4x5 Starter Lens

[giganova]

Hi all --

New on this forum, first post, and hi to everyone!

I've been an analogue photographer (35 and 120 film, Leicas and Mamiya RZ67) since the 80s and have always developed my own film. I just realized my life-long dream and purchased a LF camera, a refurbished Linhof Super Technika V that is on its way to me. Now I need a lens or better, lenses! ;) I'd be using the 4x5 mostly for landscapes and occasional portraits.

My favorite 135 lenses are 35mm, which I guess would be similar to a 100-120mm lens at 4x5? I've been searching Ebay but couldn't find many lenses in that medium-wide rage, the few that I found were very expensive (over $1k), and almost all were from Japan.

Do you have any recommendations what I should get? I read Kerry Thalman's "Future Classics" article. Beautiful lenses but not exactly cheap. Any recommendations for a medium-wide lens that doesn't break the bank? Or do you think I'd be better served with a 90mm + 150mm combo? Or maybe get a cheap 150mm to get my feet wet and then start building a lens collection from there?

Sorry for these basic questions, but LF photography is a completely different beast even for someone like me who knows every Leica lens ever built. :rolleyes:

Thanks for your help!

[giganova]

Here's a picture a recently took in Argentina. I guess I won't see that much grain in my future 4x5 photos :)

202951

[Corran]

90 / 150 / 210 is the standard-issue recommendation. Anything from Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon, or Fuji will be just fine. You don't need the higher-cost lenses with massive image circles until you know you need them.

My first lens was a 150mm f/5.6 Schneider APO Symmar, and I paid $400 for it 10 years ago. I still have it and it's my go-to 150mm lens for most general images. The older Symmar-S model will be just about as good for 1/2 the price. Any lens you find in this category, there will be a corresponding 210mm model, so the same applies.

Any 90mm f/8 lens will serve you well. The Nikkor 90mm f/8 is the "gold-standard" for field use, but there's others that are just about as good and some options for wider-aperture lenses and the like.

The midrange 105mm-135mm is a bit more limited, for whatever reason. There are some standout 120mm lenses, like the Nikkor 120mm f/8, but that's a bigger lens than a 150mm. IMO stick with 150mm or maybe a 135mm if you want a tad bit wider, and then jump straight to 90mm. There's also an expensive 110mm lens from Schneider, but you probably have no reason to start with that lens. Finally, you may want to find a set of lenses that are compatible with whatever filter set(s) you have/use.

In summary, buy a 150mm of any stripe from the "Big 4" and get to shooting, and workout what you need from there. Side-note, check out "Calumet" lenses for lenses often rebranded from those 4 big companies, you might find a deal.

PS: you will have access to Classifieds here in a month.

[Two23]

For you I suggest a 90mm and a 180mm to start. These are very versatile. I have slowly added to where I have 75, 90, 135, 180, 300. I took six photos today of small towns and landscapes. I used the 90mm or 180mm for all of them.


Kent in SD

[Havoc]

Like you my most used lens on 135 film is the 35mm. So I feel most at home with a 125mm on 4x5. This lens always comes out with me. I choose a Fujinon CM-W 125/5.6. Can't say it was that expensive.

[Huub]

In my experience translating your preferences from 35mm and medium format lenses to large format focal lengths is only of limited value, mainly because working with a large format camera asks for quite a different approach. Where as in 35mm the 28mm and 21mm lenses are my most favourite, in 4x5 the 110mm, 150mm and 240mm are those that get most use. It asks for a bit of trial and error to find out what your preferences will be. Luckely you can buy lenses and sell them again mostly at the same price, so there is little risk involved.

The standard set is as Corran already stated 90 / 150 / 210, where there ain't much quality differences by the four lens makers he named. In this set i have always found the distance between the 90mm and then 150mm bigger then between the latter and the 210mm, which resulted in replacing my 210mm with a 240mm. Another option would have been to replace the 150mm by a 135 mm. Eventually i found a good deal on that Schneider 110mm, so i added that one as well.

