Lens assortment---an appreciation

[John Kasaian]

I shoot mostly 8x10 and I've got an ecclectic collection of about 6 usable vintage lenses plus three more old 'shelf queens' that need serious work. After several enjoyable years with only one or two lenses in my kit, it has always struck me ludicrous to have so many lenses supporting one format but the past year has brought me a greater appreciation for my rag-tag collection as I look through my negatives.

The high sierra pocket glacier images were perfectly encompassed within the 19" Artar.

The shot of my Bride's potting bench, which is in a tight corner of the patio could only be captured by the wide 159mm Wollensak (even the 240 G Claron wasn't able to get the whole enchilada!)

The old stone country church filled the gg nicely using the 240 G Claron from across the street---I would have lost the top of the steeple with the 10" WF Ektar.

Several nocturnes simply wouldn't have even been attempted without a 300mm Nikor "M" but not so much because of the lens as the camera the lens is attached to---a feather wieght Gowland Aerial fixed at infinity---the circumstances (working alone and in questionable locations) made using a "regular" view camera with precious time spent carting equipment from the car, setting up and focusing too lengthly. With the Gowland I shouldered the camera on a 35mm size tripod with a holder and cable release already in situ and used the sports finder instead of focusing on the gg for 'run and gun' time exposure night photography!

My collection of lenses have been built up over several years, always in response to a genuine need that I've identified when my usual glass either didn't have the "reach" or "cover the acreage" to tackle a particular challenge. This approach worked out well for me and being an optical bottom feeder I really don't have much of a financial investment in my glass either.

I'm wondering what the "optical philosophies" of the rest of us are towards lens acquisitions? Do you feel that you have too many? Not enough?

[Nick_3536]

I'm wondering what the "optical philosophies" of the rest of us are towards lens acquisitions? Do you feel that you have too many? Not enough?

Both. I've tended to have a list then bought when things popped up. I also tended to not worry too much about weight. Both helped save money. I also tended to consider future need so I haven't had to ditch lenses because I went up a format. Buying the 105SW Fuji instead of the 90mm saved me some money since everybody wants the 90mm and it covers 5x7 better.

It also helped I put together a light weight set for not much money. Except for the one new lens the Fuji 450.

With three 300mm lenses I really don't need any more but if a cheap light weight 300mm popped up I'd likely consider it. :p Basically the only thing left on my list and it's a very low interest item for me.

[roteague]

I tend to stick with just a few lenses, and I try to work the location with what I have rather than seeking to buy more lenses. Also, since I need to travel by air to go anywhere, I've found the fewer the better. Currently I use just 3, all Schneider lenses - 80XL, 135, 210. I have a 120 Nikkor Macro (new), but I haven't used it yet.

[Darren Kruger]

I'm wondering what the "optical philosophies" of the rest of us are towards lens acquisitions? Do you feel that you have too many? Not enough?

Both. I already have too many lenses but that doesn't stop me from buying more. Part of what keeps my buying is wanting to try out some of the old glass and see how they render images on film.

I also recently started shooting 8x10 and am trying to figure out what length lenses "work" for me in this format. I have four that cover and a fifth on the way.

-Darren

[Glenn Thoreson]

Almost all my lenses a old. Some are 19th century old. My only modern LF lens is a 240 Sironar N. Old does not mean bad, by any stretch of the imagination. I have a LOT of lenses. I will continue to buy more when I find them cheap, too.

[Gordon Moat]

I looked at two main criteria in selection. First was a lens that matched the relative perspective that I tend to use when drawing (pencil, graphite, pen or ink) a scene; turned out that was a 135mm. Then I found I wanted more movements in some shots, though I wanted not too much difference from my 135mm; that led me to try out a few lenses, then stick with a 180mm. About the only other need I might find would be a wide lens, though I don't think I would use it often; did try a 75mm a few times, and that will likely be a future choice.

In all that searching, I have acquired a 21cm Tessar, and a Holmes, Booth & Haydens Petzval-type design about 144mm. Neither get used much, mostly due to what I consider somewhat ridiculous prices for old shutters, though I am working on a mounting set-up with a Packard shutter. The Tessar let me know that I found 210mm slightly too long. With the HB&H, I am still playing with the best composition usage, though it is close enough to my 135mm to allow similar control of the image.

