessories. Using those accessories they could make different cameras. Use a P auxiliary standards, bellows and gg back made a F. Use an auxiliary standard, bellows and a P type rear standard made a C.

[6x6TLL]

Hi Bob,

my comment wasn't meant as a dig at you or any of the (fine) companies you've represented, more a generalization as to the mentality our consumerist society encourages (which some less scrupulous resellers, if not manufacturers, encourage, planned obsolescence, etc - especially relevant as the world moves to digital, suddenly all your lenses aren't good enough for digital and need to be repurchased all over again, and more).

Linhof was on my short list for LF camera to get, Sinar as well. Both excellent products.

I was interested in hearing what Luis meant by his comment. And if Kent can elaborate on how he planned his focal length spread when new to a format, as I find myself in the same position.

[Mark Sawyer]

I replace all of my cameras and lenses after 200 years of service. My oldest lens is coming up in another 30 years, but still works okay so far. Oldest camera has maybe 60 years to go and is holding up well...

[Luis-F-S]

Then the photographers need more training if they can’t take full advantage of their cameras and lenses!

Welcome to the real world, Bob. It is said that Edward Weston made his Mexico photographs with a lens that he paid $5 for and most of his friends felt he paid too much for it. I believe he did ok with that lens. The lens does not make the photographer. In the 8 1/4" focal length, I own at least a Sironar-N, G-Clarons (two of them), a Dagor, and several other Rodenstock and Calumet branded lenses. What do I always use? The Dagor which was made over 50 years ago. Good luck with your super-sharp expensive lens. Bernice, care to jump in? I stand by my comments. L

[Luis-F-S]

Luis, I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with you, because I'm not sure I understand you. Could you elaborate?


With all due respect, if you had enough experience to agree or disagree, you wouldn't be asking the question. L

[Bob Salomon]

Hi Bob,

my comment wasn't meant as a dig at you or any of the (fine) companies you've represented, more a generalization as to the mentality our consumerist society encourages (which some less scrupulous resellers, if not manufacturers, encourage, planned obsolescence, etc - especially relevant as the world moves to digital, suddenly all your lenses aren't good enough for digital and need to be repurchased all over again, and more).

Linhof was on my short list for LF camera to get, Sinar as well. Both excellent products.

I was interested in hearing what Luis meant by his comment. And if Kent can elaborate on how he planned his focal length spread when new to a format, as I find myself in the same position.

At least for backs for large format there are good reasons for upgraded digital lenses:

1 digital backs have a smaller image area then 45 film so at optimal aperture for 45 you are well into diffraction on the digital back.
2 film sags, digital sensors do not. So different requirements for optimal resolution were needed.
3 digital lenses from Rodenstock are designed for the pixel sizes of different types of backs. One series is designed for sensors with 5 micron or smaller pixels. Another series was developed for sensors with pixel sizes around 9 microns.
These two series have different image circles due to the sensor sizes of the respective types.
As these lenses are used with sensors that at the largest are about ¼ the size of 45 film they are optimized at f8 as the DOF at f8 on the sensors would be similar to 22 on 45.

[Bob Salomon]

Welcome to the real world, Bob. It is said that Edward Weston made his Mexico photographs with a lens that he paid $5 for and most of his friends felt he paid too much for it. I believe he did ok with that lens. The lens does not make the photographer. In the 8 1/4" focal length, I own at least a Sironar-N, G-Clarons (two of them), a Dagor, and several other Rodenstock and Calumet branded lenses. What do I always use? The Dagor which was made over 50 years ago. Good luck with your super-sharp expensive lens. Bernice, care to jump in? I stand by my comments. L

But that means he used what was best for him and his type of work and the technologies that were available way back then. It does not mean that if he had the opportunity to use today’s cameras, lenses, films, papers, enlargers, etc that he would have made the same choices.
He also worked at a time that was economically very different then now!

[6x6TLL]

With all due respect, if you had enough experience to agree or disagree, you wouldn't be asking the question. L

That wasn't very respectful at all, Luis.

[Luis-F-S]

That wasn't very respectful at all, Luis.
Perhaps not, but perhaps true. I typically don't respond to inquiries like this because many times they're made by individuals who have little to no experience with the topic, but know how to use a computer and want to argue. I think they should spend their time, money and make their mistakes, and after using LF for 40 plus years, maybe their opinions will change. I gave you my opinion as a professional photographer since 1974, you can either take it or not, it matters little to me. If you have a credible question, I'm glad to help. What exactly was it you didn't understand? Here are at least 100 threads on this site on lenses, which to buy, which not to, and you'll get as many opinions as there are posters.

