PDA

View Full Version : Just one lens?



blevblev
13-Jan-2008, 14:00
If you were to have only one lens for 4x5 landscape photography, regardless of price, which one would it be?

Ron Marshall
13-Jan-2008, 14:10
Of course everyone will have their preferred focal length; for general lanscape mine would be the Rodenstock APO Sironar-S 135mm.

Walter Calahan
13-Jan-2008, 14:18
Any good triple-convertible. Ha ha ha ha.

D. Bryant
13-Jan-2008, 14:41
If you were to have only one lens for 4x5 landscape photography, regardless of price, which one would it be?
Probably a 150 mm for me.

Don Bryant

sanking
13-Jan-2008, 14:53
If you were to have only one lens for 4x5 landscape photography, regardless of price, which one would it be?


For landscape work with 4X5 or 5X7 I would like to have a 90mm to 600mm Zoom.

Sandy king

Hany Aziz
13-Jan-2008, 14:53
Another vote for a 135 mm lens. Any recent vintage lens by Rodentock, Schneider, Nikon or Fuji should be fine. It won't give you massive coverage for movements but should be enough for landscape photography. The Rodenstock Sironar N (or equivalent Caltar IIN) is a particular favourite of mine, tiny (40.5 filter thread) and very sharp.

Sincerely,

Hany.

Eric Woodbury
13-Jan-2008, 14:56
110mm SSXL.

Ole Tjugen
13-Jan-2008, 15:17
Any good triple-convertible. Ha ha ha ha.

Agreed.

If I can't have a triple convertible, I'll take a 180mm f:5.6 Symmar convertible. The 150/256 is just a little too soft in the corners for my taste.

But I would use it on a 5x7" with an extra 4x5" back, so that I could get a "wide normal" FOV out of it too!

My second (or is that "third"?) choise is a casket set.

Sorry, I just can't do with a single focal length. But I can easily get by without multicoating!

Vaughn
13-Jan-2008, 15:27
I would go with a 150mm f5.6. And that is what I did. I like the idea that it is close to how we see...which for me, made it easier to learn how the camera/lens/film combination sees. Now it is fun to have different focal lengths for my 8x10, but I am glad that I stuck with one lens (and all "normal") for each format (4x5, 5x7, 8x10) for so long.

Vaughn

Skorzen
13-Jan-2008, 15:28
Well I don't know about long term but today I shot with only my 203mm Ektar and was happy.

Oren Grad
13-Jan-2008, 15:40
135mm Apo-Sironar-S.

Armin Seeholzer
13-Jan-2008, 15:40
If its for landscapes only it would be my lovely 90 mm F 4.5 Nikkor!

Armin

Ken Lee
13-Jan-2008, 15:47
"Landscape" is a rather broad category, so any answer is simply a reflection of one's favorite subject matter and approach.

If you were to hand out lenses at random, and force each of us to use one exclusively, most of us would do just fine, and have some good fun in the process. It would be a creative exercise.

Photography is not a sterile linear process. In the interplay between the equipment at hand, the subject, and the photographer, each influences the other.

Many great classical composers wrote not only for one instrument, but for a variety of instruments, orchestras, quartets, trios, as well. They just adapted to circumstances and... got creative.

eric black
13-Jan-2008, 15:56
Rodenstock 150mm Sironar S for me!

Eric James
13-Jan-2008, 16:08
You should consider the Rodenstock APO Sironar-S 135mm or the 150mm. I don't own the 135mm (yet) but I find myself grabbing the 150mm far more often than any other lens. The 150mm has a significantly larger image circle than the 135mm.

I recommend thinking about the future. Is it your plan to shoot with one landscape lens from here to eternity, or will you eventually branch out? Maybe you don't know. A great two lens kit would be that 135mm and the Fuji 240mm f9. A great three lens kit would be a 110mm, 150mm, 240mm. A great four lens kit would be a 90mm, 135mm, 200mm, 300mm. My point is: as your quiver of lenses increases in size, the usefulness of your "first and only lens" waxes and wanes.

neil poulsen
13-Jan-2008, 16:14
Actually, I recall that Schneider had a large format zoom lens at one time. But, it sure wasn't 90-600mm! :D

Mine would be a $180 lens. Oops, I meant a 180mm lens.

