First and second lenses for new 4x5 shooter

[Alan Klein]

I just ordered a 4x5 camera Chamonix 45m-1. I'm trying to decide on lenses. Everyone says I should get a Rodenstock APO - Sironar - S 135mm f5.6 Lens, Copal No.0 as the first standard lens. However, I find 50mm in 35mm a little confining. Also, when I shoot Mamiya RB67 6x7 medium format, the Mamiya 90mm medium format lens is probably around 45mm lens equivalent in 35mm format. So I believe the 135 would more closely match earlier preferences of mine. So then the Rodenstock APO - Sironar - S 135mm f5.6 Lens, Copal No.0 would seem to be a better match but less available. What do you think?

PS the medium format wide angle I'm using is 24mm equivalent. So for my second lens I'm thinking about either a 90mm, 80mm or 75mm. What about the second lens?

Note I shoot landscapes in color and black and white. I only scan at home and process in outside labs.

Any suggestions? Thanks. Alan

[Mark Sawyer]

Start with a 150mm. Everybody needs a "normal" lens. Later maybe buy a 90mm. If you're going to have two lenses, 135mm is awfully "inbetween", unless you add a 75mm. Be open to letting a view camera change the way you see.

But that's just me...

[JMO]

Alan, You are right that the focal length conversion between your 6x7cm MF camera and your experience with 35mm format (24x36mm film or sensor) is 2.0. Therefore, your 90mm lens for your Mamiya MF camera is equivalent to a 45mm lens for your 35mm camera. However, the proper conversion number between 4x5 LF and your 35mm format is 3.6, so that 135mm lens you describe would be equivalent to a 37.5mm focal length on your 35mm camera - which in my mind is too wide to be considered "normal." If you consider a 50mm lens to be "normal" on your 35mm camera, then 3.6 x 50 would mean a 180mm lens for your 4x5 camera will be "normal."

[Kiwi7475]

I tend to agree that 135mm is too in between. I’d look at collecting a trio like 90,150 and 240ish mm over time, perhaps starting with the 150mm.
I do landscape and I rarely use 150mm, my most used lenses are long (400mm T) and 210mm, rarely I use 90mm or 150mm. But of course that’s different for everyone....

[Peter De Smidt]

Just get one and use it for awhile. You'll soon see whether you feel the need for something different. My 4x5 landscape lens use, from most to least used, goes: 120/125, 210, 90, 300, 420, 150 with the 120/125 (the 125 is for when I'm packing light) and 210 making up 90% of what I use, but obviously this is highly personal. You're just going to have to start and find out for yourself. Buy wisely, and you won't risk too much money. 135mm to 150mm lenses are well-priced, and they tend to be excellent lenses.

[William Whitaker]

When I started in 4x5 a few years back, I chose to go with a 210 and 120mm combination. That seemed to best address the way I look at the world.
But then, several years later my favorite image to date was made with a 150mm Dagor on 4x5, so there's something to be said for that.
As always, YMMV. Get a lens - any lens - and go make photographs. You will soon find what works best for you.

[Merg Ross]

Hi Alan,

I suggest: (1) 150mm (2) 90mm (3) 210mm.

As suggested above by William, it depends on how you look at the world. I seldom use the 90mm except for architecture; however, you may want it for landscapes. My most used lens is a 210mm.

[Alan Klein]

Thanks everyone for your input. This info is helpful too because i didn't know the 3.6 ratio and was calculating wrong. So that makes a 150/3.6= 42mm equivalent which would be good for "normal".

The Rodenstock APO - Sironar - S 150mm f5.6 Lens, Copal No.0 lenses are over $1000 from Japan. Loads of people say they're the best. They multi coated which probably is important for landscapes and have other great qualities apparently. But pretty expensive. What do you think for my purposes of landscapes? I don't do architecture. And if I do some portraits, I'll get a another lens.

[lassethomas]

Thanks everyone for your input. This info is helpful too because i didn't know the 3.6 ratio and was calculating wrong. So that makes a 150/3.6= 42mm equivalent which would be good for "normal".

The Rodenstock APO - Sironar - S 150mm f5.6 Lens, Copal No.0 lenses are over $1000 from Japan. Loads of people say they're the best. They multi coated which probably is important for landscapes and have other great qualities apparently. But pretty expensive. What do you think for my purposes of landscapes? I don't do architecture. And if I do some portraits, I'll get a another lens.

