Lens questions from a new 4x5 shooter

[BennoLF]

Hey y'all,

I've been shooting digital for years, 35mm for a little while and I'm now moving into 4x5.
Most of what I do it landscape and portraiture(more environmental than studio).
I got my hands on a 4x5 camera but I don't have a lens yet.

Any recommendations? I'm thinking something in the 90-115mm range. Is this stupid? From what I've heard it's better to err on the side of too wide, as you can crop without losing too much detail(I'm not planning on doing any ginormous prints so some cropping won't be a huge IQ image for me)

Are there any mistake I need to avoid, lens specs I need to find before buying, etc? I'm looking at a Tominon 105mm f/4.5. It's not on the largeformatphotography.info list of 4x5 lenses, and I can't find much about it. Does anybody know anything about it? Specifically its coverage? I think with the landscape I do I'll probably be doing some view movements and I'd rather not be hampered too much by undercoverage. Also, is the fact that it only stops down to f/32 an issue? For a 90mm I would expect this to still have a very large dof but I don't know.

Sorry this is so much. I'm kind of overwhelmed by how much I don't know. Any help would be appreciated.

Benno

[Two23]

I would skip the Tominon. Go with lenses from these four manufacturers and you really can't go wrong" Fuji, Nikon, Rodenstock, Schneider. Caltar is OK too. I'd suggest anything from 90mm to 135mm for landscapes, and 210mm for portraits. I personally never stop down more than f22 as diffraction kicks in after that.


Kent in SD

[Alan9940]

I agree with Kent; stick to the major players in LF lenses. One of my favorite focal lengths for 4x5 landscapes is a 120mm (roughly equivalent to 35mm on 35mm film or ff digital.) IMO, something in the 210-240mm range would be nice for portraits. And, if you're going to drop, shoot MF and save yourself the trouble and expense of LF. ;)

[Alan Gales]

To me a 90mm on 4x5 feels like my old 25mm Zeiss lens felt on my 35mm Contax camera. I own a 121mm and like Alan9940 says, feels like a 35mm lens. A 150-180 will feel close to a nifty fifty.

Long lenses get more difficult because of the lack of bellows draw on field cameras. A 210 lens is great for environmental portraiture. With some field cameras you can use a 240 or 250. I tried a 300mm on a Tachihara I had. With only 13" of bellows draw I could only close focus the 300 down to about 16' if I remember correctly.

[Pere Casals]

Hello,



I'm looking at a Tominon 105mm f/4.5.

It will illuminate the 4x5" negative but with lower quality in the corners, you can still make nice creative shots with it, and it will work better if stopped a couple of stops, but I'd not recommend this choice to start. Also 105mm may be a bit short for portraiture.

____

I'd take, instead, a fully featured LF lens to start, with a larger circle which would be good to learn movements. Most common/versatile "general usage" modern LF lenses are plasmats, in that category you have:

Rodenstock Sironar-N

Schneider Symmar-S

Nikon W

Fujinon CM-W

I'd take multi coated versions for the moment (some of the mentioned have early single coated versions that are not much seen but exist).


I'd start with a 135mm or (better) a 150mm, which are "normal" lenses for 4x5", for around $150

A key point is checking shutter speeds: https://kenrockwell.com/tech/exposure-large-format.htm


I'd start with a "normal" focal until you refine your own criterion to select a short focal for landscape. You may want a 65mm, a 90mm, both, or a 75mm intermediate focal substituting the 65 and the 90.

Buy cheap glass until you know what you want, in the future for short focal landscape you may find that you want a Biogon type derivative that may have lower fall-off and better performance in the corners, so the easiest descision for now is a conventional plasmat of normal focal, you can do a lot with that, and having a normal focal in a kit is mostly essential, IMHO, so I guess it's an easy decision.