Bill_1856
13-Jan-2008, 16:18
John Blakemore, the great English landscape photographer, only used a 180mm lens for his 4x5 view camera. Paul Strand had only a 10" Dagor on both his 5x7 Graflex and 8x10 Deardorf.
(I cannot document this, so if they are incorrect, please don't flame me. Thank you.)

blevblev
13-Jan-2008, 16:23
re: Is it your plan to shoot with one landscape lens from here to eternity, or will you eventually branch out?

It's my intention to branch out, but I wanted something basic to start. I'd like something flexible to learn with. Quotes like "I find myself grabbing the 150" to be revealing.

Ted Harris
13-Jan-2008, 16:44
110 SSXL is probably what I use most frequently but when I think of traveling with just one lens to keep it light it is the 135 Apo Sironar S

Turner Reich
13-Jan-2008, 16:47
Any price? A Cooke triple convertible.

Vaughn
13-Jan-2008, 16:50
snip
It's my intention to branch out, but I wanted something basic to start. I'd like something flexible to learn with.snip


In that case, I reaffirm my vote for a 150mm/5.6 in a Copol 0 shutter.. A relatively large image circle, so one can learn the camera movements without too much trouble, as Eric mentioned. A good opportunity to learn to see photographically close to what our eyes see. Light weight (1/5 pound). Relatively cheap (such as a Caltar II-N) on the used market. A good all-around lens, that one can eventually diviate from and appreciate going longer or shorter from.

A second choice would be a 180mm. A little heavier, often in a Copol 1 shutter. But would be a little better suited for portraits, while still very good for landscapes.

Vaughn

Colin Graham
13-Jan-2008, 17:16
135mm 4.7 xenar. Cheap, sharp, great bokeh.

Frank Petronio
13-Jan-2008, 17:21
I just switched from a 150 to a 135 but it hardly matters. Either or.

Eric James
13-Jan-2008, 17:28
re: Is it your plan to shoot with one landscape lens from here to eternity, or will you eventually branch out?

It's my intention to branch out, but I wanted something basic to start. I'd like something flexible to learn with. Quotes like "I find myself grabbing the 150" to be revealing.

Then consider where you want to end up; consider filter size, and the beauty of a quiver that manages with 52mm filters. I'm deep into glass (not like our friend from Norway) with some regret. If I had it to do over again I would find a 90mm f8 Nikon, start with the 135mm Rodenstock, find a 200mm Nikon, and buy a 300mm Fuji/find a 300mm Nikon.

Notice that this four lens kit is conspicuously void of three of the finest lenses out there: the 110mm from Schneider (it's relatively heavy for field work and takes larger filters), the 150mm APO-S (the 135mm is probably as good, and its smaller IC doesn't compromise landscape work as it would other disciplines), and the 240mm f9 Fuji (where I started and probably a major source of GAS because of its odd focal length). Which bring us back to the three lens kit: the 110,150,240; notice the room on either end for expansion to a five lens kit.

paulr
13-Jan-2008, 18:32
For years I just used a 210. Then I started seeing things wider and got a 120, which I used most of the time.

I don't think it's about the subject; it's about the way you like to look at it.

Beyond that, if you have just one lens, it will train you to start seeing the world the way it sees it (for better and for worse).

eddie
13-Jan-2008, 20:19
HHHMMMM? i only have one lens, a 165mm tessar for my 4x5......so i guess that lens. :) :)

Jack Flesher
13-Jan-2008, 20:52
Probably the 110

BradS
13-Jan-2008, 21:29
any modern 135mm plasmat from Fuji, Nikon, Rodenstock, or Schneider.

Vaughn
13-Jan-2008, 21:41
I suppose another thing to consider (tho it does not have to be the deciding factor) is on the camera /format you use now, do you have a "favorite" focal length lens for landscapes?