Another thing to consider is your filter size: the f4.5 and f5.6 90mm's are big lenses that need big and expensive filters, one of the reasons i settled on 67mm as a maximum filter size and thus limiting my choices to the f6.8 and f8 90mm. For landscape photography these work as good as the bigger ones in my experiences.

A third thing to point is multi-coating. It is not really necessary, but i feel it does add a bit when shooting landscapes into the sun and in other situations with difficult light.

And lastly: most of us have good experiences with buying from Japan and the few lenses and other stuff i got from that country all met their description in the add and were in excellent shape.

[mdarnton]

There's a tendency in LF to lust after the most modern, exotic, and expensive lenses possible, Super-Whammy XXXL Mega-Coated Apos, then complain that they are too expensive. I have built several kits around cheaper old lenses and they work just fine, just as they did when they were first made and no one complained. The earliest Fuji-W lenses are great, with very large image circles and very inexpensive. I see that 120/8 Super Angulons are now inexpensive, as is the 125mm Fujinon-W. 120mm Angulons are compact and inexpensive. If you want a solid more modern lens, the 115mm/6.8 Rodenstock/Caltar is a fine lens that offers a lot more than you need, and it may not fit your camera. About the Fuji line in general the most common complaint is that they are "too sharp", whatever that means. We're not even talking about my favorite lenses, which are mainly from the 1940s through 60s!

Your portrait needs could be met by a 210/5.6 lens, and there are many choices for that, any of them good enough, no matter how old they are, even back into the 1950s Symmars, though for portraits my tastes lean even farther back to Tessar-formula lenses, with their cushy background focus characteristics.

I completely agree with Huub above--you may well find that your choice of lenses in LF is very different from 35mm! My favorite 35mm lenses are ultra-wides, mainly around 21mm and shortrer, and I never use anything longer than 50mm, ever, but for larger formats I favor a quite different style, not as wide and also not as varied! When I started, I stocked up on LF ultrawide lenses and have hardly used any of them!

So if I were you, I'd start with one lens, your best guess, which sounds like a 120mm, then see where you want to go from there rather than going all-in and spend all your money at the start on things you may not use. As things stand now, I could probably be happy with just my 108mm wide angle Raptar and a 210mm, nothing else. I have a boat-load of cheaply-bought 90s that I have not used once. On 5x7 virtually the only lenses I ever use are a 150mm Fuji-W and 300mm Ilex Paragon (a Tessar formula) which scale out to about the same. Everything else sits at work in the vault.

[Jim Jones]

Huub gives fine advice. The Technika needs lenses with wide coverage to make the most use of the front movements. For most landscapes and portraits, one usually needs little or no movements, and compact and inexpensive press camera lenses may suffice. Unlike some of the lenses with wide coverage, they usually fit into the camera when it is closed.

Your personal experiences are more valuable to you than our advice. Don't invest heavily in lenses until you recognize the limitations of your first lenses.

[giganova]

Thank you all for your suggestion and advice!

I ended up getting a Schneider 180mm f5.6 Apo-Symmar MC that didn't break the bank and thought it would be a good "all-round" lens to start with portraits and some landscapes where I don't need the wide field of view.

[Luis-F-S]

I’d look at Caltar lenses. Good and reasonably priced and I doubt you’d see any difference between them and the latest greatest apo thingies without a loupe!

[Alan Gales]

I've got a Schneider 121mm Super Angulon that I paid about $175 for on eBay. It feels like a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera to me. It's a bit large but has huge coverage for 4x5. I've seen a number of them on eBay sell for similar prices since. Sometimes you have to be patient to find what you want.

[Greg Y]

Giganova, I may have mentioned this one over at Rff, I used a Congo 120 on my 5x7 before i got a wide angle Dagor. This one's worth a try because it is in the last series (all-black) Copal shutter. Even if you go on to other lenses, it's worth having a spare shutter since they're not being made any more. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Osaka-Wide-Field-120mm-f-6-3-Lens-for-4x5-excellent-in-80mm-lens-board-Copal-0/233451475282?hash=item365acad152:g:yRAAAOSw7oBeC2Cz It's a very small lens & may well be able to close the Linhof with this one mounted.

