What am I about to do?

[Carsten Wolff]

Ahh, the conundrum.....I think I have developed lens Angst.
Life was easy. I started off with a nice standard line-up of lenses in my (then 4x5) kit:
90 Grandagon, 135 Symmar-S, 210 Komura, 300 Nikkor M, 480 Apo-Artar.
All ok glass, right? Should have looked no further; well, may be bought the 450mm Fuji I used a few times, or committed to the 110XL. Then I bought a 6x17 Canham back and more lenses and have now gone weird and vintage: After mowing into 5x7, I'm seriously thinking of just having the 75 Nikkor, 110 WA Dagor, 165 something (W.A. Raptar/Velostigmat?), keep my recently aquired and beloved 254 Conley Anastigmat and leave it at that. Have I gone potty? Apart from the substantial weight and cost savings there must be drawbacks, right? I've often said that it doesn't matter what one gets, but I'm about to commit by selling "excess"....
I do mostly outdoorsy/trekking kinda stuff, so weight is a bit of an issue. I also keep on using 4x5 for color and will use 5x7 more for b/w (well at least until Astia comes out again in 5x7; one lives in hope)....

[Gene McCluney]

In my opinion, you can never have too many lens choices. never.

[Gene McCluney]

For my 4x5 personal work I have 65mm, 75mm, 90mm, 125mm, 135mm, 150mm, 210mm, 250tele, 360tele, 400tele. I still need more lenses.

[Shen45]

Ahh, the conundrum.....I think I have developed lens Angst.
Life was easy. I started off with a nice standard line-up of lenses in my (then 4x5) kit:
90 Grandagon, 135 Symmar-S, 210 Komura, 300 Nikkor M, 480 Apo-Artar.
All ok glass, right? Should have looked no further; well, may be bought the 450mm Fuji I used a few times, or committed to the 110XL. Then I bought a 6x17 Canham back and more lenses and have now gone weird and vintage: After mowing into 5x7, I'm seriously thinking of just having the 75 Nikkor, 110 WA Dagor, 165 something (W.A. Raptar/Velostigmat?), keep my recently aquired and beloved 254 Conley Anastigmat and leave it at that. Have I gone potty? Apart from the substantial weight and cost savings there must be drawbacks, right? I've often said that it doesn't matter what one gets, but I'm about to commit by selling "excess"....
I do mostly outdoorsy/trekking kinda stuff, so weight is a bit of an issue. I also keep on using 4x5 for color and will use 5x7 more for b/w (well at least until Astia comes out again in 5x7; one lives in hope)....

You haven't mentioned old brass soft focus lenses as yet so you cannot be taken seriously :)

I hope you have good brakes on your billy cart as it is all down hill from here.

But what a ride !! :)

Steve

Oh and you can never have too many lenses. Just get more cameras with different sized lens boards. I find that helps with any form of justification.

I've got a soft focus camera -- a sharp camera -- a not so sharp camera --

[Steve Barber]

Well, you obviously have a gap in your line-up; the 150mm “normal” lens is not listed.

Moreover, nothing you list will allow much movement on an 8x10 so how will you be able to take advantage of the 5x7 format? I mean, isn’t that the point of having a 5x7, you get to use 8x10 lenses for even more movement, without having to drag an 8x10 around?

72mm, 90, 120, 120 macro, 135, 150, 210, 300, 480 and, at the least, a 600mm tele are minimal for the 4x5. For the 5x7, looking ahead, the lenses should have good coverage on an 8x10; since it won’t be long, now, before you will acquire one of those, also.

No, it isn’t lens angst. That is what you get after you acquire a lens—for things other than what are used in photography, it is called buyer’s remorse. You definitely regret having purchased it, you realize that you have no use for it and will never get back what you spent for it.

Lens angst is what you get after having acquired a lens. Did you really need it? Will you be able to find some situation where you will be able to use it? If you do, will it be able to allow you to do anything you couldn’t have done just as well with what you already had and will the resolution, contrast, color, bokeh and character actually be of the very best; allowing you the full freedom necessary to accommodate your artistic range? Not that lens angst won’t turn into buyer’s remorse, it is simply an intermediate step in your predestined descent into the ultimate hell where you have acquired a 4x5, a 5x7, an 8x10 and at least two ULF’s along with a panoramic with a back at least 2.83 times as wide as it is high, preferably on its own ULF camera with its own triple extension bed and not just a convertible 8x10 or something even worse, like a 5x7 with a 6x17 roll film back.