I started out in photography with a Rollei TLR with a non-interchangable normal 80mm lens. This provided some influence for having one normal length lens (150mm) for 4x5 work. But I can see where someone regularly using a 28mm or 35mm lens with a 35mm camera might gravitate towards a 110mm lens (or shorter) for 4x5.

This may have less influence if one will be doing a whole different type of imagery with the 4x5 than one did with smaller formats. Personally, I found myself using the TLR like a LF camera, so moving up to 4x5 with the equivilent normal lens to be quite normal, so to speak.

Vaughn

Doug Dolde
13-Jan-2008, 22:01
This is a repeat question asked long ago. But my answer is the same Schneider 110mm Super Symmar XL.

Brian Vuillemenot
13-Jan-2008, 23:20
150 Apo Sironar S

Zach In Israel
14-Jan-2008, 00:17
I currently only have a Caltar 150/F5.6 on my camera. I would love to own a few more lenses but right now I don't (I also have a 300F4.5 Tessar in a barrel, but its not mounted yet). Someday I will pick up a few more lenses, but I expect its low on the list.

Gordon Moat
14-Jan-2008, 00:55
135mm, which is the one I now use the most. However, if Doctor Optic ever made a 135mm, it might be nice to own one; replace that rather plain Schneider I use now.:D

Ciao!

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

dominikus bw
14-Jan-2008, 01:22
Any 150mm lens

timparkin
14-Jan-2008, 02:01
Either a 110XL or a 150 Sironar S - probably the 110

Laurent
14-Jan-2008, 02:38
At the moment it would be my 150 APO-Symmar. The only issue with it is that I can't fold it in the Tachihara, but it is a real killer in terms of sharpness.

David Rees
14-Jan-2008, 02:47
Scheider 120mm f5.6 APO L. 52mm filter thread, very small, very light, wonderful lens. Use it for 70% of my shots -- the other lenses are carried more for the exercise value of lugging a heavy backpack!

David.

john collins
14-Jan-2008, 04:14
Super Symmar 110 XL.

Matus Kalisky
14-Jan-2008, 07:53
I would go with my Fujinon 125 CMW, although a 210 on top of that makes me feel beter ;) .

JPlomley
14-Jan-2008, 08:35
135 APO Sironar-S. What a firecracker! Having said that, I am going to pick up a 110XL to replace my 90 Grandagon/4.5, so my answer may change in 6 months time.

Diane Maher
14-Jan-2008, 08:45
I would have to say my 203 mm Kodak Ektar. Vaughn also made a good comment regarding a favorite lens on a format. In shooting LF for the time that I have, I have come across a 'favorite' lens or two for each format. The scary thing is that I have graphed my lens usage for each format in Excel and it's easy to see which one(s) I use the most for each format.

Hmmm. I suppose the scary thing is that I graphed lens usage in Excel to begin with. :D

mrladewig
14-Jan-2008, 11:21
I shoot color landscapes. I would probably opt for a 120, 125 or 135. You can always crop to get 150, 180 or 210 fields of view and with 4X5, you would still have a decent image size. The Schneider 120 Symmar HM or APO Symmar might be a good choice. They seem to be relatively compact and light, with excellent image quality. The Rodenstock APO Sironar 135 N or S both seem like pretty good candidates too.

Bruce Watson
14-Jan-2008, 11:30
If you were to have only one lens for 4x5 landscape photography, regardless of price, which one would it be?

I actually spent my first year of LF photography with just one lens -- a 110mm SS-XL. I still use the 110mm SS-XL for about 1/3 of my landscape work, but my carry kit now has three to five lenses in it depending on where I'm headed.

Nick_3536
14-Jan-2008, 11:38
Then consider where you want to end up; consider filter size, and the beauty of a quiver that manages with 52mm filters.

What he said. But I doubt what you consider your final goal will stay static. You could put together a list of lenses. Rank them in order of value to you then pick them off when you find them at good prices. I just think most of us change over time from the starting to the end point.