When Fred Picker was alive, he recommended a 210 as a first lens, and a 120 as the second. I followed his advice and never regretted it. He sold Schneider, so that was what he recommended. I think his advice on the focal lengths holds true today; the lens brand is secondary in that equation. Good luck.

[Mark Sawyer]

It is said that Edward Weston made his Mexico photographs with a lens that he paid $5 for and most of his friends felt he paid too much for it. I believe he did ok with that lens.

Yeah, but I wonder whether he could have gotten just a little more out of it if he'd tried.

Get a run-of-the-mill lens in a reliable shutter and a working camera, and you'll never come close to its full potential. The fun is in the trying...

[Drew Wiley]

The only lens I used on 4x5 for the first twenty years was a 210. After that I branched out. I took my older brother's advice. He attended Brooks Institute and they told all their students to buy two lenses, a 210 for portraiture and general commercial use, and a 90 wide-angle for architecture. The bonus advantage of a 210 is that it has a lot bigger image circle than typical "normal" 150's. But in the long run, just depends on the look you want, and what you are comfortable using. Now I generally carry a 180 / 240 / 360 / 450 selection, but sometimes add something wider, or pare things down to just a 200 and 300.

[Luis-F-S]

Get a run-of-the-mill lens in a reliable shutter and a working camera, and you'll never come close to its full potential. The fun is in the trying...

I believe I said something like this in post #17. L

[Two23]

Jeez Louise. Meanwhile, my spiffy new 150mm lens came from Spain today. I just loaded up some holder so I can go shoot it tomorrow! It's an A.J. Pipon Aplanascope (rectilinear) in gorgeous Unicum shutter! Pipon made lenses & cameras in Paris from 1894 to 1914. I decided I needed to add something a little more modern to my camera bag.


Kent in SD

[Corran]

Ignore the folks talking about optimum apertures, sharpness, and other garbage, and just buy a 180mm or 210mm, according to your own statements, and start to make images/mistakes.

Don't fall into the trap of "paralysis by analysis." A $150 Schneider 210mm f5.6 Symmar-S will do you just fine until you figure out what you want to do.

The "experts" here are only experts in their own image making preferences. If I were to have asked about my "first lens" I surely would've been fed the same garbage and gotten a 150mm or 210mm, when instead what I needed was a 90mm. Or wider. That's just me.

[neil poulsen]

My first lens was a 180mm. For me, 210mm was too tight. My second lens was a 121mm SW.

[Mark Sawyer]

I believe I said something like this in post #17. L

Yeah, but I said something like that first, in post #12.

[jesse]

I prefer 150mm for the first 4x5 lens.

[Myriophyllum]

I prefer 150mm for the first 4x5 lens.

+1

Yes, and then a 210mm (I once borrowed a convertible Symmar 5.6/210, now I have a Apo-Symmar 210, can't say which I like better: The older one gave a pleasing "semisoft" look, the Apo makes technically better images).
And if you like 40mm in 6x6 a 75mm (I have a stunning Grandagon-N 4.5/75mm) would be / was my third lens.

Best
Jens

[esearing]

135mm is my most used lens. I tend to go wider than normal. 65,90,135,180 (convertible 315mm ), 250 are what I carry usually, but also have 150 and 210 that I like equally.
An accurate shutter is just as important - or at least know its inaccuracies.

[6x6TLL]

I made a 4x5 viewing frame out of an old cardboard box and spent a few hours wandering around town with it today, along with the rail of the camera I just purchased off of eBay (which has an engraved scale in cm on it).

Basically I just looked for interesting subjects that would normally be something I might try to photograph, framed them with the viewing frame while holding the rail against my cheek and measured the distance. Tried close ups, distance, landscape, buildings, etc.

Most of the time I ended up at 18cm, the next most often was 21cm. The others were mostly outliers, several 9cm, a few 12-13, and several 28-30cm. I hit 15cm twice.

That tells me I should start with a 180mm ideally, possibly a 210mm. Whichever I can find cheapest and first. I'll stick with that for a while and really get to know it well, before getting a second focal length. That will also provide me with enough experience to know exactly what situations I'm unable to shoot with the lens I have and what focal length would be the best addition to expand my range to cover them.

Thanks again for all the suggestions.

[6x6TLL]

Update - found a great deal on a used 210mm Rodenstock and pulled the trigger on it.

I'm off to the races!