I think that is way too much for a first lens.

This looks much more appropriate

https://www.ebay.com/itm/EXC-5-Optical-MINT-Schneider-APO-SYMMAR-150mm-F5-6-MC-Large-Format-JAPAN-11/264452229098?epid=101743000&_trkparms=ispr%3D1&hash=item3d9294c7ea:g:TQQAAOSwUPxdbl5B&enc=AQAEAAACQBPxNw%2BVj6nta7CKEs3N0qWr%2FkXdNrI7Q%2FOZODpL0n2ppVrGDNGJ7KGrZ92CiyrmllvaGiIBbiDKsycHeKVUiEGqEqmw8yw6UIcgbwHvb2I3s8T2MBxnYLoBXz4D6kDAWGZyQ6k87M2TuCNkiJ3yuC1Z1qNGhtlo3KrIq%2FWOUjJdu0UHSROZ2xi0COXLWa48ppeQ3ag22SnmeFCAx%2B6%2F3ekeS9%2FHT9NXwaaHEEdASIzQqiv7QwaCOHvz1iWeaC%2FTUv7zXBu9%2BnbqfWsFizlEqx9o6jawFaeMIMQlA7hvecwlmnKXCooWNXs9wb5DSRNgJAxva3dOR73RHrJY0E5%2B%2F0%2B%2BqA8v3fgoi5yX%2F%2BBYV23RKaO51ZOCDBWT51ygii5hywTZAYeVSfSX3JYLKwvVKkeYjMdlTdVCMs6VG9EEl4UHnZabExnbsQvpZ7uOEM0mOWZzHfJWcwf0S19TJlToBANKgWyRN%2Fisc1ShdIHNwuZ0tJviN%2BQDmqu6YECnozZ%2BD8avfsNOdpxu2RhQKo6zQ9tv9dfetW6CgTDb2diHQvzz4UbGM6%2FlT6UmHxEpemXgkDrCuT7kNIkxp6mWyDOhkwsOb6MTEkAvt0gulq4wVeChWZZTun4qi9XXv03Fu%2BcjzC0Mm%2B0Y5ayxAdqM5pF%2B8erIImsQYuNl9o6Oy82oSmbooM5r8pYbiFoTUYoRN95tBHQu3HMz5NmLKnYy0H08WAMp5KNZrWrAFUpAvITtLt6li0LLchnV6KXJftxZXd%2F8YA%3D%3D&checksum=26445222909800450310297f48caaec5f74ab7e61553&enc=AQAEAAACQBPxNw%2BVj6nta7CKEs3N0qWr%2FkXdNrI7Q%2FOZODpL0n2ppVrGDNGJ7KGrZ92CiyrmllvaGiIBbiDKsycHeKVUiEGqEqmw8yw6UIcgbwHvb2I3s8T2MBxnYLoBXz4D6kDAWGZyQ6k87M2TuCNkiJ3yuC1Z1qNGhtlo3KrIq%2FWOUjJdu0UHSROZ2xi0COXLWa48ppeQ3ag22SnmeFCAx%2B6%2F3ekeS9%2FHT9NXwaaHEEdASIzQqiv7QwaCOHvz1iWeaC%2FTUv7zXBu9%2BnbqfWsFizlEqx9o6jawFaeMIMQlA7hvecwlmnKXCooWNXs9wb5DSRNgJAxva3dOR73RHrJY0E5%2B%2F0%2B%2BqA8v3fgoi5yX%2F%2BBYV23RKaO51ZOCDBWT51ygii5hywTZAYeVSfSX3JYLKwvVKkeYjMdlTdVCMs6VG9EEl4UHnZabExnbsQvpZ7uOEM0mOWZzHfJWcwf0S19TJlToBANKgWyRN%2Fisc1ShdIHNwuZ0tJviN%2BQDmqu6YECnozZ%2BD8avfsNOdpxu2RhQKo6zQ9tv9dfetW6CgTDb2diHQvzz4UbGM6%2FlT6UmHxEpemXgkDrCuT7kNIkxp6mWyDOhkwsOb6MTEkAvt0gulq4wVeChWZZTun4qi9XXv03Fu%2BcjzC0Mm%2B0Y5ayxAdqM5pF%2B8erIImsQYuNl9o6Oy82oSmbooM5r8pYbiFoTUYoRN95tBHQu3HMz5NmLKnYy0H08WAMp5KNZrWrAFUpAvITtLt6li0LLchnV6KXJftxZXd%2F8YA%3D%3D&checksum=26445222909800450310297f48caaec5f74ab7e61553

[Alan Klein]

Hi Alan,

I suggest: (1) 150mm (2) 90mm (3) 210mm.