[Tobias Key]

It's not always the case, but 105mm lenses are usually standard lenses for 6x9 so it's not really a LF lens. Tominons were often found on the front of polaroid cameras, I think (but I'm not completely sure). Far better to go for something more mainstream, you less likely to have issues and if you do, there are lots of people with the same lens who can help you.

[BennoLF]

This is all great, thanks!

Other questions: What do I look for in a shutter? Pere Casals mentioned checking speed but is there anything else? I'm assuming I won't need a shutter any faster than 1/200, is this true?

The math for optimal f-stops shows using more than f/32 for any show with more than 6mm of focus draw. Will I ever run into this?


Also......how the heck do you find the filter thread for LF lenses? Do you just have to bop around the internet until someone tells you? As far as I've found there's no indicator, so you just measure it?

[Mark Stahlke]

The lens charts on the home page show the filter size for most lenses.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/

[BennoLF]

Ooh haha I'm so oblivious. Thanks!

[Corran]

Will you need a shutter faster than 1/200? Well most landscapes are shot at f/22 and beyond, and the fastest film available is 400 speed. Quiz time - at sunny-16 and shot at f/22 on 400-speed film, your shutter speed would be...?

Buy a lens and start shooting, you'll figure out a lot of things much faster, including what questions you need answers to. A simple Schneider 150mm Symmar-S will cost you under $150 and serve you well for decades.

[Dan Fromm]

The 105/4.5 Tominon is one of a set of macro lenses, all designed to be used at magnifications > 1:1, for the Polaroid MP-4 system. There are versions of it in Copal #1 (I think) shutter for Polaroid GelCams and a variety of oscilloscope cameras, also intended to be used at magnifications > 1:1.

I've tested all of the MP-4 Tominons except the 105 as macro lenses and the 135/4.5 at distance. There are better macro lenses but the shorter ones (17, 35, 50) are usable. Not so the 75. The 135 is lousy close up and at distance.

OP, as has already been stated if you want to shoot wide on 4x5 you'd be best off with a proper w/a lens that has ample coverage. I use some ancient ones (Berthiot Perigraphe VIa, mine were actually made in the late '40s but the designs are pre-WW I) that are quite dim. Modern alternatives are easier to use. Fujinon CM-W lenses are excellent but aren't wide angles; Fuji's w/a lines are SW and SWD.

About filter threads etc. As Mark Stahlke mentioned in post #8 above, this forum has resources. Start from https://www.largeformatphotography.info, read the FAQs and articles, ... Also go to the Lenses sub-forum where there's a sticky "Where to look." The first post in that discussion has a link to a list of links to catalogs and much more. The list is a pdf with bookmarks that serve as an index. Download it -- the bookmarks don't work in on-line pdf readers -- and rummage around.

[Pere Casals]

I'm assuming I won't need a shutter any faster than 1/200, is this true?

You can always use an slower film, that may be sharper...

Sunny 16 says that in full direct sunlight you expose ISO 400 at 1/400 at f/16, so you may have to shot at f/22 for 1/200s speed. Usually you always overexpose a bit say 1/2 stop as a safe factor (with negative film). Many times shutters having 1/400 speed don't reach that...




I'm assuming I won't need a shutter any faster than 1/200, is this true?

The math for optimal f-stops shows using more than f/32 for any show with more than 6mm of focus draw. Will I ever run into this?




The math for optimal f-stops shows using more than f/32

Many times best aperture in 4x5 lenses is around f/16, by f/22 diffraction starts damaging performance of a good lens, but also many times you have to stop f/22 or beyond to ensure DOF, first you may try to put subjects in focus by using tilt-swing movements, then you stop what necessary. Balancing movements vs dof vs diffraction can be complex for an optimal result, and this may require some learning.



Also......how the heck do you find the filter thread for LF lenses? Do you just have to bop around the internet until someone tells you? As far as I've found there's no indicator, so you just measure it?

Here there is a column with filter sizes: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

See also datasheets or catalogs, for example here you have all Nikons: http://www.kennethleegallery.com/pdf/Nikkor_LargeFormatLenses.pdf , in the section drawing of the lens you have the filter thread, also each lens has an entry in its data.

