View Full Version : Came close to selling my LF gear

carl geyer
23-Dec-2007, 14:20
I joined today as I think LF has more than a viable future. One camera and one lens. Canham45DLC with a Schneider 110XL. I carry a 6 x 9 Horseman back for normal shooting and a Readyload for wide angle only shooting Chromes. No digital back and do my own scanning with an Epson 4990 and printer Epson 3800. Have macro and 210mm for special occasions. Fred Picker used a 210 and a 120 for many years. Any thoughts? Happy New Year 2008 Carl

23-Dec-2007, 14:45
I like the simple approach--everyone doesn't need 8 lenses. I plan on using my Chamonix with one or two lenses. There's a lot to be said for having a really light field kit. It's different if you're a pro and need certain focal lengths for different jobs. Since LF is for my own art, I feel like I can be pretty creative with a couple of lenses. On the other hand, I can easily see how people accumulate lenses without trying too hard. :)

Eric Woodbury
23-Dec-2007, 14:53
Any thoughts? ... Yes, don't base your photography on FP.

Brian Ellis
23-Dec-2007, 15:40
Any thoughts? ... Yes, don't base your photography on FP.

You beat me to it, my thoughts exactly.

David Karp
23-Dec-2007, 16:37
My most used lenses are 125mm, 210mm, and 450mm. Probably not too out of the ordinary.

23-Dec-2007, 16:41
You could do a lot worse than following Fred Picker. Try it!

J D Clark
23-Dec-2007, 16:47
I'd forgotten that was Fred's preference. I do find that most of my photographs are made with my 110 and 210, so if I ever want to save weight in my bag, those are the two I carry.

John Clark

23-Dec-2007, 17:25
The Canham and the 110 are great combos.

Make art for you and no one else.

Happy Holidays.

23-Dec-2007, 17:59
I kept my 4x5 usage simple (and light) with just a Caltar 150/5.6. When I moved up to 5x7, I only had a Computar 210/6.3. IMO, if one is going to have only one lens, a "normal" one probably would be the most all-around useful.

Now that I use 8x10 and have found that barrel lenses work fine in 80% of my images, I have gotten a collection of lenses, since barrel lenses are so affordable. (159/210/300/450/600)

Perhaps if one has a longer wide lens (such as your 110mm), then a 180mm would perhaps better than a 150mm as a second lens. But you have a 210mm already, so trying to keep it simple, I'd stay with what you have. If the 210 proves to be too long for regular use, perhaps a 150 might be in order. A 110/150/210 kit would cover most needs. But it all boils down to personal preference.


Frank Petronio
23-Dec-2007, 20:05
Don't succumb, using one lens, one camera will make you a better photographer.

Or at least it is as valid a point of view as those people who feel the need to have more lenses... I mean you're not going to suck because you don't have a second or third lens.

And, I take offense... following "FP" rules, haha ;-)

23-Dec-2007, 20:19
I keep it simple, but not necessarily light. For 4x5 (and 6x7 via a roll film back) I find 135 to fit 89% of my needs, as a "normal" lens. A 210 fills many of the rest of my needs. Wide-angle has always been my weakness but now added a 90... but I'm slowly but surely building a whole separate camera system for wide-angle.

edit: I could probably use a 300, huh? S-A-N-T-A??????

Andrew O'Neill
23-Dec-2007, 20:29
Now, Now, don't pick on Fred...maybe he wasn't a great photographer (in my opinion), but he taught us a lot.

18-Apr-2008, 07:51
Hmmm.... on a 4x5, started with a 180, then an 80 and a 400. The 400 exercises the bellows a little but not bad.

Ralph Barker
18-Apr-2008, 08:04
A belated welcome to the LF Forum, Carl.

The nice thing about large format is that it's large enough to accommodate a wide range of styles. ;)

domenico Foschi
18-Apr-2008, 08:28
I carry three lenses in my bag and they are all of the same focal length: roughly 210 mm.

Frank Petronio
18-Apr-2008, 09:12
You know, I went back and looked at Fred Picker's work and it has grown on me, especially his portraits. He was a damn bit better than most of us and I think his work was more expressive than Ansel Adams, so jeez, you're a hard bunch to please...

18-Apr-2008, 09:34
You said it Ralph!