Which are the fancy lenses??

[AdamD]

Hi all, Happy New Year.

Question about pretty much all LF lenses. Which are the fancy ones that just seems to cost a bit more or a lot more than others?

Here's an example of what I'm getting at....

Of the big 4, in the 75mm and 90mm focal lengths, there's really nothing "fancy" or too special. But if you look at 80mm BOOM!! THERE GOES THE CHECKBOOK!! Also, the 115mm seems like a jump in cost.

So, why is that and what are some examples of the high cost, "fancy" lenses in the 4x5 world? Fancy can mean they just cost a lot because not many were made and they are collectables or maybe there's something about them that is, well, fancy.

Here's where I'm going with this....

Say I want to build a kit around my one and only 150mm (which I do). I can go as wide as a 90mm (for now), but that would kind of defeat the point of getting a 115mm (so close). BUT, what if the 115nm is really special and I just don't know it! I could have instead gone with a 115mm and a 75mm and skip the 90mm.

So it's hard to build a kit when you don't know what the really special lenses are and where you can skimp and where you should bust out the checkbook....

Thoughts?

Adam

[John Kasaian]

Once you really get to understand and appreciate whatever lens you're using, then you make it special.:)
Having a good working shutter helps.

As far which lens to start with (I'm assuming for 4x5) there are plenty of used lenses on the market made by Schneider, Rodenstock, Fuji and Nikon that won't cost an arm and a leg.
For these modern lenses, look for good multi coated glass and a reliable, accurate Copal shutter.
And use it.
It may be the only lens you'll ever need, or it will point you towards a different focal length/lens
but you won't know until you start making pictures, lots of pictures, with it.

If you're only shooting B&W there are many classic lenses from Kodak, Goerz, Wollensak. etc... in older shutters that are certainly options for you.
But vintage or newer, you're the one who coaxes success out of your equipment.

[Vaughn]

One of the factors is the shutter...bigger shutters cost more. How many pieces of glass they are made of and if they are coated or not. Widest aperture for viewing ease...and all that stuff.

Just buy it, try it and if you don't like it, sell it. Or go for a 125 and a 90.

[Oslolens]

I find the condition of a lens more important than what lens to buy. My 120mm super symmar was included in the price of the camera, and it's my most used lens. The 115 grandagon- as well as 120 super angulon are ment for 5x7", they are too dim and too big in my opinion.

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

[Mark Sawyer]

For some of the more knowledgeable users, the shutter is as important as the lens...

[Dan Fromm]

Fancy schmancy. Adam, you overthink everything. This site has resources that you can use to help yourself. To get to the FAQs, click of the LF Home Page button at the top of the screen.

There's another resource that's not as easy to find. The first post in this https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?138978-Where-to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses discussion has a link to a list of links to sources of information on (ahem) lenses and other items that may be of interest to LF photographers. Explore what it offers.

[Corran]

There's nothing special about focal length.

Now there are "special" lenses that are expensive and are different than other lenses. Take a look at:

75mm Biogon
150mm (and others) APO Lanthar
150mm Xenotar
Any Petzval lens
Anything with an aperture of f/4 or faster that works on 4x5 or larger
etc.

There is more talk on the internet than you could possibly read about all the less available LF lenses out there like these. I have a number of them. Doesn't make my photos better but sometimes I might get something a bit different than other more typical lenses...but I certainly didn't know about any of these lenses before I shot at least 100 sheets of film. Get to shooting man! :)

[Bernice Loui]

Historically, there were few if any "hobbyist" grade view camera lenses as historically a view camera was used and intended by Foto folks that were relatively serious about making images. That said, optics designs for view camera lenses are made to a different standards for a market that once were majority photography knowledgeable folks. View camera lenses do not have back focus compensation and similar added optical complexities that roll film mirror reflex viewing cameras are required to have.


This said, question again what are your image goals knowing lens or camera or film or print making as a single factor will NOT make any magical images on their own. What might be best for now (as been said numerous times previously) would be pick a modern 150mm to 210mm f5.6 Plasmat and a 90mm f? from any of the big four view camera lens brands in a proven and verified good shutter. Burn film, make images. Differences in lenses at this point in the learning curve is IMO, simply not relevant, making images using a view camera to develop the skills required IS what's important.


Bernice

[Luis-F-S]

Or they could generally move the camera forward or back a few steps!

[Bob Salomon]

Historically, there were few if any "hobbyist" grade view camera lenses as historically a view camera was used and intended by Foto folks that were relatively serious about making images. That said, optics designs for view camera lenses are made to a different standards for a market that once were majority photography knowledgeable folks. View camera lenses do not have back focus compensation and similar added optical complexities that roll film mirror reflex viewing cameras are required to have.


This said, question again what are your image goals knowing lens or camera or film or print making as a single factor will NOT make any magical images on their own. What might be best for now (as been said numerous times previously) would be pick a modern 150mm to 210mm f5.6 Plasmat and a 90mm f? from any of the big four view camera lens brands in a proven and verified good shutter. Burn film, make images. Differences in lenses at this point in the learning curve is IMO, simply not relevant, making images using a view camera to develop the skills required IS what's important.