[Randy]

My favorite 135 lenses are 35mm, which I guess would be similar to a 100-120mm lens at 4x5?

Years ago I purchased a Caltar II-N (re-branded Rodenstock) 115mm f/6.8 for use with 5X7. Purchased it from Kerry actually. It may fit your use for a wide angle. It is kind of large due to the f/6.8 I guess, but coverage is huge - will just barely cover 8X10.

[Bruce Watson]

My favorite 135 lenses are 35mm, which I guess would be similar to a 100-120mm lens at 4x5?
...
Do you have any recommendations what I should get?

I recommend that your first lens be a 150mm, a "normal" lens. Yes, yes, yes, I know you didn't even own such a lens in 135 format. But this isn't 135 format. With LF you have separated the film plane from the lens plane. You've got to learn how to use camera movements. And to do that, you have to be able to see the effects of movements on the ground glass. The shorter the lens the smaller the elements of the scene are on the ground glass, and the harder it is to see the changes that come from using movements.

Starting out with a short lens will increase the time and effort you spend learning movements. Been there, done that. Learn from my mistakes. Or don't.

And yes, I refused owning a "normal" lens in the 135 world too. I could frame with my feet as it were, and I was taught to use all the film area I could because the 135 frame is so small. But in LF (5x4 in my case) film area is not a problem, while framing with your feet is. There's a world of difference between handholding and always working off a tripod. It turned out for me that about 1/3 my photographs came from my 150mm lens in LF. For me a normal lens is way more useful in LF than it is smaller formats.

You asked for recommendations. There's mine. Do with it what you will.

[Havoc]

I recommend that your first lens be a 150mm, a "normal" lens. Yes, yes, yes, I know you didn't even own such a lens in 135 format. But this isn't 135 format. With LF you have separated the film plane from the lens plane. You've got to learn how to use camera movements. And to do that, you have to be able to see the effects of movements on the ground glass. The shorter the lens the smaller the elements of the scene are on the ground glass, and the harder it is to see the changes that come from using movements.

Starting out with a short lens will increase the time and effort you spend learning movements. Been there, done that. Learn from my mistakes. Or don't.

And yes, I refused owning a "normal" lens in the 135 world too. I could frame with my feet as it were, and I was taught to use all the film area I could because the 135 frame is so small. But in LF (5x4 in my case) film area is not a problem, while framing with your feet is. There's a world of difference between handholding and always working off a tripod. It turned out for me that about 1/3 my photographs came from my 150mm lens in LF. For me a normal lens is way more useful in LF than it is smaller formats.

You asked for recommendations. There's mine. Do with it what you will.

While I can see your point, I cannot say this is what happened to me. I preferred the 35mm in 135 format and with 4x5 I go even wider. I cannot see what "separating the film plane from the lens plane" even has to do with what focal length you prefer. I could understand that the ratio of the film 4/5 vs. 2/3 influences your choice. For me it did because the far more "square" proportions of 4x5 compared to 135 I go even wider, just to keep that wide view. A 35mm on 135 is barely what I would consider "natural" view of your eyes.

Movement might be better to understand in longer focal lengths. But for portraits and landscapes I rarely go further than shift which is purely a composition aid in that case.

[giganova]

One more question: where can I find the filter sizes of different 4x5 lenses? I find it odd that LF lens makers don't seem to engrave filter sizes on their lenses.

[nlambrecht]

One more question: where can I find the filter sizes of different 4x5 lenses? I find it odd that LF lens makers don't seem to engrave filter sizes on their lenses.

On the .info home page under lenses you can find a "Comparison Charts" link that will take you here: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/

That has most information you would need.

If you need other info about a certain lens, such as flange focal distance, you may have to search the the wayback machine for your lens manufacturer.

[Greg Y]

One more question: where can I find the filter sizes of different 4x5 lenses? I find it odd that LF lens makers don't seem to engrave filter sizes on their lenses.

Giganova, Why do you find it odd? Off hand, I can't think of a 35mm or med format maker that does...
But almost any one can be googled if you have the focal length & max aperture.