Any lenses? Either the big Nikon 150 or the 150 XL. You might want one for 8x10 some day. :p

Luca Merlo
14-Jan-2008, 11:45
I am on the cheper and longer side ;): Nikkor 200 M.

Ciao from Italy

ljb0904
14-Jan-2008, 11:58
I think 50% of my shots are done with a 135mm, 30% are done with a 75mm, 15% with a 240mm...

Alan Davenport
14-Jan-2008, 12:00
It's my intention to branch out, but I wanted something basic to start. I'd like something flexible to learn with. Quotes like "I find myself grabbing the 150" to be revealing.


In that case, I reaffirm my vote for a 150mm/5.6 in a Copol 0 shutter..

I looked at this thread yesterday, almost posted but decided to hold off. My first thought was my 90mm f/8 Super Angulon. After sleeping on the idea, I have to agree with Vaughn and a couple of other posters: the most versatile lens in my (admittedly limited) experience is my Caltar II-N 150mm f/5.6. It's a "normal" lens, not notably long nor wide. It's plenty sharp, though I'll admit to seeing some mutants that are sharper. With the bellows on my Caltar-branded Tachihara, I can get to 1:1 magnification with the 150. A great all-around lens, and a consistent go-to choice in my bag.

Daniel_Buck
14-Jan-2008, 13:57
240mm on a 4x5

jnantz
14-Jan-2008, 14:34
meniscus lens harvested off of a folder

Ole Tjugen
14-Jan-2008, 15:30
It may not be my most used lens, but it's the most useful lens: 165mm f:6.8 Angulon. So far I have used it on 6x7 (rollfilm back), 9x12cm, 4x5", 5x7", 13x18cm, 18x24cm and 8x10". So I could possibly use one lens only, but then I would have to insist on three cameras!

ifer
15-Jan-2008, 01:40
i have a schneider 210 apo for my shen hao 4x5. thats all...

blevblev
15-Jan-2008, 14:39
So, when a particular lens was mentioned it ended up as...

Lens - Number
135mm 4.7 xenar - 1
150 APO-Symmar - 1
150mm f5.6 - 1
165mm f:6.8 Angulon - 1
165mm tessar - 1
180mm f:5.6 Symmar convertible - 1
203mm Ektar - 2
90 mm F 4.5 Nikkor - 1
Caltar II-N 150mm f/5.6. - 2
Fujinon 125 CMW - 1
Nikkor 200 M - 1
Nikon 150 - 1
Rodenstock 150mm Sironar S - 4
Rodenstock APO Sironar-S 135mm - 6
Rodenstock Sironar N 150 - 1
Scheider 120mm f5.6 APO L - 1
Schneider 110mm Super Symmar XL - 6

Just by focal length...

Length - Number
90 - 2
110 - 6
120 - 3
125 - 2
135 - 12
150 - 11
165 - 2
180 - 2
200 - 1
203 - 2
210 - 1
240 - 1
300 - 1

seawolf66
15-Jan-2008, 14:49
I believe Walter has the best Idea , get A triple convertable Lens [8-14-18] something like that:

LFdelux
15-Jan-2008, 14:50
Schneider 110mm Super Symmar XL ASPH is on my Linhof now. That is all I need or want for my landscapes.

mrladewig
15-Jan-2008, 15:22
I didn't specify one single lens before, but since it seems that is what you are asking for, I'd say Fuji CMW or NW 125 for landscapes. You can crop to get longer equivalent focal lengths (150, 180 and 210) without scrapping too much film, but you cannot go wider. But if you go much wider (<90mm), then you aren't left with much area with a crop to a normal focal length. 125mm just seems to strike a good balance.

I will have a Fuji 125 NW soon so I'll be able to give more direct feedback on the focal length then. I also have a 65 super angulon, 150 symmar-s and Fujinon 210 W. From my 35mm usage, I expect my most used lenses will be the 125 and 150.