Bernice

Rodenstock made a series of 150, 210 and 300mm Geronar lenses and a 90mm Geronar-WA as basic student, budget lenses, as an option to Sironar N MM and Apo Sironar N, S and W lenses and Grandagon N M C lenses. They were budget lenses and were promoted as such.

[Bernice Loui]

"Budget" maybe, except these budget view camera lenses still produced excellent images.

Copal shutters were the same used on other lenses made by the big four.


Bernice


Rodenstock made a series of 150, 210 and 300mm Geronar lenses and a 90mm Geronar-WA as basic student, budget lenses, as an option to Sironar N MM and Apo Sironar N, S and W lenses and Grandagon N M C lenses. They were budget lenses and were promoted as such.

[Two23]

I think a major driver of cost is image circle.


Kent in SD

[Bernice Loui]

Larger image circle is NOT always a desirable "feature". Much depends on film format and actual camera movements needed, print image goals, and all those other factors.

Excessive image circle spats more stray light on to the bellows resulting in internal flare lowering contrast.


Bernice



I think a major driver of cost is image circle.


Kent in SD

[ic-racer]

"Fancy Lenses in LF?"

Super Wide
Telephoto
Soft Focus
Compact
Extra Long Non-Tele (ULF)

Those are the ones I can think of off hand.

[MAubrey]

I'm guessing that 80mm you're talkiing about is a Schneider 80mm f/4.5 Super-Symmar XL. It's a newer and more complex design than the other 75's and 90's you're seeing, among other things.

[Michael R]

Here is a fancy lens

http://www.badgergraphic.com/opencart/index.php?route=product/product&path=3_332&product_id=4266

Thinking back to the late ‘80s-early ‘90s when I first got into LF, the German lenses were sort of the “fancy” lenses compared with Nikon in terms of price. The Nikon lenses were significantly cheaper, although just as good.

I don’t know how much photography experience (any format) OP has, but it seems like he is looking at buying a lot of focal lengths from the get go. People have differing views on whether or not that is a good idea. Of course it doesn’t really matter if you have the money, but why not just start with a 150/180, 90, and something in the 210-300 range for a kit?

[Bernice Loui]

Fancy.... Rodenstock 6 disc Jmagon
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?121333-30cm-H5-6-Jmagon&highlight=disc+jmagon

Fancy lenses do "not" make images, how an artist_photographer uses any lens can make expressive images.


Bernice

[Michael R]

Fancy lenses do "not" make images, how an artist_photographer uses any lens can make expressive images.


Bernice

Of course, and everyone knows that (I think), but as a great photographer once said, “we like stuff”.

[BrianShaw]

Why not just “bedazzle” whatever lenses you now have with sequins and glitter?

[Leszek Vogt]

My suggestion probably echos what others say. Try using one, two or even 3 lenses, and in the mean time look at work of others (here and elsewhere) and you can make your own decision what else to get. The more experience you have in this medium....the more you realize how many optics you need. Desire might be another topic.

Indeed, I often see similar on another forum....folks using lenses from 3-10K+ (skip the 3-6K camera) and have embarrassingly little to show for.

Les

[LabRat]

The ones you can't afford.... :-(

Happy new year, folks!!!

Steve K

[Tin Can]

LOL I was just about to write that!



The ones you can't afford.... :-(

Happy new year, folks!!!

Steve K

[AdamD]

Super Wide
Telephoto
Soft Focus
Compact
Extra Long Non-Tele (ULF)

Those are the ones I can think of off hand.

Yes this is exactly what I was after.

Also Kent in SD as well as MAubrey were hitting on.

I'm DEFINITELY not trying to collect a bunch of different focal lengths.

Your answers are interesting in that many of you approached this from a different angle. Of course my question was kind of open ended and ambiguous.

Thanks all.

[John Kasaian]

Shopping for LF lenses are a little like being on a journey. A lens collection is similar to those stickers which those hotels that you stopped at on your way used to place on steamer trunks.
Enjoy the ride!

[Greg]

"Fancy lenses" conjures up in my mind memories of lenses that I have come across but in the end couldn't afford to acquire them:
Set of "mint" 150mm, 210mm, and 300mm Voigtlander-TECHNIKA-Apo Lanthars in shutters. Seller wouldn't split up the set.
14" Goerz Blue Dot Trigor mounted in a Copal shutter. My bid was high, but was outbid seconds before the auction ended.
800mm Zeiss Apo Planar from Lens & Repro. Stu? sold the lens days before I called him. Was advertised in VIEWCAMERA magazine. Ad in VIEWCAMERA listed no price just "CALL".
200mm (or there about) Hypergon with the front spinner fan. Someone else offered a whole lot more than I did for that optic.

Fancy lens that I did acquire:One high speed prototype Zeiss optic I did acquire in the early 1990s for pennies. Donated it to the Zeiss Historical Society.

Fancy lens that I have always wanted:On page 127 of my 1962 B&J catalog (attached image). Can make out that it is a COOKE TELEPHOTO. Doesn't seem to have a focusing mechanism. Saw it 20 years later when I used a Hass on a regular basis.

[Drew Wiley]

A more common expression easier to hang your hat on would be a "cult lens". This would imply a lens of yore with a high reputation, that somebody is now trying to sell for a ludicrously high price, even though it probably isn't as good as many later lenses so abundant that they sell for dramatically less on the used market. I do own and use some of these now-cult LF lenses; but I bought them at sane prices.