As suggested above by William, it depends on how you look at the world. I seldom use the 90mm except for architecture; however, you may want it for landscapes. My most used lens is a 210mm.

Merg, I bought your book in 2017, Beyond Casual Vision. It's wonderful. I appreciate you including a note hoping to give me "pleasure and inspiration". It may be the incentive I needed to give LF a chance. Which BW film would you suggest for me to start on? I'm really into beautiful mid-tones and transitions of tones throughout the range. Your Mono Lake 2003 and Agave California, 2015 are examples. And I'm not afraid of dark shadows either. They add mystery and there's usually not much of interest in them anyways.

[Alan Klein]

I think that is way too much for a first lens.

This looks much more appropriate

https://www.ebay.com/itm/EXC-5-Optical-MINT-Schneider-APO-SYMMAR-150mm-F5-6-MC-Large-Format-JAPAN-11/264452229098?epid=101743000&_trkparms=ispr%3D1&hash=item3d9294c7ea:g:TQQAAOSwUPxdbl5B&enc=AQAEAAACQBPxNw%2BVj6nta7CKEs3N0qWr%2FkXdNrI7Q%2FOZODpL0n2ppVrGDNGJ7KGrZ92CiyrmllvaGiIBbiDKsycHeKVUiEGqEqmw8yw6UIcgbwHvb2I3s8T2MBxnYLoBXz4D6kDAWGZyQ6k87M2TuCNkiJ3yuC1Z1qNGhtlo3KrIq%2FWOUjJdu0UHSROZ2xi0COXLWa48ppeQ3ag22SnmeFCAx%2B6%2F3ekeS9%2FHT9NXwaaHEEdASIzQqiv7QwaCOHvz1iWeaC%2FTUv7zXBu9%2BnbqfWsFizlEqx9o6jawFaeMIMQlA7hvecwlmnKXCooWNXs9wb5DSRNgJAxva3dOR73RHrJY0E5%2B%2F0%2B%2BqA8v3fgoi5yX%2F%2BBYV23RKaO51ZOCDBWT51ygii5hywTZAYeVSfSX3JYLKwvVKkeYjMdlTdVCMs6VG9EEl4UHnZabExnbsQvpZ7uOEM0mOWZzHfJWcwf0S19TJlToBANKgWyRN%2Fisc1ShdIHNwuZ0tJviN%2BQDmqu6YECnozZ%2BD8avfsNOdpxu2RhQKo6zQ9tv9dfetW6CgTDb2diHQvzz4UbGM6%2FlT6UmHxEpemXgkDrCuT7kNIkxp6mWyDOhkwsOb6MTEkAvt0gulq4wVeChWZZTun4qi9XXv03Fu%2BcjzC0Mm%2B0Y5ayxAdqM5pF%2B8erIImsQYuNl9o6Oy82oSmbooM5r8pYbiFoTUYoRN95tBHQu3HMz5NmLKnYy0H08WAMp5KNZrWrAFUpAvITtLt6li0LLchnV6KXJftxZXd%2F8YA%3D%3D&checksum=26445222909800450310297f48caaec5f74ab7e61553&enc=AQAEAAACQBPxNw%2BVj6nta7CKEs3N0qWr%2FkXdNrI7Q%2FOZODpL0n2ppVrGDNGJ7KGrZ92CiyrmllvaGiIBbiDKsycHeKVUiEGqEqmw8yw6UIcgbwHvb2I3s8T2MBxnYLoBXz4D6kDAWGZyQ6k87M2TuCNkiJ3yuC1Z1qNGhtlo3KrIq%2FWOUjJdu0UHSROZ2xi0COXLWa48ppeQ3ag22SnmeFCAx%2B6%2F3ekeS9%2FHT9NXwaaHEEdASIzQqiv7QwaCOHvz1iWeaC%2FTUv7zXBu9%2BnbqfWsFizlEqx9o6jawFaeMIMQlA7hvecwlmnKXCooWNXs9wb5DSRNgJAxva3dOR73RHrJY0E5%2B%2F0%2B%2BqA8v3fgoi5yX%2F%2BBYV23RKaO51ZOCDBWT51ygii5hywTZAYeVSfSX3JYLKwvVKkeYjMdlTdVCMs6VG9EEl4UHnZabExnbsQvpZ7uOEM0mOWZzHfJWcwf0S19TJlToBANKgWyRN%2Fisc1ShdIHNwuZ0tJviN%2BQDmqu6YECnozZ%2BD8avfsNOdpxu2RhQKo6zQ9tv9dfetW6CgTDb2diHQvzz4UbGM6%2FlT6UmHxEpemXgkDrCuT7kNIkxp6mWyDOhkwsOb6MTEkAvt0gulq4wVeChWZZTun4qi9XXv03Fu%2BcjzC0Mm%2B0Y5ayxAdqM5pF%2B8erIImsQYuNl9o6Oy82oSmbooM5r8pYbiFoTUYoRN95tBHQu3HMz5NmLKnYy0H08WAMp5KNZrWrAFUpAvITtLt6li0LLchnV6KXJftxZXd%2F8YA%3D%3D&checksum=26445222909800450310297f48caaec5f74ab7e61553