The 110 SSXL seems like a really nice lens, but it is designed for a format larger than 4X5, so you pay a size, money and weight penalty.

blevblev
15-Jan-2008, 16:09
One of the items mentioned was a larger image circle for learning camera movements. Just how much do you need over the basic 163mm for 4x5? For some of the most popular lenses:

Schneider Super Symar XL 110mm - 288mm circle
Rodenstock APO Sironar S 135mm - 208mm circle
Rodenstock APO Sironar S 150mm - 231mm circle

and in that focal length range there's

Rodenstock Grandagon N 155mm - 382mm circle

I'm not sure how it relates to the movements that my Zone VI 4x5 camera can make, and how severe the movements ever get doing landscapes. I don't really plan on doing much architectural photography.

Vaughn
15-Jan-2008, 19:01
You don't need much for landscape, it just gives you a little more to play with, if for example, you wanted to use a bit front rise without changing the tilt of the trees -- or perhaps going a little farther on the front tilt than one would usually do...you might decide to try something different and get the lens as close to that leaf as you can, but still get the background in focus

A little larger image circle also allows one to work within the sharper center "sweet spot" of the lens...instead of working with the edge of the image circle. This might be important if one is making 16x20 enlargements.

A larger image circle just increases the variety of images one can make from a particular focal length. There are a unlimited number of images to find using whatever lens one has -- but if a lens is even more versital (sp?), then you would have an unlimited number plus a few more, LOL!

Of course, if you want to try some close-up nature studies, then image circle usually is no longer a factor, as it is quite large when focused up close to anything.

There have been times I have run out of image circle photographing landscapes with normal lenses...then I recompose and work within the limits of the lens...usually I can get it to work for me...or I just move on to the next bit of light.

Vaughn

Laszlo
15-Jan-2008, 19:51
135 mm Apo Sironar-S

Jim Galli
15-Jan-2008, 19:58
Why, a 131mm Bausch & Lomb Protar VIIa of course. All that other stuff is just trash.

Ron Marshall
15-Jan-2008, 21:04
One of the items mentioned was a larger image circle for learning camera movements. Just how much do you need over the basic 163mm for 4x5? For some of the most popular lenses:

Schneider Super Symar XL 110mm - 288mm circle
Rodenstock APO Sironar S 135mm - 208mm circle
Rodenstock APO Sironar S 150mm - 231mm circle

and in that focal length range there's

Rodenstock Grandagon N 155mm - 382mm circle

I'm not sure how it relates to the movements that my Zone VI 4x5 camera can make, and how severe the movements ever get doing landscapes. I don't really plan on doing much architectural photography.

For landscape I have found I rarely use more than about 200mm of image circle on 4x5.

Lenses with larger image circles, in general, tend to be heavier and more expensive. Have a look at the chart on the front page of this site:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

A benefit of having an image circle larger than that required to just cover the film, (153mm for 4x5) is the front standard can be raised (front rise) to eliminate unwanted foreground in an scene, or to include to tops of tall objects. The amount of rise needed depends on what you are shooting. But I found that for landscape, about 200mm has usually been enough for me.

davidb
15-Jan-2008, 21:54
Another vote for the Super Symmar 110 XL. It's that good.

Great focal length. Huge image circle.

I carry two lenses. The 110 and a 210 Apo Symmar.

Ole Tjugen
16-Jan-2008, 00:41
For landscape I have found I rarely use more than about 200mm of image circle on 4x5. ...

The landscapes around here are steeper, so I frequently need more. A lot more. At some point I have run out of image circle with just about every lens I own, with the exception of the 355mm G-Claron.

blevblev
16-Jan-2008, 05:39
Is the minimum circle 153 because the image doesn't go all the way to the edge, or is 4x5 film not actually 4x5 (like lumber)? I get 163 - sqrt(16 + 25) = 6.4 * 25.4 = 162.6

Ole Tjugen
16-Jan-2008, 06:22
It's both.

4x5" film is a little bit smaller than 4" x 5", since the film size was reduced to fit in adapters in plate holders - and the glass plates were 4" by 5". So there's about 3mm lost each side there.

And then there's the film margin, or what is hidden beneath the rails in the holders. So all in all the diagonal of the image area is about 153mm.