[goamules]

Gold Rim Dagors look and cost fancy.

[Drew Wiley]

Gold paint is cheap.

[John Layton]

Agree with the 14" Blue Dot Trigor - had one of these for awhile...latest edition Kern version in #3 Copal - amazing! Tested by taping strips of 35mm Agfapan 25 to center and edges of 11x14 holder - negs appeared very similar to those of my Mandler edition (late 1970's) version 2 50mm Leica Summicron-M. Could not believe this! Flat field, great coverage...versatile enough for all formats through 11x14. Why...oh why - did I ever part with that lens?

[Dugan]

Don't forget those wonderous Oscillo-Raptars & Oscillo-Paragons!
:cool:

[Lachlan 717]

The 80mm SSXL is not a particularly good lens, and is far from “fancy” or “highly desirable”.

[Bernice Loui]

Been there done this. 14" Goerz Blue Dot Trigor in barrel. Trounced the 360mm f5.6 Rodenstock Sironar N in resolution with better contrast and overall remarkable image circle and very low geometric distortion. Also trounced the Hasselblad 100mm f3.5 planar.. and this is a process lens.. Heh..

The other Goerz wonder lens, 6" f5.6 Magnar II.


Bernice




Agree with the 14" Blue Dot Trigor - had one of these for awhile...latest edition Kern version in #3 Copal - amazing! Tested by taping strips of 35mm Agfapan 25 to center and edges of 11x14 holder - negs appeared very similar to those of my Mandler edition (late 1970's) version 2 50mm Leica Summicron-M. Could not believe this! Flat field, great coverage...versatile enough for all formats through 11x14. Why...oh why - did I ever part with that lens?

[Bernice Loui]

IMO, APO Lanthar is over rated. Essentially German marketing moniker for a lens that used low dispersion Lanthanum glass invented in the US of A circa WW-II. Lanthanum glass was used in LOTs of Kodak Ektar lenses,, Kodak made not a lot of hype about this.

Had a Zeiss APO planar process lens. Very low contrast and LOTs of flare due to excessive number of uncoated surfaces in a Gauss design.
Zeiss made these for a short time due to poor optical performance.

14" Goerz Trigor... kinda special.

Goerz Hypergon.. more of a collector special than good performance optic. The fan was spun during exposure to compensate for light fall-off.
Majority of these have no fan as they were fragile and often damaged then lost-discarded.


Bernice



"Fancy lenses" conjures up in my mind memories of lenses that I have come across but in the end couldn't afford to acquire them:
Set of "mint" 150mm, 210mm, and 300mm Voigtlander-TECHNIKA-Apo Lanthars in shutters. Seller wouldn't split up the set.
14" Goerz Blue Dot Trigor mounted in a Copal shutter. My bid was high, but was outbid seconds before the auction ended.
800mm Zeiss Apo Planar from Lens & Repro. Stu? sold the lens days before I called him. Was advertised in VIEWCAMERA magazine. Ad in VIEWCAMERA listed no price just "CALL".
200mm (or there about) Hypergon with the front spinner fan. Someone else offered a whole lot more than I did for that optic.

Fancy lens that I did acquire:One high speed prototype Zeiss optic I did acquire in the early 1990s for pennies. Donated it to the Zeiss Historical Society.

Fancy lens that I have always wanted:On page 127 of my 1962 B&J catalog (attached image). Can make out that it is a COOKE TELEPHOTO. Doesn't seem to have a focusing mechanism. Saw it 20 years later when I used a Hass on a regular basis.

[John Kasaian]

What about Pretzel lenses?
And those illusive Cooke Triple Convertibles?

[Fr. Mark]

Or we could sort of go the opposite direction: lenses repurposed for LF, i.e. close-up "filters" or positive meniscus lenses, perhaps with Waterhouse stops, old projector lenses, some are Cooke triplets, some may be Petzvals, some may be other things depending on the era. I have two process lenses I need to get re-mounted and see what they can do, too. One of my favorite portraits was taken with an 18" Cooke Triplet projector lens stopped down from f3.6 to f8 or 11, on 8x10 x-ray film (the subject was a retired radiologist!) in a sliding box camera. The "close up filters" can give you a bunch of focal lengths in a cheap, super light weight package. The usual pack is 1, 2, 4 diopters which is 1000 mm, 500 mm, and 250 mm. That's on the long side for 4x5 (but not crazy for 8x10 or ULF) and by combing the lenses you can get 3 diopters 333 mm, 5 diopters, 200 mm, 6 diopters or 166 mm, or 7 diopters, 143 mm. I've never shot them combined, but I have tried to do a comparison to the 210mm plasmat v. 250 meniscus. There's less sharpness, even stopped down, and less contrast. But some like the look.

[LabRat]

I have found the saving grace of old uncoated, plain lenses is that some new B/W films have a long toe, so a lens with lower contrast seems to match this, and with color films with excessive saturation, these can help tame it... So these can be useful tools, and matched to different materials...

So for lens selection, I think the question of "what" lens could be asked "why" this lens...