Thanks for the recommendation. Is a 98.9% rating good enough from Japan? Also, the only thing they says is: "“Appearance： Excellent+++++.Optical:MINT.” Nothing else. Others tell you about dust fungus etc. How do you handle buying these old lenses?

[Alan Klein]

Lasse: Here's a similar lens where the seller describes it better. It double the price but then.... Are both these lenses Copal 0 and coated?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Top-Mint-Schneider-APO-Symmar-150mm-F5-6-L-75-MC-Copal-0-From-Japan-2201/163688602018?_trkparms=aid%3D1110001%26algo%3DSPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D20160323102634%26meid%3Df9bf1676c3934c9b9c1d751b937b5ad1%26pid%3D100623%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D264452229098%26itm%3D163688602018%26pmt%3D1%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D2047675&_trksid=p2047675.c100623.m-1

[Alan Klein]

The seller is also 100%

[lassethomas]

Thanks for the recommendation. Is a 98.9% rating good enough from Japan? Also, the only thing they says is: "“Appearance： Excellent+++++.Optical:MINT.” Nothing else. Others tell you about dust fungus etc. How do you handle buying these old lenses?

OK. I didn't check the seller. 98.9 is perhaps in the lower span of acceptable I think.

But the description is descriptive
There is no fog.
There is no fungus.
There is no scratches.
There is no separation.

Nothing about the shutter performance though, more that it works properly. You could ask about that.

[lassethomas]

Lasse: Here's a similar lens where the seller describes it better. It double the price but then.... Are both these lenses Copal 0 and coated?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Top-Mint-Schneider-APO-Symmar-150mm-F5-6-L-75-MC-Copal-0-From-Japan-2201/163688602018?_trkparms=aid%3D1110001%26algo%3DSPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D20160323102634%26meid%3Df9bf1676c3934c9b9c1d751b937b5ad1%26pid%3D100623%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D264452229098%26itm%3D163688602018%26pmt%3D1%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D2047675&_trksid=p2047675.c100623.m-1

Both are multicoated, that's what the MC stands for.
And both are Copal 0.

And the first link had a similar description.
I would go with the cheaper one, but that's me :)

[Two23]

I've bought several moderately expensive things from Japan, including a pristine Nikon F3T. I've never been disappointed. As for lens selection I started with 90/180/300mm. The idea was to double up focal length. Since I bought the original trio I've returned to shooting interiors of abandoned houses and for that I bought a Nikon 75mm f4.5. I also found I had to choose between 90mm and 180mm often so I bought a Rodenstock 135mm f5.6. That one might be my most used lens now.