I should point out that I use a 56x72 rollfilm back often. My main two lenses, the 135mm and 180mm, both needed to fit into usage with that back, so a dual role consideration was part of my decision process.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Dan Fromm]

I'm wondering what the "optical philosophies" of the rest of us are towards lens acquisitions? Do you feel that you have too many? Not enough?According to my wife, I have too many lenses. I'm afraid she's right.

I still covet one lens that I'm not even sure I can use. 53/4.5 Biogon, gift Biogons accepted. Otherwise I don't need more lenses, but will probably go on acquiring.

I've acquired my lenses for a number of reasons:

Bought because good enough and not too expensive. That covers many, not all; lenses from under-appreciated makers, process lenses, lenses from aerial cameras.

Bought as a speculation, with resale in mind. Sometimes, for one reason or another I don't sell. These days the reason is usually inertia, I have a small pile of lenses that really should find better homes ...

Bought to fill a gap between focal lengths already in hand. There are few significant gaps left, so the rate at which I'm acquiring lenses has slowed a lot.

Bought for a shoot-out. Two motivations here. When I was chasing macro lenses, they were poorly documented and the only way to find out whether one was good enough was to buy it. So I bought more than one lens for a task and had a competition. From time to time I inhale a little of the "lens signature" smoke that's in the air and accumulate a couple of functionally equivalent lenses to see for myself what difference design makes.

Bought as part of a package, package bought for something else in it. 103/4.5 Graftar bought for $20 because it was on a factory board; boards cost more than $20. 105/4.5 Comparon in #0 Copal Press bought for the shutter; after I got it I realized its better in the range I shoot closeup than the Componon in barrel I already had, so its on board now.

Bought to find out what it was. That's my 4"/4.5 Aldis Anastigmat Uno. Everyone knows that real Unos are f/7.7. The 4.5 turns out to be an ordinary triplet. And now you know that too.

Bought pour epater la bourgoisie. My uncoated f/6.3 Tessars, the 4.75"/7.7 Uno, also uncoated. Cheapies, too.

[Mark Sawyer]

This is my current lens cabinet, which only holds about half my lf lenses:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g139/Owen21k/IMG_2277507hi.jpg

I have more than I need, or probably deserve, and I could probably get by with a dozen lenses and never feel constrained. My problem is, the variety is so wide, and each is soooo delicious in its own way...

I'm lucky enough to have a few very expensive state-of-the-art-multicoated-aspherical-apo-turbo lenses, and a few fabled classics. But most are well-used, middle-of-the-road lenses, or oddities, or clunkers and mud-sucking bottom feeders...

I've used most of them more than once, often doing side-by-side comparisons, or just using what, given the options, would be any knowledgeable photographer's last choice...

Know what I've found out? There's not a single one that would hold me back, not one that doesn't have it in it to make the most beautiful photograph, if only I could live up to it.

I think that's why some of us accumulate these collections of old and new optics. We don't just see the lens, we see the potential in it. The question is, will we live up to it...

[John Bowen]

Hey Mark,

The next time my bride insists I have too many lenses (about 13 if I counted correctly) I'll be sure and show her your Lens Cabinet.

[Mark Sawyer]

Hmmm... maybe that's why I never found a bride!

[John Bowen]

Lol

[Glenn Thoreson]

Mark, I wish my pile was as nice and neat as yours. Excellent!

[Ole Tjugen]

This is my current lens cabinet, which only holds about half my lf lenses: ...

My lens cabinet is far less organised, but when I looked closely at the picture I realised why:

I use several cameras (15 LF cameras at present), and they ALL have different lens boards! Mounting a lens on a lens board is just about the last thing I do before i take a camera out - and in many cases several lenses share one board. I would much rather spend money on more odd little old lenses than on a big stack of lens boards! And then there's the iris holders - five of my cameras have a lens board each with an iris holder on it. That saves a lot of lens board money. :)


I'm lucky enough to have a few very expensive state-of-the-art-multicoated-aspherical-apo-turbo lenses, and a few fabled classics. But most are well-used, middle-of-the-road lenses, or oddities, or clunkers and mud-sucking bottom feeders...