Steve K

[gary mulder]

Almost all large format gear was made for and sold to professionals. That’s the reason why nowadays there is a large supply heavy bulky monorail cameras. Most of the time they were carried by assistants. A amateur now is interested in light, small and easy to carry cameras and compact lenses. Small lenses were never a great interrest for professionals. So there are not many made. Plain economics of demand and supply dictate prices. Heavy bulky sironar f 5,6 240mm no problem. A fujinon-A f 9 240mm on the other hand…..

[Corran]

Disagree with Bernice. The APO Lanthars have a certain strange property I don't quite understand - they seem to make the shadow areas really open and airy, kind of like Steve mentions with older lenses above, but retain a good contrast throughout the image rather than the haziness I tend to dislike about older uncoated or just lower contrast lenses. Oh and they are really sharp at wider apertures as well as stopped down. I certainly am not selling mine...and would love to find a 30cm one to round out my collection. Oh well, that's not likely to happen! I need to get my 21cm onto my 5x7...

[John Layton]

I think part of the lesson here is "ya gotta see for yourself!"

Part of the problem here...objectively :rolleyes: speaking, is knowing where the optical baseline should be for some of these "venerable" older lenses - to know that a given example is truly up to snuff.

Would be wonderful...if there existed a "lens library," of critically pre-tested examples of lenses (voted in by library members?) which could be loaned or rented out, so those of us who want to try them out could truly know their capabilities...assuming we had the wherewithal with our own technique to do them justice! (yet another caveat!)

[Dan Fromm]

Goerz Hypergon.. more of a collector special than good performance optic. The fan was spun during exposure to compensate for light fall-off.
Majority of these have no fan as they were fragile and often damaged then lost-discarded.

I think you're mistaken. There were two versions of the Hypergon. 140 degree lens with fan (mechanical center filter!) and a later 110 degree lens without fan. The use of the same trade name for two different lenses has confused many.

[AdamD]

WOW...this thread really took "fancy lenses" to the limits!! I love this forum!!!

Here's what I got out of this, in summary....

There are indeed a few fancy lenses out there and often what makes them fancy is/are some specific feature such as unusually large image circle which lends them well to 4x5 and 5x7 dual role. That would be a good reason to make that particular lens a primary anchor point in you kit such as the 115mm Rodenstock. Other factors include fast lenses and lenses that can be used in more that one way such as a convertible lens.

Other than that, there are no obviously anchor point lenses that screem, "Make me your primary lens and build a kit around me."

I was looking for the most efficient path to building a lens kit. One that I could plan out ahead, and just wait for the "deal" to show up and not have to think about it. Someone in this thread suggested I over think things. NO I DON'T.....yeah denial is the first sign on unmanageability..... yeah you called me out!!

So in the end, there's no obviously path of least resistance, it's just a path that has to be followed.

I'm ok with that. But this thread has been very helpful.

Love the ideas in here too!!

[Dan Fromm]

Adam, you're still overthinking nearly everything.

For most of us, the first camera was the wrong camera. Using the first camera taught us what the replacement had to do.

For most of us, finding the the "best" lens kit -- a very personal thing -- has been a matter of trial and error.

You remind me of philosophers thinking about empirical reality. These people gaze into their navels, sorry, use introspection combined with a complete lack of knowledge about empirical reality. As we say, ex nihil, nihil. Just buy some gear, use it, and learn what suits you.

[Bernice Loui]

Yes, or why the most modern multi-coated LF uber contrast lenses are not always best.

As previously mentioned, back in the Ciba-Ilford Chrome print days, one of the ways to aid in excessive contrast was to use older lenses with lower contrast rendition.

Not all was intersted in lowering contrast of these prints, there were those who exploited high contrast images extremely well.


Bernice



I have found the saving grace of old uncoated, plain lenses is that some new B/W films have a long toe, so a lens with lower contrast seems to match this, and with color films with excessive saturation, these can help tame it... So these can be useful tools, and matched to different materials...

So for lens selection, I think the question of "what" lens could be asked "why" this lens...

Steve K

[Bernice Loui]

Correct in many ways that is not appreciated today. Vast majority of LF film image makers back in the day were working photographers trying to put food on the table and a roof over their head & studio. To survive means producing images to a level of quality that was market acceptable in a demanding market. Much of this was done in studio, on 4x5 film with a monorail camera and the KEY ingredient was lighting combined with artistic and technical skill. Modern lenses were the norm and were considered essentially interchangeable between the big four brands. Camera HAD to be ease to use and completely stable for the camera movements required to make the image. Essentially, lens and camera were greatly secondary to lighting, set up, film used and image production.

Support systems were the "pro" camera stores where sheet film was always ready in the help yourself fridge and E6 processing labs that did all they could to support their working photographer base trying to make a living.

Been thinking of posting this a while ago, now there is a better reason to. These are pages from a late 90's KEH sales flyer. Note Linhof and Sinar have their separate pages and used market price of their offerings. Linhof and Sinar were THE sheet film cameras to have and own. Followed by used LF lenses and field folders and other LF camera brands. Field folders where a niche market LF camera back then as were small LF lenses that have become so highly desirable today. KEH would not often deal in odd barrel lenses like Heilar, APO Lanthar, APO process lenses and such as their market value and desirability was very limited back in those days.