Kent in SD

[Merg Ross]

Merg, I bought your book in 2017, Beyond Casual Vision. It's wonderful. I appreciate you including a note hoping to give me "pleasure and inspiration". It may be the incentive I needed to give LF a chance. Which BW film would you suggest for me to start on? I'm really into beautiful mid-tones and transitions of tones throughout the range. Your Mono Lake 2003 and Agave California, 2015 are examples. And I'm not afraid of dark shadows either. They add mystery and there's usually not much of interest in them anyways.

Alan, thank you for mentioning my note and book. You sound inspired, and I'm sure the pleasure will follow (likely after some frustration). Take your time, ask a lot of questions, and you will be rewarded!

As to the film I used for the two photographs referenced in my book, both were on Ilford FP4+. It would be my choice, and has been for several decades. By the way, the Mono Lake photograph was made with the longest lens I own for 4x5, namely a Schneider G-Claron f.9/270mm. I would give serious thought to making your first lens a 150mm. From there, you can decide if you want to go longer or wider; the 150mm will be useful much of the time. You likely will end up with three lenses. Enjoy!

[Mark Sawyer]

I'd check the sales section here. This tends to be much more of a community where people won't cheat or gouge you. Ebay can be a shark tank. KEH also has a good reputation and prices.

Most any modern "name brand" lens will have great performance. Shutter consistency and reliability are the most important. Coatings are important vs uncoated, but an old single-coating will have 98% of the performance of the newest multi-coating.

These would be a great two-lens combination:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?155915-FS-Rodenstock-APO-Sironar-N-100mm-F-5-6-lens-in-Copal-N-0-0-shutter

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?155866-NOS-New-Old-Stock-Never-Used-Rodenstock-APO-Sironar-N-180mm-Lens!

[Alan Klein]

Alan, thank you for mentioning my note and book. You sound inspired, and I'm sure the pleasure will follow (likely after some frustration). Take your time, ask a lot of questions, and you will be rewarded!

As to the film I used for the two photographs referenced in my book, both were on Ilford FP4+. It would be my choice, and has been for several decades. By the way, the Mono Lake photograph was made with the longest lens I own for 4x5, namely a Schneider G-Claron f.9/270mm. I would give serious thought to making your first lens a 150mm. From there, you can decide if you want to go longer or wider; the 150mm will be useful much of the time. You likely will end up with three lenses. Enjoy!

Thanks. The 4x5 camera Chamonix 45H-1 has been shipped. It's a gift for myself. I'll be 75 in February. ;) I'm looking at a Schneider APO SYMMAR 150mm F5.6 MC for my first lens. Made in 1996 or so. What do you think?

What about a dark cloth. Everyone's got their opinion as to which one is best. I have no idea.

Ditto with cable release - length, type, locking???

What do others think too?

[Peter Lewin]

Alan, you and AdamD seem to be on the same search at the same time! Merg's advice is (as you would expect) spot on. But you don't need a Rodenstock App 150, any 150 from the "big 4" (Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon, Fuji) will be an excellent first lens. (The problem with the 135, as I posted to AdamD, is the smaller image circle which will severely limit your use of view camera movements.) Then, again as Merg writes, your second lens depends entirely on your vision and most common uses. If you often find that you want to pull your subject closer to you (but can't simply walk forwards), or you like to isolate elements in the scene, your next lens would be longer, the 210. If you find that you usually want more "territory" in the image and can't simply move backwards, or you are working a lot in restricted spaces, such as indoors, your second lens would be wider, the 90 (my own is an 80mm). But really use the 150 for a while so that you have a basis for picking a second lens. (Ultimately you may well end up as many of us have, with a bunch of lenses from wide to long; my own collection goes 80, 120, 150, 180, 210, 300 and each has a "best use" either in terms of focal length or compactness of the lens for backpacking.)