JPlomley
16-Jan-2008, 09:47
I ran out of IC with my 135 APO Sironar-S on about 5 images requiring front rise when I was in Zion NP. Those steep canyon walls will challenge anything under a 250mm IC. Hence the reason I plan to add the 110 SSXL to my arsenal.

SAShruby
16-Jan-2008, 13:15
Fujinon 210 WS. Love it.

Paul O
16-Jan-2008, 13:18
110ssxl.

NICETOPOL
16-Jan-2008, 15:48
I like a lot my 150 APO SYMMAR L, incredible sharpness. And stay in my Linhof closed.

Mark Sawyer
17-Jan-2008, 00:29
*sigh...*

It's like asking what single food you'd like for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, for the rest of your life...

davidb
17-Jan-2008, 00:35
that's an easy one Mark, PIZZA.

Vaughn
17-Jan-2008, 09:19
*sigh...*

It's like asking what single food you'd like for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, for the rest of your life...

Nah...it is closer to asking what size frying pan do you want to cook your breaky, lunch and tea in.

A person could shoot a lifetime of images using just one lens -- and still have a greatly varied collection of portfolios. It is not the amount of equipment one has -- it is the eye and mind of the one using it...one lens or a GAStly amount.:)

Vaughn

mrladewig
17-Jan-2008, 13:24
*sigh...*

It's like asking what single food you'd like for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, for the rest of your life...

I would agree, but from the sounds of it the fellow asking can afford one lens right now. It sounded like he wants to start off on the right foot with help from the folks here and then expand his collection. Nothing wrong with that approach. We all have to start somewhere.

And I like Vaughn's answer too. That one lens could lead to a huge range variations.

Mark Sawyer
17-Jan-2008, 15:44
I agree with Vaughn as well. My answer was a bit flippant, but I love having so many toys to play with. But while I have the freedom go from lens to lens for the desired effect, I do so at the cost of never really exploring all the possibilities within a single lens. (Especially so since I don't have much time to photograph.)

If I had to choose today, I think I'd go with an 11" or 14.5" Verito, knowing that it can range from quite soft with a lovely glow, to very sharp, and all the steps inbetween. That Verito's are convertable doesn't hurt either...

blevblev
18-Jan-2008, 10:15
the fellow asking can afford one lens right now

It's not so much a matter of affording, it's more a matter of confusion. When you buy a Nikon camera and if you stick with Nikor lenses, you have access to a pretty clearly laid out group of lenses. You don't have to concern yourself with coverage, or camera movements, or shutters, or lensboards - you just buy a lens, and it works.

I'm new to all of this large format stuff with it's dizzying array of lenses from different companies at different price points. To many of you talking about this is second nature, but to me it's a mystery. That's why I'm going to stick with one lens for the time being. I think that more lenses would just confuse me at this point. As some here have said, they only use one lens anyway. I might as well make the one lens I pick a versatile one.

Later on, I can go nuts.

Ole Tjugen
18-Jan-2008, 10:48
... To many of you talking about this is second nature, but to me it's a mystery. ...

It's a mystery to us too, that's why we spend so much time discussing this. :)

The main "schools" in lens choise are:

1) Newers: Modern lens design has progressed so far beyong the hand-calculated lenses of earlier days that buying anything but the very latest lens design is a waste of money.

2) Olders: Those 100-year old lens designs were actually quite good, and with the simplicity of LF lenses it's really hard to improve upon them. The later (multi-) coated versions of the old classics still give high enough resolution on film that it's unlikely that the lens is the limiting factor in your photography.

3) Bottomfeeders: I've got this chipped bit of glass here - I wonder if it can make an image at all?

-------------

That's why these discussions go on for so long: Newers will never understand Olders, Olders will never understand Newers, and the Bottomfeeders are too exited about their latest find to care about what others think (but would much rather discuss the relative merits of Leitmeyr Weitwinkelanastigmats vs. pre-WWII Johs. Schneider Angulons). :)

Nick_3536
18-Jan-2008, 10:56
It's not so much a matter of affording, it's more a matter of confusion. When you buy a Nikon camera and if you stick with Nikor lenses, you have access to a pretty clearly laid out group of lenses. You don't have to concern yourself with coverage, or camera movements, or shutters, or lensboards - you just buy a lens, and it works.