211120

211121

211122

211123


Bernice



Almost all large format gear was made for and sold to professionals. That’s the reason why nowadays there is a large supply heavy bulky monorail cameras. Most of the time they were carried by assistants. A amateur now is interested in light, small and easy to carry cameras and compact lenses. Small lenses were never a great interrest for professionals. So there are not many made. Plain economics of demand and supply dictate prices. Heavy bulky sironar f 5,6 240mm no problem. A fujinon-A f 9 240mm on the other hand…..

[Bernice Loui]

OK, fine. We have been here done this before.

Any of your APO Lanthars have yellowing of the glass?
In addition to Lanthanum glass used, early APO Lanthars had optical glass with Thorium oxide making them slightly radioactive. As with a long list of camera optics from that era, optical glass with Thorium oxide was used due to the lower dispersion they offered back then. Use of this family of optical glass fell out of fashion.

As for the 300mm f4.5 APO Lanthar, these were usually in a Compound# 5 shutter. BIG lens. Far fewer were in barrel. They were not that difficult to get back in the late 70's and early 80's before they became a cult lens much like the Heilar. It was not difficult to cull a collection of Heliars in barrel for $50 per lens and matching APO Lanthars in shutter back in the day for not much more (been there, done this). Working photographers back then were simply not interested in these lenses as they were using modern plasmas from the big four to make a living.

Due to the cult brand name status of APO Lanthar and Heilar, theses lens names have been applied to modern digital camera lenses that are not directly related to the lenses that were the origins of these lens names.

https://www.amazon.com/Voigtlander-Heliar-Hyper-10mm-5-6-Aspherical/dp/B01GH0B58M

https://www.amazon.com/Voigtlander-APO-LANTHAR-65mm-F2-Aspherical/dp/B074H1M8TR


Much about foisting Foto hardware to those seeking "Fancy Lenses"...


Bernice



Disagree with Bernice. The APO Lanthars have a certain strange property I don't quite understand - they seem to make the shadow areas really open and airy, kind of like Steve mentions with older lenses above, but retain a good contrast throughout the image rather than the haziness I tend to dislike about older uncoated or just lower contrast lenses. Oh and they are really sharp at wider apertures as well as stopped down. I certainly am not selling mine...and would love to find a 30cm one to round out my collection. Oh well, that's not likely to happen! I need to get my 21cm onto my 5x7...

[JMO]

WOW...this thread really took "fancy lenses" to the limits!! I love this forum!!!

Here's what I got out of this, in summary....

There are indeed a few fancy lenses out there and often what makes them fancy is/are some specific feature such as unusually large image circle which lends them well to 4x5 and 5x7 dual role. That would be a good reason to make that particular lens a primary anchor point in you kit such as the 115mm Rodenstock. Other factors include fast lenses and lenses that can be used in more that one way such as a convertible lens.

Other than that, there are no obviously anchor point lenses that screem, "Make me your primary lens and build a kit around me."

I was looking for the most efficient path to building a lens kit. One that I could plan out ahead, and just wait for the "deal" to show up and not have to think about it. Someone in this thread suggested I over think things. NO I DON'T.....yeah denial is the first sign on unmanageability..... yeah you called me out!!

So in the end, there's no obviously path of least resistance, it's just a path that has to be followed.

I'm ok with that. But this thread has been very helpful.

Love the ideas in here too!!


To the OP: I didn't see anyone above here refer you to this review (http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm) resource by Kerry Thalmann on "modern" LF lenses, that I have found helpful toward making decisions on what goes into my kit back pack. Though it hasn't been updated in a number of years, since there have been essentially no new LF lenses made and marketed for many years this review is up-to-date with what's available to those beginners currently seeking to dive in and enjoy LF photography.

[Luis-F-S]

I like the concept that the fancy lenses are the ones you can’t afford. That said, my 810 lenses are:
First lens 12” dagor
Second lens 6.5” WA dagor
Third lens 19” Artar
Fourth lens 24”artar
Fifth lens 9 1/2” Dagor

4x5 lenses
First lens 210 modern or 8 1/4” dagor
Second lens 120 SA or 4 3/8 WA dagor
Third lens 12” dagor
Fourth lens 90 SA or equivalent from one of the big 4

I've also got modern lenses from the 58 XL to the 300 Sironar N.

One of the first LF lenses I bought was the 14" MC GD Dagor. Yes, the expensive one. Bought it new for about 1/4 of what they go for now. Never use it, always use the 12" Dagor instead.


Luis

[Corran]

Any of your APO Lanthars have yellowing of the glass?

You mean the free warming filter? ;)
Of course I mostly shoot b&w, but on the occasional transparency the slight warmth is a benefit, especially on some films like Provia.

[Luis-F-S]

To the OP: I didn't see anyone above here refer you to this review (http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm) resource by Kerry Thalmann on "modern"...lenses......

Too much research will only confuse you!!

[Bernice Loui]

Heh.. Sort of. Number of the APO Lanthars from years ago had yellowing of the glass. This altered color balance for color transparency film and other color films. This was one of the "flaws" Fotograpers did not like about APO Lanthars and similar lenses from a different era.

These cult lenses DO have a certain "smoothness" to their image rendition at larger apertures, except they are not the only lenses with this personality.


Bernice


You mean the free warming filter? ;)
Of course I mostly shoot b&w, but on the occasional transparency the slight warmth is a benefit, especially on some films like Provia.