See also "Filter Size" for each lens here: https://static.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/Product_Resources/SourceBookProPhoto/Section04LgFormatLenses.pdf

[BennoLF]

Well with an accurate shutter 1/200 should be good enough, but if shutters aren't accurate I might need one 'rated' to 1/400 or so to actually get a 1/200 or so exposure, right? I guess what I'm actually asking is how far off I can expect old shutters to be.

I know someone who said he has a 127/4.7 I can borrow. If I feel cramped by it I might move got something wider but I'd like to get some shooting experience before buying a new lens, so for now I think I know what to do and where to go.

Thanks for all y'all's help!

[Peter Lewin]

This question comes up periodically, and I always give the same suggestion. Look at your digital photos, and see which focal length (or zoom setting) you use the most and give the results you enjoy the most. Then get a large format lens of the equivalent focal length. There are quite a few “focal length equivalents” on the web. As a very rough rule, 150-180mm are roughly similar to a 50mm on 35mm (or FF digital). 90-105 will be similar to a moderately wide-angle (35mm or so), and 210similar to a moderately longer lens (say around a 100mm or so on 35j.

[Pere Casals]

I guess what I'm actually asking is how far off I can expect old shutters to be.

Even recent Mechanical Shutters were sold new with a +/- 30% accuracy in the specs. Film has a great latitude, so a first approach is overexposing a bit as a safety factor, but when you can you should check what the real exposures are. Fortunately today you may find cheap shutter testers that are plugged in an smartphone for some $20, or around $80 standalone testers, see this search: https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1313.TR4.TRC2.A0.H0.Xshutter+tester.TRS0&_nkw=shutter+tester&_sacat=0

[Alan9940]

Other questions: What do I look for in a shutter? Pere Casals mentioned checking speed but is there anything else? I'm assuming I won't need a shutter any faster than 1/200, is this true?


The shutter is pretty much going to be dictated by what lens you buy; if just about any modern plasmat, it will be a Copal shutter. Older lenses, like Fujinon's, for example, have Seiko shutters. Many old Kodak lenses have Ilex shutters. There are many types/styles of shutters, but you don't really get a choice. Copal and Seiko shutters are very reliable and fairly accurate (shutter speed) over time. Older shutters, like the Ilex, will need a loving CLA over time and, even at that, the faster speeds will probably never reach the marked speed.

As for needing a speed above 1/200th, I've shot LF for 40 years and I've never even come close to 1/200th...and for the past 20 years I've shot outdoor scenes in the blazing sunshine of the desert southwest. Even Vermont snow scenes in full sunlight were shot on Tri-X 320 at about 1/60 @ f/22.

[Bob Salomon]

The shutter is pretty much going to be dictated by what lens you buy; if just about any modern plasmat, it will be a Copal shutter. Older lenses, like Fujinon's, for example, have Seiko shutters. Many old Kodak lenses have Ilex shutters. There are many types/styles of shutters, but you don't really get a choice. Copal and Seiko shutters are very reliable and fairly accurate (shutter speed) over time. Older shutters, like the Ilex, will need a loving CLA over time and, even at that, the faster speeds will probably never reach the marked speed.

As for needing a speed above 1/200th, I've shot LF for 40 years and I've never even come close to 1/200th...and for the past 20 years I've shot outdoor scenes in the blazing sunshine of the desert southwest. Even Vermont snow scenes in full sunlight were shot on Tri-X 320 at about 1/60 @ f/22.

Or, in Compur, Synchro Compur, Prontor, Prontor Professional, Compound and many other common shutters.

[Bernice Loui]

Look at the digital images of your history to get a good idea of the kind of images you're making along with where and how these images were made. This will aid in knowing the lens focal length and if 4x5 camera in hand will suffice for the kind of images you're making. Depending on lens and focal length needs, 4x5 camera in hand may or may not be amenable to the lenses-optics needed.

