Mark Woods
17-May-2000, 17:20
i am thinking about buying a 150mm lens to use on my toyo field camera (the 45a) . i am having trouble deciding between three categories: 1.) a flat-field close up lens like the schneider g-claron (around $500), or 2.) a mid-priced general-p urpose lens like the nikkor w, the rodenstock apo sironar n, or the schneider ap o symmar ($550-670), or 3.) a higher-priced lens that might, for all i know, com bine the best of the first two categories in spite of what they are specifically designed for, like the nikkor apo macro, the rodenstock apo sironar s, or the s chneider super symmar (i know these last 3 have very different purposes).
i shoot many full-frame pictures (both professionally and for pleasure)of flat t hings like paintings that range in size from 5 inches long to 100 inches long, a nd for this it seems that the g claron is the best choice, or something of a sim ilar design. but i also shoot just as many pictures of things that are farther a way and not flat. i understand the g claron can give decent (but still not top-q uality) results for lower magnifications if stopped down to f 22. but i would ra ther have a general purpose lens if it could give top-quality results close-up o n flat things.
I know that no lens can be designed to do everything. so maybe i should just buy both a g claron and something from category 2 above. but I'm wondering which of these categories (1 or 2 or 3) is least up to the challenge of shooting subject s it was not designed for at magnifications it was not designed for: for example , which is worse on a 4 x 5 camera? the g-claron shooting a distant landscape at f22, or a nikkor w shooting a 5-inch (or 100-inch) flat painting full-frame? as i understand it, anything more than 25 inches long would be longer (if shot ful l-frame with a 4 x 5) than what the g-claron is best for. at magnifications less than this, is a nikkor w just as good as a g-claron for shooting flat paintings ? only at certain apertures? would the expensive super symmar or sironar-s give me better results of this than the nikkor w? schneider's tech people tell me tha t the g claron is actually more versatile than any of these, if i just stop down to f22. but if the g claron is the best all around lens for all these things, w hy would it also be the least expensive? (stupid question, i know. but still...)
by the way, i have carefully read (although not entirely understood)this article on flat field lenses by ron wisner: http://www.wisner.com/myth.htm it is good, but all it tells me is not to worry about the g claron for general p urpose. but can someone tell me not to worry about the nikkor w (or apo sironar s, or something else) for close-up pictures of flat things?
it would be nice to have just one 150mm do all these things well, (and fit insid e my toyo 45a when i fold it up!) so that i do not have to buy (and carry around ) two 150mm lenses.
i know some of you will be thinking i should learn more with cheaper equipment b efore i spend all this money on a new 150. i do not deny that i have a lot to le arn about 4 x 5 photography. i've only spent about a year in earnest doing it, a nd that has been in the studio with older equipment. but i did comit my life to being a photographer twelve years ago, and have been living and breathing photog raphy (mostly small and medium format) ever since, without looking back. so i kn ow i am in this for the long haul both professionally and for pleasure, and am n ot hesitating to make the investment in a really good 150 lens (i've been using a 150 schneider symmar whose shutter started giving me problems recently... many of you very generously gave me advice about how to handle that situation, and i thank you. i finally decided to look into better lenses rather than spend any m oney on a toyo lens board for it or on repairs for it).
sorry so long-winded. any thougts from you are greatly appreciated.
mark
i shoot many full-frame pictures (both professionally and for pleasure)of flat t hings like paintings that range in size from 5 inches long to 100 inches long, a nd for this it seems that the g claron is the best choice, or something of a sim ilar design. but i also shoot just as many pictures of things that are farther a way and not flat. i understand the g claron can give decent (but still not top-q uality) results for lower magnifications if stopped down to f 22. but i would ra ther have a general purpose lens if it could give top-quality results close-up o n flat things.
I know that no lens can be designed to do everything. so maybe i should just buy both a g claron and something from category 2 above. but I'm wondering which of these categories (1 or 2 or 3) is least up to the challenge of shooting subject s it was not designed for at magnifications it was not designed for: for example , which is worse on a 4 x 5 camera? the g-claron shooting a distant landscape at f22, or a nikkor w shooting a 5-inch (or 100-inch) flat painting full-frame? as i understand it, anything more than 25 inches long would be longer (if shot ful l-frame with a 4 x 5) than what the g-claron is best for. at magnifications less than this, is a nikkor w just as good as a g-claron for shooting flat paintings ? only at certain apertures? would the expensive super symmar or sironar-s give me better results of this than the nikkor w? schneider's tech people tell me tha t the g claron is actually more versatile than any of these, if i just stop down to f22. but if the g claron is the best all around lens for all these things, w hy would it also be the least expensive? (stupid question, i know. but still...)
by the way, i have carefully read (although not entirely understood)this article on flat field lenses by ron wisner: http://www.wisner.com/myth.htm it is good, but all it tells me is not to worry about the g claron for general p urpose. but can someone tell me not to worry about the nikkor w (or apo sironar s, or something else) for close-up pictures of flat things?
it would be nice to have just one 150mm do all these things well, (and fit insid e my toyo 45a when i fold it up!) so that i do not have to buy (and carry around ) two 150mm lenses.
i know some of you will be thinking i should learn more with cheaper equipment b efore i spend all this money on a new 150. i do not deny that i have a lot to le arn about 4 x 5 photography. i've only spent about a year in earnest doing it, a nd that has been in the studio with older equipment. but i did comit my life to being a photographer twelve years ago, and have been living and breathing photog raphy (mostly small and medium format) ever since, without looking back. so i kn ow i am in this for the long haul both professionally and for pleasure, and am n ot hesitating to make the investment in a really good 150 lens (i've been using a 150 schneider symmar whose shutter started giving me problems recently... many of you very generously gave me advice about how to handle that situation, and i thank you. i finally decided to look into better lenses rather than spend any m oney on a toyo lens board for it or on repairs for it).
sorry so long-winded. any thougts from you are greatly appreciated.
mark