[Bernice Loui]

IMO, give up "focusing" on the miracle-magical-fancy lens, focus on using your view camera and lenses on hand..
In time, might discover stuff such as lighting, composition and all those other factors are FAR more important than camera or lens.


Bernice



Too much research will only confuse you!!

[LabRat]

I think another big reason for the rise of ultra contrast modern lens was in product commercial photography, many items to be shot sometimes had surfaces that would not shoot sharp (plastics/ceramics etc), so a contrasty lens would at least cut outlines that helped manage them... The downside was that with a subject on a bright white background would photograph with a really hard edge contrast (like a B/W print printed on #3 paper) and little midtone scale...

But the contrasty lens could also be useful shooting low contrasty stuff, like black on blackstuff, same color fabrics etc...

I prefer old Ektars, Heliars, Tessars, but have a couple of modern lenses around if the need arises...

Steve K

[Bob Salomon]

I think another big reason for the rise of ultra contrast modern lens was in product commercial photography, many items to be shot sometimes had surfaces that would not shoot sharp (plastics/ceramics etc), so a contrasty lens would at least cut outlines that helped manage them... The downside was that with a subject on a bright white background would photograph with a really hard edge contrast (like a B/W print printed on #3 paper) and little midtone scale...

But the contrasty lens could also be useful shooting low contrasty stuff, like black on blackstuff, same color fabrics etc...

I prefer old Ektars, Heliars, Tessars, but have a couple of modern lenses around if the need arises...

Steve K

Perhaps not, we sold cameras and lenses to “super studios” back then that did catalog photography in super market sized studios. Many switched from process lenses like Apo Ronan’s, Nikons and Schneider’s to Macro Sironar for table top product shots for color catalogs.
The art directors would set up product tables with multiple products for each shot which then were cropped out to individual products for reproduction. That meant that products went edge to edge and corner to corner to cut down production time and costs.
On the other hand we sold humongous sn tudios like Alderman, when furniture was still being made in NC and they shot huge room settings for catalogs and they demanded modern plasmat lenses.

[Michael R]

For most of us, the first camera was the wrong camera. Using the first camera taught us what the replacement had to do.

My way was much better. My first LF camera was fine, so I sold it and then got the wrong camera. :D

[Luis-F-S]

IMO, give up "focusing" on the miracle-magical-fancy lens, focus on using your view camera and lenses on hand..
In time, might discover stuff such as lighting, composition and all those other factors are FAR more important than camera or lens.
Bernice

Bernice, I've pretty much got every lens I will ever need and more until I leave the planet. Like I've said before more than once, most lenses are better than most photographers!

[Bernice Loui]

Much the same here. As said more than a few times, those beginning this LF journey on 4x5 would be wise to stick with the traditional three focal length set of;

~90mm

~150mm to 210mm

~300mm to 360mm

~Then focus on making images.

Also said many times previous. Yes, there are differences in image rendition of various lenses _but_ these variations alone will never make a expressive on what the lens does alone. Think this is part of the obsession for "GAS", it is non-productive, it does tend to separate those who are about expressive image making -vs- those interested in collecting Foto trinket trophies. Ponder how the "condition or beauty" ratings of used Foto gear applies here.

It is quite possible those starting LF today come from the smaller film and digital image making world where marketing has driven that group's mind set of must have the "Latest & Greatest" Foto trinket to make the images of their dreams. If one were to go back in time to an era when film was the only widely available means of high quality print and image making, those who decided to do sheet film were often experienced enough and serious enough to seek escape from the frantic panic world of marketing driven latest & greatest Foto widgets and trinkets.


Bernice



Bernice, I've pretty much got every lens I will ever need and more until I leave the planet. Like I've said before more than once, most lenses are better than most photographers!

[neil poulsen]

I'm thinking that price depends on the following: Capability, Rarity, and Reputation/Perception.

Under capability comes, image circle, maximum aperture, focal length, and shutter. Generally speaking in these attributes the bigger, the more expensive.

Rarity speaks for itself.

For this or that reason, perhaps a combination of the above, some lenses attain "cult" status. The 14" Trigor is an example. The Schneider Fine-Art series would be another. The f7.7 Dagors are a third. There are many of these "fancy" lenses.

I had a Schneider Dagor 14" Multi-Coated lens that definitely fits into cult status, and it's also rare. Frankly, while the lens is one of the most contrasty that one can purchase, I didn't care that much for it. It was probably too contrasty, and I didn't think that it was that sharp. (Dagors can be subject to focus shift.) I sold it for $2823. Instead, I now own a G-Claron 14" lens that I purchased for about $750. This is a respected lens, and I prefer it to the Dagor that I sold.

I also owned a 600mm Fuji C lens, which is rare, and it has also attained "cult" status. For it's focal length, it's "compact" and light-weight, it's multi-coated, and it's mounted in a modern shutter. I decided to sell it for $3450. Shortly after that sale, I was able to purchase a 610mm, single-coated Repro-Claron mounted in a dated Alphax shutter for $325. This lens is a little heavier and a little larger, but it meets all my needs.

Point being, do you really need a fancy lens? I'd suggest beginning with a standard lens that will meet most needs. After use, it could be that you may want to venture into higher capability lenses, or possibly rare or "cult" lenses. But, let the actual need drive that journey. By the nature of large format, most lenses that fit that category are high quality and perform quite well. Start there, and move up if there's a need.