It would be helpful to post the most often used focal length on your digital camera and it's sensor format size. From this a similar 4x5 lens focal length and lens aperture-lens type can be roughly estimated.

Stay with lens choices from the big four, Schneider, Fujinon, Rodenstock, Nikon in any of their focal length and optic prescription offerings will be more than sufficient at this point. Prime importance is shutter accuracy, repeatability and reliability. Modern shutter brands are often Copal, Prontor, Seiko, Compur any of these in proven good condition with proven accuracy will do. The shutter is important as it is difficult enough to deal with the sheet film_LF learning curve, adding problems that will handicap moving up the learning curve, like a iffy-problem shutter will cause all sorts of frustration and grief. As for lens condition, long as the glass is original as delivered with it's shutter and mechanically reasonable lens should be good enough. Don't worry about stuff like spots in the edge of the internal elements (_ritis as this condition of edge painting problems) or minor front element defects or tiny pecks on the glass. These minor issues often results in significantly lower purchase price.

The Tominon 105mm f/4.5 was commonly found on Polaroid MP-4 cameras specifically for copy work or close up work. The Polaroid MP-4 looks like an enlarger or camera on a copy stand. This lens is more specific application than general LF image making.

What condition is the 4x5 camera in hand in? Does the bellows leak light or in fine condition? Are the mechanicals fully functional with good smooth movements and solid when locked. Is the camera stable when set up or wobbly like a chair with on shorter legg? Any problems with the camera will also compound the problems of moving up the learning curve.

Beyond camera, lens.. what about tripod or camera support, dark cloth, light meter, filters (if needed), ground glass magnifier, cable release, film holders, case, tape measure?

Once the film has been exposed, what about processing and print making?

Unlike Digital, there is an entire process chain intimately related to LF image making that does not happen with digital images (digital as a different print making process chain).


Bernice





Hey y'all,

I've been shooting digital for years, 35mm for a little while and I'm now moving into 4x5.
Most of what I do it landscape and portraiture(more environmental than studio).
I got my hands on a 4x5 camera but I don't have a lens yet.

Any recommendations? I'm thinking something in the 90-115mm range. Is this stupid? From what I've heard it's better to err on the side of too wide, as you can crop without losing too much detail(I'm not planning on doing any ginormous prints so some cropping won't be a huge IQ image for me)

Are there any mistake I need to avoid, lens specs I need to find before buying, etc? I'm looking at a Tominon 105mm f/4.5. It's not on the largeformatphotography.info list of 4x5 lenses, and I can't find much about it. Does anybody know anything about it? Specifically its coverage? I think with the landscape I do I'll probably be doing some view movements and I'd rather not be hampered too much by undercoverage. Also, is the fact that it only stops down to f/32 an issue? For a 90mm I would expect this to still have a very large dof but I don't know.

Sorry this is so much. I'm kind of overwhelmed by how much I don't know. Any help would be appreciated.

Benno

[BennoLF]

Bernice,

The camera is a Brand Camera company Brand-17
It's old as the hills and ugly as sin, but it focuses smoothly, it's solid when locked off, and the bellows don't leak(as far as my testing has shown). I have a freight train of a tripod and an accurate Gossen pilot, as well as an inaccurate Luna pro I'm working on atm. I was figuring on getting by with a blackout curtain as a darkcloth and a negative viewing loupe for gg focusing. I don't have a cable release but that's going to be based on the shutter type, no?
I can process film in my school's darkroom or in my WIP home darkroom, but I can only print at school.

What's the issue with looking at my digital images to find a good focal length is that they vary tremendously. Some are shot at 16mm FF equivalent, some at 225mm, and a spectrum between the two. I've liked shooting on a 50mm lens on my 35mm camera so far and I haven't felt too creatively cramped by it, but I haven't been out shooting landscape with it yet.