No, what you have is not lens angst, it is GAS! This is how it all starts and is only the first stage of your addiction. You did have cameras before you started messing around in large format, didn’t you? Think about it, you are already horribly addicted. This is how it started, but, now, it isn’t just starting, you require larger and larger doses to satisfy your addiction and that is causing your craving for a larger format or a bigger lens or, better yet, both at once.

Now, it is too late to avoid it or to short circuit the process. In the end, there will be no more decisions to make that will reasonably provide a basis for endless soul searching. There will be no more lenses, no more formats, no more worry about necessary bellows length and whether a triple extension bed is really needed. In the end, you will reach the ultimate decline into complete oblivion, looking for a new process, some new chemical or, worse, end up trying to design and build your own camera. Even Sisyphus had it better than that. And, even if you avoid those, there is always something worse; there is always the pinhole trap.

Abandon hope, all ye that enter here!:D

[Carsten Wolff]

Thanks for that discourse, Steve :).... astonishing how many truths you've touched on. Yes, I admit it, I also still have a 150mm, (but don't use it). And yes, I've also built my own camera (5x7 Hinge-rule p/s underwater!!!:)) still "improving" that one; great toy. I have to agree with your reasoning about image circle, however, I definitely won't go into 8x10, or larger; because (somewhat incongruently perhaps) I like my large (read 16x20+) prints from my 5x7 Durst and I enjoy doing both b/w and color. 8x10 seems more for people who like their azo-contacts (...good for them) and who don't hike much. I've also had 8x10 lenses, briefly, but have weeded most of them out already (still hanging on to my 480 Apo-Artar ... for now). So may be there is a finality in one's madness.

I'm probably just:
a) wondering if vintage cuts it in the color department..... so far so good.
b) seeking confirmation that I'm a magic bullet chaser ... Check.
c) hoping that contracting, rather than expanding, may lead to silver halide induced happiness; I hate having stuff I don't use.

In the end, over the next few seasons and after making hundreds of images with various lenses, I will probably be coming to the conclusion I've always suspected: A 5x7 with a 110XL and a 240 Fujinon A is all I need; I will have just taken the long-winded and expensive route to get there. Life....it's all about the journey, isn't it?
Cheers!

[Diane Maher]

Check this out:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html

It is so appropriate. :D

[Terence McDonagh]

8x10 too big? Jump on the whole-plate bandwagon. 6.5x8.5. Seemingly half the weight of 8x10, but only a little heavier than 5x7 and with twice the film real estate. Also means those lenses that are a little shy of movements on 8x10 will be just right. But you'll need a couple more lenses to fill out the whole panopoly of coverage . . .

Come on in. The water's fine . . .

[Brian Ellis]

For my 4x5 personal work I have 65mm, 75mm, 90mm, 125mm, 135mm, 150mm, 210mm, 250tele, 360tele, 400tele. I still need more lenses.

And just think, John Sexton owned only one lens, a 210, for years. Imagine what a great career he might have had and what fine photographs he might have made if only he had owned as many lenses as you have.

[Ole Tjugen]

For my 4x5 personal work I have 65mm, 75mm, 90mm, 125mm, 135mm, 150mm, 210mm, 250tele, 360tele, 400tele. I still need more lenses.

you have a couple of focal lengths I don't have, but...

65, 90, 90, 120, 121, 121, 135, 135, 150, 150, 150, 6", 165, 180, 180, 210, 210, 210 240, 270, 300, 355, 360, 420, 480 and 500mm - none of them tele. and several in some focal lengths, just because they're totally different.

so what do I use most? A 3 1/4" WA rectilinear, and a 150mm doppel-Amatar...

[Carsten Wolff]

Brian,
you can talk....I'm starting to like John Sextons philosophy more and more.....:)

Isn't it that if one only uses a few lenses (and their shutters by the way!... I'm currently using Auto, Alphax, Betax, Compur, Prontor and Copal shutters) one starts to "see" with those lenses and use them in a better way. I think I've liked LF initially because the thought that the "image is everything" appealed, and because of it's generosity in resolution per-se. It CAN liberate one from gear obsession to a degree.
Although the collector instinct has everything to do with photography, hasn't it?