[orgraph]

90-180-300

[giganova]

Giganova, Why do you find it odd?
Because almost all 135 and 120 lenses have the filter size engraved on the barrel.

[giganova]

On the .info home page under lenses you can find a "Comparison Charts" link that will take you here: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/

That has most information you would need.

If you need other info about a certain lens, such as flange focal distance, you may have to search the the wayback machine for your lens manufacturer.
Awesome, thanks!

[Bernice Loui]

Which does not apply to view camera lenses as some are beyond 100 years old (long before "filters" as most Photo Folks today would know were even used for photography) with some still making images today.

Projection of an expectation based on a different branch of Foto hardware and era.


Bernice



Because almost all 135 and 120 lenses have the filter size engraved on the barrel.

[Greg Y]

Because almost all 135 and 120 lenses have the filter size engraved on the barrel.

We must live in different universes Giganova. I don't own a lens new enough to have that info engraved on it. From the dark ages one learned that Leitz summicrons (35 & 50) were E39 and classic Nikons were 52mm. It's like Bernice said: "Projection of an expectation based on a different branch of Foto hardware and era."

[giganova]

Projection of an expectation based on a different branch of Foto hardware and era.
Or: "Our company is too cool to put filter sizes on their lenses" (even if those lenses are from the 80s or 90s). "Let the customers guess, what do we care." :p

[Corran]

Yeah, the vast majority of lenses out there and ones used regularly, especially for newbies, are modern lenses made well within the time frame of filter markings...

[Vaughn]

The 180mm will serve you well! It will give you plenty of image circle to play with, too. Learning to see with it will help give you a good idea where to go next in focal length.

Step-up rings come in handy for the various filter sizes that are out there. I do not use filters often, and then pretty much limited to yellow or red. Have fun!

[Bernice Loui]

Good percentage of view camera lenses used are in APO graphic arts process lenses in barrel. Many of these do not have front or rear threads for any filters. Filters to be used go into a filter slot slightly in front of or behind the aperture in barrel. This slot also allows the insertion of non-round apertures for various specific graphic arts needs..

Many graphic arts process lenses were made well into the 1990's..

Majority of soft focus lenses do not have filter threads, many have their own specific filters or add-ons that do not comply with the common Foto industry standards..

Aero-recon lenses made for aerial reconnoissance images do not have "industry filter thread sizes" engraved on them. They often have specific filters designed for a specific lens and application.

This list can be ~greatly extended~

~Customer dependent, no?~



Bernice



Or: "Our company is too cool to put filter sizes on their lenses" (even if those lenses are from the 80s or 90s). "Let the customers guess, what do we care." :p

[giganova]

Can someone tell me what filter thread this lens has: Schneider 180mm f5.6 Apo-Symmar MC.

Is it 58mm?

[Corran]

B&H says 72mm.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/283911-REG/Schneider_01_029420_180mm_f_5_6_Apo_Symmar_L.html

That's the "L" version, not sure if it changed. But my 150mm APO Symmar is 58mm so I imagine the 180mm is probably a bit larger, so 72mm sounds reasonable.

Edit:
https://www.foto-wolf-dresden.de/Gebrauchtware/schneider-kreuznach/Schneider-Kreuznach-APO-Symmar-5-6-180-MC---COPAL---No--1--gebraucht-.html

Maybe it is 58mm. The Schneider datasheets have been removed from their site, but Oren or Dan has posted them somewhere here on the LFPF using archive.org links.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Yes it is m58 x 0,75 stated on my Schneider Katalog!

[giganova]

Thanks!


B&H says 72mm.
Yes, I saw three web sites that say 72mm and that's why I already wasted $100.- on a 72mm B+W red filter and UV protection filter ... which didn't fit. :mad: Guess I'll repeat the exercise with 58mm filters now. But as you all have pointed out so eloquently before, there is no need to put filter sizes in lenses. :rolleyes:

[Corran]

If you have the lens, measure the front of the lens. Should be about 60mm, if the lens has a 58mm filter.

I agree with you 100% that it would be nice to have the filter size marked on the lens.