[Dan Fromm]

The 4x5 focal length that's roughly equivalent to 50 mm on full frame 35 mm is conventionally said to be 150 mm, which is 4x5's normal (= film gate's diagonal) focal length. However, 35 mm's normal focal length is actually 43 mm, that 50 mm is considered normal is due to an historical accident. The 4x5 rough equivalent to 43 mm on 35 is 174 mm.

I say rough equivalent because the two formats' aspect ratios are different. 166 mm on 4x5 has the same horizontal angle of view as 50 mm on 35.

Be conventional and ignore all this nonsense, just get a decent 150 and go shooting. If it doesn't suit you, sell it and get something more to your taste.

[Corran]

Be conventional and ignore all this nonsense, just get a decent 150 and go shooting. If it doesn't suit you, sell it and get something more to your taste.

Exactly, or a 90mm if you want the standard wide.

PS: shutter releases will be mostly standard between shutters. Some exceptions but none you need to worry about at the moment. Typical 90mm and a 150mm lenses from Schneider, Fuji, Nikon, or Rodenstock will set you back only $400 or less for the pair if you shop well.

[Bernice Loui]

+1

Get a 150mm f5.6 from any of the big four, Fujinon, Nikon, Rodenstock Schneider in a known good shutter and burn film. Need to start some where and the sooner the better.

~At some point, starring at the water in the swimming pool will not teach ya how to swim.. Gotta "Jump In" at some point.


Bernice



The 4x5 focal length that's roughly equivalent to 50 mm on full frame 35 mm is conventionally said to be 150 mm, which is 4x5's normal (= film gate's diagonal) focal length. However, 35 mm's normal focal length is actually 43 mm, that 50 mm is considered normal is due to an historical accident. The 4x5 rough equivalent to 43 mm on 35 is 174 mm.

I say rough equivalent because the two formats' aspect ratios are different. 166 mm on 4x5 has the same horizontal angle of view as 50 mm on 35.

Be conventional and ignore all this nonsense, just get a decent 150 and go shooting. If it doesn't suit you, sell it and get something more to your taste.

[Mark Stahlke]

Don't overlook the Caltar lenses. They're every bit as good as their Schneider and Rodenstock cousins and usually sell for less.

[Pere Casals]

Don't overlook the Caltar lenses. They're every bit as good as their Schneider and Rodenstock cousins and usually sell for less.

Sure that Caltar stamped lenses are good enough, but I'd prefer the same Sch/Rod lens stamped by Technika or by SINAR than by Caltar.

There was a sample performance variation in the production, and while I guess that no really defective glass was commercialized each brand had their own additional QC standards and their discounts.

It is undisclosed how production was segmentated or not by particular unit performance, but you won't find a singe Technika stamped dog, this is for sure.

[Doremus Scudder]

BennoLF,

Maybe you already know this, but there are "families" of lenses. Theses can be divided roughly into groups based on angle of view/coverage. It helps to know about this generally when choosing lenses. All the different lens designs can get a bit daunting, but here's the simplified version:

"Normal" modern lenses are Plasmats for the most part, a design that gives generous coverage in moderate to long focal lengths and has a large maximum aperture. Most modern 135-210 (and longer) lenses are Plasmats. Nikkor and Fujinon designate these lenses with a "W" (for wide...) and combinations with "W" (e.g., "CW" for the newer Fuji lenses). Schneider Plasmats are designated "Symmar"; Rodenstock, "Sironar." Later models of these lenses have other modifiers (e.g., "Super" and "Apo") but the root designation is always there. Most of these lenses have f/5.6 as maximum aperture. These lenses provide generous coverage for focal lengths of 150mm and higher. The 125-135mm Plasmats give moderate coverage. Shorter than this, and the image circle becomes too small to use on 4x5. (There are exceptions: remember, I'm speaking generally).