[Dugan]

But...but...but...isn't it really all about the bokey? :)

[Mark Sawyer]

But...but...but...isn't it really all about the bokey? :)

Yes it is. You shoot some hokey bokey and you turn yourself around.

That's what it's all about.

[Dan Fromm]

Bokum? Hokum.

[Corran]

You can see my recent post in the Old Cars thread for a "cult" lens with extreme "out of focus" areas (f/2.5, plus tilts for less DOF). Like it or hate it, it exists, and one can choose to use these tools or not. No hokum here.

[Havoc]

Much the same here. As said more than a few times, those beginning this LF journey on 4x5 would be wise to stick with the traditional three focal length set of;

~90mm

~150mm to 210mm

~300mm to 360mm

~Then focus on making images.

This assumes that everybody has the same vision/taste/style (strike what is not appropriate). 90mm is far too narrow for me to serve as a wide. Even the 75mm I have is borderline. I don't really care for the 150-210mm range, just like I don't use the 50mm in 135 or the 80mm in 6x6/6x4.5. And 300-360 isn't anything tele enough to bother. A bit like the 135mm in 135, to long for close up and not usable to bring something far closer. So I use the 75-125(-250). Probably explore the 65mm this year if I can find one to my budget.

They don't need to be fancy :)

[John Layton]

What works for me in the 4x5 format is a multiple of 1.5 (ish), which, for me, means 65,90,135,210, and 305.

For 5x7, its more a question of my being enamored of particular focal lengths: 210 and 120 being my favorites, followed by 305, 150, and 90.

I also do a little bit of 8x10 with the 305 (and occasionally 120SA and 210 Sironar-N, which covers!)

Very little 11x14 - and the 305 G-Claron works just fine for this, although if I were to do more with this format (and with 8x10, for that matter), I'd also want something a bit longer...like a 450 (Fuji-C or Nikkor-M).

But none of the above lenses are all that "fancy." There are times, particularly as I'm now doing very big enlargements (to 40x60, mostly from 5x7), when I think I should go with a Sironar-S for at least my favorite, 210mm focal length, and then perhaps add a Schneider 110XL-asph, then a 150mm Sironar-W to this lineup (thus replacing my current 210 Sironar-N, 120 Super Angulon, and 150 G-Claron). Not sure if this would make a huge difference though...especially as I'm often working in environments (foggy surf, cloudy peaks, etc.), and often at aperture values courting diffraction...leading me to suspect that "the fancy lenses" would offer little to no visible improvement - and I'd rather put the investment into film, paper, and "travel to locations" expenses.

[John Kasaian]

Adam, you're still overthinking nearly everything.

For most of us, the first camera was the wrong camera. Using the first camera taught us what the replacement had to do.

For most of us, finding the the "best" lens kit -- a very personal thing -- has been a matter of trial and error.

... Just buy some gear, use it, and learn what suits you.

For the win!

[h2oman]

So it's hard to build a kit when you don't know what the really special lenses are and where you can skimp and where you should bust out the checkbook....
Adam

Are you going to be shooting 4x5? Do you plan to do mostly landscapes, architecture, and the like, or still lifes, portraits, ...?

All the other folks chiming in know much more about the latter, where you are interested in bokeh, or soft focus, or other interesting looks. But I can tell you this. If (like I was) you are coming from 35mm or DSLR and you are going to shoot 4x5 landscape, I think you'll find you can get great results from any decent lens. I started with a Caltar 90, which is sort of budget/rebranded (Rodenstock, I believe), a Rodenstock Sironar N 150 (the Sironar S is the fancy one there), Fuji 240A (kind of a popular one, maybe considered slightly fancy but not cultish). All of those make great images if the user is competent. In my case, even when the user is incompetent they can make good images by accident on occasion!

Good deals can be found both here and on ebay, if you keep your eyes open. I have a wonderful Fujinon W 125 that I got for... about $125 on ebay.

If you do prefer landscapish subjects, another thing to consider is your taste in focal lengths. When I started I was into the David Meunch near-far thing, and kept looking at lenses wider than my 90mm, but now I prefer longer lenses and rarely use my 90 any more.

Last, but not least, there is merit to the idea of spending the bucks initially to get something right away that you will use forever, but ask yourself whether you have been satisfied with your initial purchase of a car, skis, boat, golf clubs, whatever. Chances are you wanted to upgrade after getting a bit of experience. LF will likely be no different.

[h2oman]

My way was much better. My first LF camera was fine, so I sold it and then got the wrong camera. :D

Yeah, the grass is always greener!

[AdamD]

Exactly.

There is the problem. So, just get after it.

I've got my plan now!!

[BrianShaw]

I've got my plan now!!

Do tell...

[AdamD]

I have a 150mm now.

Next 90mm
Then 300mm or 360mm (somewhere in there)
Then 75mm if I think/want it
Then 240mm or 210mm if I think/want it

The only curve ball is the 115mm I might throw in there. It's a good deal and might monkey up the plan, but maybe not too much.

[John Kasaian]

For the longest time. a plain Jane 14" Commercial Ektar kept my 8x10 quite happy.
After about 20 years a few more lenses sneaked aboard, but it still sees a lot of use.
None are of 'em are fancy, but they all think they are :rolleyes:

[AdamD]

Actually I might go with that 115mm first because it's the widest lens I can use with my bellows. The 90 would require a WA bellows. The 115/150 combo can use the same bellows.