[Two23]

I've found dark cloth to be more of a pain than a help. They get in the way, the wind blows them around. I was out photo'ing country churches yesterday and simply used a black jacket. I have a couple of them I got as a package deal but just never found them helpful with 4x5. Will have to recheck when my 8x10 comes as that's a much bigger chunk of equipment. I started out with lenses: 90mm f5.6 Super Angulon, 180mm Fuji f5.6, 300mm Rodenstock Geronar f9. I went to 90mm f4.5 Nikon and 300mm Nikon M f9. I found the 90mm wasn't wide enough shooting the interiors of abandoned houses and some landscapes so I bought a Nikon 75mm f4.5. Might eventually upgrade that to Super Angulon XL 72mm to get a bigger image circle. Also discovered I was constantly wishing for something between 90mm and 180mm, so I bought a Rodenstock 135mm. I use that quite a bit now. My point is I started with a set that roughly doubled focal length and then fine tuned my lens selection to match what I photo'd. Would I be happy with a 150mm instead of a 180mm? Most likely. There isn't that much difference. Think of them in terms of a Nikon DSLR, it's like the difference between a 50mm and a 60mm, roughly. I sometimes use these modern Copal mounted lenses, but I also have a set of uncoated lenses from 1910-1930 for when I shoot dry plates, and a set from 1844 to 1880 for when I shoot wet plate. And that's the thing about large format--they are extremely versatile. I can shoot virtually any lens (that covers) made in any period of history, and I can use any medium from the very beginnings of photography to current times. All with the same camera! It gives me a lot of options. It's not like owning a Hassleblad and only being able to shoot film using Hassleblad lenses.


Kent in SD

[Alan Klein]

Alan, you and AdamD seem to be on the same search at the same time! Merg's advice is (as you would expect) spot on. But you don't need a Rodenstock App 150, any 150 from the "big 4" (Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon, Fuji) will be an excellent first lens. (The problem with the 135, as I posted to AdamD, is the smaller image circle which will severely limit your use of view camera movements.) Then, again as Merg writes, your second lens depends entirely on your vision and most common uses. If you often find that you want to pull your subject closer to you (but can't simply walk forwards), or you like to isolate elements in the scene, your next lens would be longer, the 210. If you find that you usually want more "territory" in the image and can't simply move backwards, or you are working a lot in restricted spaces, such as indoors, your second lens would be wider, the 90 (my own is an 80mm). But really use the 150 for a while so that you have a basis for picking a second lens. (Ultimately you may well end up as many of us have, with a bunch of lenses from wide to long; my own collection goes 80, 120, 150, 180, 210, 300 and each has a "best use" either in terms of focal length or compactness of the lens for backpacking.)
Thanks Peter for you info. I was looking at the Rodenstock 150 APO f/5.6 Sironar S MC. But they're around $1300 and up for the better ones. Pretty expensive. So now I'm looking at Schneider 150 APO F/5.6 Symmar MC. They're in the range of around $350 to $800.

[Merg Ross]

Thanks Peter for you info. I was looking at the Rodenstock 150 APO f/5.6 Sironar S MC. But they're around $1300 and up for the better ones. Pretty expensive. So now I'm looking at Schneider 150 APO F/5.6 Symmar MC. They're in the range of around $350 to $800.

Alan, now you're in the ballpark for price, and a Schneider 150 APO f.5.6 Symmar MC would be a good choice, in my opinion. I have the 210mm version and it is excellent. Remember, this is your first large format lens, and there really is no "best" lens. But the 150mm is where you should be looking.

[Corran]

150mm APO Symmar was my first lens and I still have/use it. Paid $300, probably available less now.

[Alan Klein]

Schneider Kreuznach Apo Symmar 150mm F/5.6 MC Lens from Japan 100% seller $520. Near mint. Good price? I couldn't get him down. I'l pulled the trigger and bought it.

[Corran]

Plenty available for less...
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=apo+symmar+150mm&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&_sop=15

Put out a WTB ad here.

[Merg Ross]

Schneider Kreuznach Apo Symmar 150mm F/5.6 MC Lens from Japan 100% seller $520. Near mint. Good price? I couldn't get him down. I'l pulled the trigger and bought it.

Good choice. It will serve you well.

Do you have film holders?

[Alan Klein]

Good choice. It will serve you well.

Do you have film holders?

Yes. 6. New from Chamonix to go with the new 4x5 Chamonix camera I bought. And my wife is still smiling. So far so good. Heck it is my 75th birthday next month. Starting this creative project I feel a little like Grandma Moses.

[Alan Klein]

Alan, thank you for mentioning my note and book. You sound inspired, and I'm sure the pleasure will follow (likely after some frustration). Take your time, ask a lot of questions, and you will be rewarded!