Except for the "state-of-the-art-multicoated-aspherical-apo-turbo lenses", that's about what I have too. Lots of Tessars, Tessar clones, licensed Tessars, and Tessar copies. Lots of Aplanats in various guises. Lots of "non-Tessar Anastigmats". A few old oddities of short-lived fame (like the Gruppen-Antiplanet). And one or two mythological ones, and a legendary one. :)

All of them are capable of stunning results if I ever live up to them.

The third LF camera I ever bought came with four lenses: A 135mm f:3.5 Zeiss Planar, a 150mm f:5.6 Symmar, a 210mm f:4.5 Voigtländer Apo-Lanthar, and a 360mm f:5.5 Schneider Tele-Xenar. So I kind of got used to having a good selection of very good lenses right from the start. Since then it's all gone downhill, to the extent that my favorite lens today is a 1930's 135mm Zeiss Doppel-Amatar. ;)

[Ralph Barker]

Mark - have you considered starting a lens-rental business? ;)

Love your Verito quote, BTW.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I'm pretty much settled with about 25 newer and older lenses for formats from 2x3" to 11x14" and 7x17". At some point I'll probably have my 12" Gold Dot Dagor put in its own shutter (I currently use it front mounted on an Ilex 5) for better coverage, and maybe I'd like to try a 47 SA-XL one of these days, but otherwise I'm set.

[Toyon]

Lenses should be used, not collected. If individuals have a collecting compulsion, they would serve society better by buying (and displaying) original works of art rather than removing lenses from legitimate and active photographic use. I admire what Jim Galli does since he uses his lenses to illuminate and educate the rest of us.

[Michael Jones]

Hey Mark,

The next time my bride insists I have too many lenses (about 13 if I counted correctly) I'll be sure and show her your Lens Cabinet.

That goes for me, too. With any luck, it will also help me get a cabinet.

Mike

[jnantz]

hi john

i have around 20 lenses ( menisci to super angulon ) right now
that work with formats from 4x5 to 11x14 ...
i use pretty much everything that i have ... either on a camera or the enlarger.
my last purchase / trade was about 2 years ago ...
luckily, i don't see myself getting anything new anytime soon.

john

[roteague]

I'm hoping to add a Schneider 110XL before summer.

[Brian Ellis]

I've never owned more than four lenses at a time for any given format, for many years it was an 80 or 90mm, 135mm, 210mm, and 300mm for 4x5. I recently sold the 80 to finance the purchase of other equipment and replaced it with a 100mm Wide Field Ektar. But that really isn't wide enough so I'll eventually get a 75 also and sell the 100. Except for the Ektar all are modern lenses. Some people just seem to find lenses interesting and enjoy owning a bunch of them. I'm kind of like that with cameras but I don't take any great interest in lenses exept as tools for making photographs and for what I do four is plenty. I don't offhand recall ever missing a photograph because I lacked a lens.

[J_Tardiff]

Hah-- Mark, when I saw your lens cabinet I immediately called over my better half (non-photographer, sigh) to make the point that *my* collection was not out-of-control.

Got a smirk and "don't get any ideas" for my trouble ;) . Oh and for those of you who have a similar spousal discordance, things went easier around here after I surprised my husband with a new set of pipes for his motorcycle :D .

I'm a rank beginner and after I felt a bit constrained on my first western trip with my gear I reconfigured a bit, now have a 110XL, 150/9 G-claron, 210 APO-Symmar *and* for a holiday gift (yes, from Mr. Non-Photographer -- the pipes really worked) a Nikon 300mm/9 . All will work on both my 4x5 and my 5x7 and none of them are too monstrous to carry when I hike.

But I must admit (hanging my head here) that I have been a bit seduced by the siren song of the vintage look and also own a Wolly velostigmat 12"/f4.5 and am looking for a similar lens in 210-240 for the 4x5 (portraits). Since I am in the process of restoring a 5x7 B&J I am seriously considering trying my first Packard + barrel lens combo, that looks like a slippery slope ..... darn Jim Galli!

JT