[Dan Fromm]

Adam, if you are still using a Cambo SC -- I've completely lost track of what you have -- a bag bellows will cost less that the 115 of your dreams.

[Fr. Mark]

Sounds like a reasonable approach. Once you get going in 4x5 you might want bigger contact prints and then those lenses will seem a lot "shorter." I got to borrow a 75mm (I think that was it) for a 5x7 of a crowded photography store shelf and was astonished at how much it pulled in and how sharp the negative is! There's so much info there I almost hated to contact print it, but I'm not ready to get into truly enormous enlargers. Most of the time 90 on 5x7 has been plenty for me. Depending on what 210 or 240 you get it might be useful on 8x10, too. And, if you like close-ups with the bellows extended more, then the lens coverage goes up, too, so lenses that don't cover at infinity just might do the trick on those flower or lichen portraits on larger formats.

[BrianShaw]

Adam, if you are still using a Cambo SC -- I've completely lost track of what you have -- a bag bellows will cost less that the 115 of your dreams.

... and that is likely true even adding a recessed lens board to the bag bellows buy.

[Embdude]

211331
75mm Zeiss Biogon
135mm Zeiss Planar
150mm Schneider Xenotar
250mm Zeiss Sonnar

These were the top of the 4x5 LF world in 1956... still well thought of today...

[AdamD]

Ok here’s an example of a fancy lens. What is going on with the Schneider Super-Symmar HM 120mm f/5.6?

This thing costs an arm and a leg yet the Schneider APO-Symmar 120mm f/5.6 is pretty reasonable. What’s the difference and why would I drop nearly 2 grand on a lens that the $500 version just won’t or can’t do?

[Oren Grad]

Ok here’s an example of a fancy lens. What is going on with the Schneider Super-Symmar HM 120mm f/5.6?

This thing costs an arm and a leg yet the Schneider APO-Symmar 120mm f/5.6 is pretty reasonable. What’s the difference and why would I drop nearly 2 grand on a lens that the $500 version just won’t or can’t do?

The difference between the lenses is coverage: 211 mm at infinity focus and f/22 for the SS HM, 179 mm for the Apo-Symmar.

As for price, kindly check eBay listings for actually-sold items before freaking out about an asking price that you've spotted.

[Bernice Loui]

Previously discussed.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?111365-Schneider-Super-Symmar-HM-series

Tested, made images and considered the 150mm SSHM for 5x7 decades ago. Decided NO, did not make the images any better than other similar lenses.
And yes, there was a time when this LF stuff was really cheap with the used market completely flooded with stuff like this.


Bernice




Ok here’s an example of a fancy lens. What is going on with the Schneider Super-Symmar HM 120mm f/5.6?

This thing costs an arm and a leg yet the Schneider APO-Symmar 120mm f/5.6 is pretty reasonable. What’s the difference and why would I drop nearly 2 grand on a lens that the $500 version just won’t or can’t do?

[Oslolens]

Ok here’s an example of a fancy lens. What is going on with the Schneider Super-Symmar HM 120mm f/5.6?

This thing costs an arm and a leg yet the Schneider APO-Symmar 120mm f/5.6 is pretty reasonable. What’s the difference and why would I drop nearly 2 grand on a lens that the $500 version just won’t or can’t do?The closest to the 120mm SS HM is a 125mm f5,6 CM Fujinon-W, with just a tiny bit smaller circle, and the same big, nice 67mm filter ring. Next in line is a 125mm Fujinon-W with smaller 58mm? filter threads. The smallest threads are not so good when stacking filters.
I have a belief my 120mm has an edge at larger apertures, f8 to f11 off centre, and that suits me well.
My 120mm is more used than my 150mm.

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

[Greg]

211331
75mm Zeiss Biogon
135mm Zeiss Planar
150mm Schneider Xenotar
250mm Zeiss Sonnar

These were the top of the 4x5 LF world in 1956... still well thought of today...

Around 1980, my boss had a Linhof outfit with 3 of these lenses (less the 150mm Schneider Xenotar at the time, but I believe that he bought this same lens later on) and a 210mm Apo-Lanthar. Whole outfit was in a gorgeous (probably OEM Linhof) case. I used the outfit a few times and it was indeed amazing. But... was shooting chromes of several pieces of artwork and stopping down to probably f/16 along with some outside B&W handheld shots again at probably f/16. He bragged about the quality of the 4x5 chromes and how contrasty the B&Ws were. To this day believe that he was just trying to justify the cost of his outfit. Ironically I never remember him using the outfit to shoot anything.

[AdamD]

Ok interesting. Thanks...
For those who were interested, I'm happily now shooting on an Acra-Swiss F-Line Classic (171). The standard bellows (which I have) is just enough to enable the 90mm lens to work with adaquate movements.

The reason I asked about the 120mm lens above was that now that i can see what a 150 and a 90 looks like, I can see how a lens in the middle might be pretty cool. I figured a 120 would be nice.

[h2oman]

I like my Fuji 125W, and they are pretty affordable. Went out a couple days ago and used my Fuji 125 and 240 for 5 out of 6 sheets of film.