As to the film I used for the two photographs referenced in my book, both were on Ilford FP4+. It would be my choice, and has been for several decades. By the way, the Mono Lake photograph was made with the longest lens I own for 4x5, namely a Schneider G-Claron f.9/270mm. I would give serious thought to making your first lens a 150mm. From there, you can decide if you want to go longer or wider; the 150mm will be useful much of the time. You likely will end up with three lenses. Enjoy!

I like wide angle. Here's 50mm medium format with an 35mm camera equivalent 24mm lens. https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=50mm&user_id=55760757%40N05&view_all=1

Someone mentioned that you use a factor of 3.6x from 35mm equivalent lenses to figure out the 4x5 lens. Is that your understanding too?
So I suppose, a 90mm in 4x5 would be the selection to get the same 24mm equivalent.

I don;t like wide angel greater than that because they distort too much. On the other hand, now with LF and movements, can I remove those distortions and think along the lines of a 75mm which would be a 21mm equivalent?

[Bob Salomon]

I like wide angle. Here's 50mm medium format with an 35mm camera equivalent 24mm lens. https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=50mm&user_id=55760757%40N05&view_all=1

Someone mentioned that you use a factor of 3.6x from 35mm equivalent lenses to figure out the 4x5 lens. Is that your understanding too?
So I suppose, a 90mm in 4x5 would be the selection to get the same 24mm equivalent.

I don;t like wide angel greater than that because they distort too much. On the other hand, now with LF and movements, can I remove those distortions and think along the lines of a 75mm which would be a 21mm equivalent?

35mm is a long, narrow format. 45 is short and squat.

Use the horizontal angle of coverage to compare equivalent focal lengths.

Lenses wider then 75mm from major manufacturers do not distort.
The angle of the camera back to the subject is used to correct keystoning which is more apparent with wider lenses.

[Alan Klein]

Plenty available for less...
...

Put out a WTB ad here.

Bryan, Thanks for your input. I decided on the more expensive unit because the lens looked cleaner in the pictures and the Japanese seller was rated at 100% on eBay regarding no complaints. Also, he wouldn't budge like the other sellers to lower his price when I offered to pay less. The other's lowered theirs. So either he's a better poker player and bluffs better than me or he believe his prices are very fair and can't reduce his prices. I like to think it's the latter and that I made a fair deal at the right price.

[Alan Klein]

35mm is a long, narrow format. 45 is short and squat.

Use the horizontal angle of coverage to compare equivalent focal lengths.

Lenses wider then 75mm from major manufacturers do not distort.
The angle of the camera back to the subject is used to correct keystoning which is more apparent with wider lenses.

Thanks Bob, Yes that's what I meant. Not distort. Keystoning. It can't be corrected with my medium format roll camera. But you're telling me that I'll be able to correct it with the new 4x5. That's great. So I might select a wider angle than before. No rush. Let me get use to shooting with the 150. I'll decide on other lenses later. For me, the angele of coverage horizontally in degrees is a better guideline. Where could I find comparisons between 35mm, MF and 4x5?

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks Bob, Yes that's what I meant. Not distort. Keystoning. It can't be corrected with my medium format roll camera. But you're telling me that I'll be able to correct it with the new 4x5. That's great. So I might select a wider angle than before. No rush. Let me get use to shooting with the 150. I'll decide on other lenses later. For me, the angele of coverage horizontally in degrees is a better guideline. Where could I find comparisons between 35mm, MF and 4x5?

As long as your camera has back movements you can correct or create the effect. Back movements control the shape of the subject as well as doing Scheimpflug control. Front movements can not correct subject shape.

[Corran]

As long as your camera has back movements you can correct or create the effect. Back movements control the shape of the subject as well as doing Scheimpflug control. Front movements can not correct subject shape.

One does not need back movements to correct keystoning...merely front rise/fall to change the composition as needed w/o tilting the camera from parallel!

And, if one wanted to induce this instead of correct, simply leaning the camera backward/foreward and using front tilt to "correct" the tilt and/or get focus correct is just as valid as rear movements...in fact rear movements are no different than front movements, given that you can simply tilt the camera and get the same back/front standard relationships.

[Two23]

One does not need back movements to correct keystoning...merely front rise/fall to change the composition as needed w/o tilting the camera from parallel!