[Armin Seeholzer]

"however, I definitely won't go into 8x10, or larger"
The same did I also tell everybody 20 years ago I will stay at 4x5 thats just fine for me. Still 10 years later the same. But since 2 Years I have a second 8x10 and it is more in use them my 4x5 outside, so go figure...
And I need all my lenses from 47 mm up to 600mm and a bit longer would be even better.
This days I have also an SF lens syndrom but it starts to get better I only need stil a Petzval and then I'm complete maybe!
Never say never or it kiks in your own ass!
Just some thing to think about. Armin

[Jan Pedersen]

It's to late Carsten, do you think John Sexton could go back and use only one lens?
Just try to damage control that is much better. Accept that you are hooked and limit yourself to one lens a month;)

[Brian Ellis]

Brian,
you can talk....I'm starting to like John Sextons philosophy more and more.....:)

Isn't it that if one only uses a few lenses (and their shutters by the way!... I'm currently using Auto, Alphax, Betax, Compur, Prontor and Copal shutters) one starts to "see" with those lenses and use them in a better way. I think I've liked LF initially because the thought that the "image is everything" appealed, and because of it's generosity in resolution per-se. It CAN liberate one from gear obsession to a degree.
Although the collector instinct has everything to do with photography, hasn't it?

I meant to put a smiley at the end of my post. I actually think that in John's case it was a more a matter of what he could afford rather than a belief that owning only one lens was a good thing.

However, I do think it's easy for some photographers to convince themselves that they need to own a lot of different lenses to make good photographs, especially LF photographers, for many of whom the gear seems to hold an unusual amount of interest. Fortunately for me my GAS has been confined to cameras, I've never had it for lenses and so have managed to stay pretty rational when it comes to owning them. I usually own no more than four at any one time - presently it's a 100mm, 135mm, 210mm, and 300. I also owned an 80mm until recently but sold it because I wasn't using it. I'll probably add a 75mm at some point but I've owned three of the four I now have for 10 or more years and the 100 for about a year (it replaced the 80).

[Sylvester Graham]

65, 90, 90, 120, 121, 121, 135, 135, 150, 150, 150, 6", 165, 180, 180, 210, 210, 210 240, 270, 300, 355, 360, 420, 480 and 500mm - none of them tele. and several in some focal lengths, just because they're totally different.



Good God! How do you do anything? At one point I had quite a few lenses, but I sold most of them off. I just could never make a decision in time, and most of them were dead weight. No matter what format I'm using I only find the need for three lenses; a moderately wide, a normal, and a telephoto 2X that of the normal. And I rarely use the wide. I find I can react faster with only three choices.
-Alex

[Nick_3536]

You don't have to bring them all with you-)

My widest two lenses won't cover 8x10. So no worries about hauling them with the 8x10. I've got one lens that's so heavy it needs it's own camera -) So even if the focal length is fairly similar to some other lens I own it'll never get used for the same things.

[Ole Tjugen]

Same here - while all of those lenses could theoretically be used on the 4x5" camera, I generally cut that down to a "subset" of 65, 90, 120, 150 and 240. Or maybe a 355 too, depending on how far I'm planning to walk. And maybe another 150 - there's a huge difference between an Apo-Lanthar, a Tessar and a Germinar-W!

The 65, one of the 90's, the 135's, and all but one of the 150's won't cover 5x7" which makes that simpler. And the Gandolfi doesn't have lensboards big enough for the #5 Compound shutter, so that eliminates the 360. The 210/6.1 Xenar is so good i usually don't bring anything else in that focal length, but I might bring the 240 Symmar just in case i need it as a 420.

for 8x10" it's even simpler: 121/8 Super Angulon, 165/6.8 Angulon, 210/9 G-Claron (or 210/6.8 Angulon - depends on whether or not I think I'll need lots of movements), 240/5.6 Symmar, 300/5.6 Symmar, 355/9 G-Claron. The 360/5.6 Symmar stays at home, unless I bring the 24x30cm camera too - and I'm not carrying that one more than about 20m from the car!

[Carsten Wolff]

That's exactly what I was eluding to, Ole. Cutting down... I was just wondering about the odd focal lengths/lenses in my case....and all that 5x7 gear could also occasionally be used on 4x5 for color. I figure I'd carry a mere 3lb in lenses with me. All I need?! (75/4.5) 110/8 165/8.5 (or 4.5) 254/6.3....well, may be back to adding a 450 Fuji C one day (or I could even try one cell of the 10" Conley by itself as a long (20"?) lens).