For shorter focal lengths (think "wide-angle" lenses) on 4x5, you need lenses with a different design, i.e., with more coverage. These lenses have different optical designs to get a greater coverage angle and are proportionally larger for a given focal length. We need these lenses for anything 100mm or shorter on 4x5. A standard focal length in this category is 90mm. 75mm and 65mm are also common. Less common are the very wide 47mm, 58mm and a few others. Nikkor and Fujinon lenses in this group are designates "SW" with or without other modifiers. Schneider lenses are "Super Angulon"; Rodenstocks in this category are "Grandagons." These lenses are made in longer focal lengths for larger film formats (e.g., 8x10), but anything longer than 120mm or so is really overkill for 4x5; the lenses are just too big, bulky and heavy compared to the Plasmats (plus they take much larger filters).

Plasmats themselves get to be too large for 4x5 in longer focal lengths too. A 300mm Plasmat is a "normal" lens on an 8x10 camera, but overkill for 4x5. It makes sense, then, that for longer focal lengths for 4x5 we can move to other lens designs or variations to get a more convenient size and still have more than enough coverage (remember, longer = more coverage, so a long lens that has a small angle of coverage still gives us a big image circle). So, for lenses longer than, say 210-240mm, we can use Tessars or modifed Plasmats that are smaller and lighter. Lenses to look for in this category are the Nikkor M series (the 300mm M f/9 is a classic; small with large coverage), the Fujinon A series (the 240mm Fuji A is also a classic) and the Schneider G-Claron lenses. There are others as well.

And, there are lots of other designs and specialized lenses out there; the above are just an incomplete overview. However, it may help you in understanding which lenses you want for your first forays into LF.

Now, for my advice, which is unabashedly personal. I'd get a 135mm Plasmat for my first lens. It's close enough to the standard "normal" 150mm that a slight crop will get you that image, but wide enough that it is really practical in tighter situations. I'd add to this something around 210mm later for the longer side and something around 90mm for the shorter side. This kit, 90mm - 135mm - 210mm, serves me well for 90% of my work.

Personal choices: My go-to 135mm lens is an old Wide-Field Ektar for it's extra coverage, but I'm really happy with my Plasmats. I'd look at the Rodenstock Apo-Sironars first, but any 135mm from the big four will be great (Nikkor W, Fujinon W or CW, Schneider Symmar or Apo-Symmar). For a 90mm look for any of the standbys from the big four (Rodenstock Grandagon, Schneider Super Angulon, Nikkor/Fujinon SW). Note that these lenses always come in two sizes, a larger-aperture f/5.6 (or f/4.5) version and a smaller f/8 (f/6.8) version. The bigger ones are too larger for me, but have greater coverage. My personal favorite is the Nikkor f/8 90mm since it has the largest coverage of the smaller-size 90s.

210mm is a bit more personal. Many like 210 Plasmats; I think they are too large. I happily use a bunch of smaller lenses in this focal length category. I have an older Ektar 203mm f/7.7 that is superb. I recommend it highly for its small size and image quality, but you need to find one in good condition. The Fujinon A 180mm is just a tad shorter, but really light and of excellent quality. The G-Claron 210mm is also really small an light as is the Nikkor M 200mm (if you can find one). The trade-off here is the small aperture; usually around f/8. A bit larger Tessar lens, like the Fujinon L 210mm, has a larger aperture and isn't quite as big as the Plasmats (I used one a lot when I lived in Europe - great lens).

There is a lot more to learn, but the above should get you started and you can learn as you go from there.

Best,

Doremus

[Vaughn]

I favor a 150mm/5.6 plasmat as a first lens. Caltar being an excellent choice for quality and cost. but as others mentioned, any of the big names as long as the shutter, most likely a Copal 0, operates smoothly and sounds/tests accurate. But a 150mm/5.6 Caltar II-N is what I used for years for 4x5 (still do, just not much 4x5 these days), so that is my bias.

A 150mm as a standard lens gives a lot of room for movements, a do-it-all general landscape lens, and is a nice jumping-off focal length once one gets a handle on the type of imagery a 4x5 is capable of.