Yes. I do this all-the-time. It's why I bought into 4x5 in the first place, and have the Nikon 24mm PC-E for my Nikon D850. Front rise is easily my most used movement. As for very wide angle lenses (wider than 90mm) it's generally suggested you get a center filter (expensive) to even out exposure. I have a 75mm but simply get rid of the vignetting using PS after scanning. Lenses wider than 90mm are a different beast and take some practice.


Kent in SD

[Two23]

Where could I find comparisons between 35mm, MF and 4x5?

Roughly compared to a Nikon 35mm camera, for medium format (645) add ~50% to the 35mm lens (e.g. Nikon 50mm is rough equivalent to a 75mm MF.) For 4x5 you triple the 35mm focal length (e.g. Nikon 50mm is rough equivalent to 150mm Rodenstock etc.) Here's a chart that works backwards: https://lensn2shutter.com/35mmchart.html. Here's another: http://www.toyoview.com/LensSelection/lensselect.html, and https://www.timlaytonfineart.com/large-format-lens-conversions.pdf.


Kent in SD

[Tobias Key]

One of things nobody has mentioned is lens choice in large format is partly dictated by the fact that lenses longer than 210mm and wider than 90mm are somewhat more difficult to use. 90mm lenses have decent coverage, don't compress the bellows too much and the ground glass image is still quite bright. I have a 75mm late model super angulon. It has much less coverage than a 90mm, it either needs a recessed board (horrible to use) or a bag bellows (can't close focus my 210mm if I use them). The image on the ground glass is very dim in the corners making composition difficult. There are also disadvantages to going longer than 210mm. Most bright lenses 240mm and up use a big No.3 shutter, so you are limited to a 1/125 top speed, they are a tight fit on smaller boards, and their size and weight puts a strain on the front standard of a lightweight field camera. So if you want (in relative terms) an easy to use 4x5 kit then 90mm is your wide lens and 210mm your long lens. On that basis 150mm fits bang in the middle so is the logical choice for a standard lens in a 3 lens kit. If you want a two lens kit then a 120,125 or 135 with a 210 might make more sense.

[Corran]

On the flip-side, the Chamonix cameras are very capable of handling most lenses you would want to use in the field. I have used a 47mm XL up to 720mm telephoto on my Chamonix.

[Alan Klein]

Regarding heavy lenses with the Chamonix 45H-1 that I just ordered, here's what they say:
A few pointers regarding the use of 45H cameras with heavy lenses:

1. Our 45H-1 and 45Hs-1 cameras are designed differently than our 45N-2 and 45F1 cameras. To increase the precision of the camera, we have used a linear focus track. A side effect of this feature is low friction in the camera bed, especially when the camera is tilted with a heavy lens.

2. You may consider using the following two steps to focus when your camera is not in a level position.

The first step: Loosen all the knob locks and use only your eyes (without a loupe) for the initial composition and focusing, then tighten the focus knob locks half way gradually.

The second step: Keep the locks half tightened as it is the only way the focus knobs maintain enough friction. Then use a loupe for fine focus and completely tighten the focus locks after the focus process is finished. Please remember to use one hand to hold the focus knob while the other hand is used to tighten the focus locks, otherwise slight focus shift will occur due to the worm effect of the screw-focus feature.

http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/cameras/45h1

[Alan Klein]

Hugo Zhang from Chamonix provided this guideline to me for longer lenses in my question regarding whether to choose the H1 or F2.

"...45F2 if you plan to use your 450mm lens and 45h1 for fast setup if your longest lens is not over 350mm. "

[md-photo]

Agree with Kent. The view with the 90 f8 I have seems to correspond most closely to that from my Nikon 28 3.5 PC lens, so ~3X seems the right factor.


Roughly compared to a Nikon 35mm camera, for medium format (645) add ~50% to the 35mm lens (e.g. Nikon 50mm is rough equivalent to a 75mm MF.) For 4x5 you triple the 35mm focal length (e.g. Nikon 50mm is rough equivalent to 150mm Rodenstock etc.) Here's a chart that works backwards: https://lensn2shutter.com/35mmchart.html. Here's another: http://www.toyoview.com/LensSelection/lensselect.html, and https://www.timlaytonfineart.com/large-format-lens-conversions.pdf.


Kent in SD