Then narrow the field.

Some lenses are really 4x5 only lenses. Some happen to cover 5x7 to. Others are mainly aimed at the studio market. Others to the backpackers.

In the same way some can be naturally considered wide angle lenses. If you stick an 8x10 wide angle lenses on a 4x5 you'll end up paying both in terms of money and weight when

In my mind most won't end up comparing say Schneider Super-Symmar XL 150mm and the tiny Fuji-w 150mm. They are both 150mm. Both are F/5.6. You could stick both on a 4x5 camera if you REALLY wanted to but most won't even consider comparing the two. They are so different they target different people.

Frank Petronio
18-Jan-2008, 11:06
OK, for commercial architectural photography I can see where you need a range of lens choices.... But otherwise I think it is really freeing to use only one lens. If there is a good picture there, then you can find it with what you've got. I think a lot of the time people just pidder around and play w gear instead of making good pictures.

CG
18-Jan-2008, 11:52
That's like asking whether one wants to have lungs or a heart.

C

blevblev
18-Jan-2008, 13:36
So here's me like an a&#37;#@#le looking for a bargain...

I just got a catalog from Calumet - they are selling new Caltar II-N 210mm f/5.6 lenses for $489 and Caltar II-E 210mm f/6.8 lenses for $289, and I'm thinking, "Sounds like a good price, maybe I should buy one - you know - for later when I need another lens."

John Bowen
18-Jan-2008, 13:54
Blev,

I shot 4x5 for while during the 80's, then put it up when kids arrived. I didn't get back into LF photography until 2003, when I picked up a Zone VI 4x5 on Ebay. A couple years later, I "graduated" to 8x10 and contact prints. The thought that "someday" I might want to acquire a ULF camera has been in the back of my mind since I saw an article in View Camera a few years ago. So, as I acquired lenses for my 8x10, I was always conscious of the image circle, because I "might" later want them to cover ULF. When I "graduated" to 7x17, I didn't have to replace any of my lenses. I have a 305 G Claron (originally purchased for the 4x5), 355 G Claron, 450 Nikon M, and a Fuji 600. These were all purchased to use on the 8x10, but they all cover 11x14, 7x17 and some will cover 8x20.

Just something to keep in mind as you start to build your lens collection..

Ole Tjugen
18-Jan-2008, 13:57
So here's me like an a%#@#le looking for a bargain...

I just got a catalog from Calumet - they are selling new Caltar II-N 210mm f/5.6 lenses for $489 and Caltar II-E 210mm f/6.8 lenses for $289, and I'm thinking, "Sounds like a good price, maybe I should buy one - you know - for later when I need another lens."

"New"???

Then again, I'm a "Bottomfeeder"... :p

Frank Petronio
18-Jan-2008, 14:04
Yeah those are on the high side. You can buy the latest nicest 210s ever for the mid-$200s if you are patient. I should know, I've sold half a dozen of them for peanuts on the dollar.

Last one was a Linhof select in a Prontor Pro for under $300... grrr

John Bowen
18-Jan-2008, 14:14
"New"???

Then again, I'm a "Bottomfeeder"... :p

Used!!

dpetersen
18-Jan-2008, 18:54
You could't really go wrong with a 135 or 150 from the big 4 (Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon or Fuji) in a good shutter. Either FL will serve you well now and in the future. Personally, I would not buy new as there are usually many near new examples for sale by stores such as Midwest Photo or on the internet. If you buy used, I would plan on having the shutter CLA done when you buy-that way you know where the speeds are at. Flutot's Camera Repair does a nice job for a reasonable price.

My first lens was a 152mm Ektar on a Crown Graphic. Some really effective images were made using that lens, When I sold the Crown (why did I do that?) I went with a 135mm Apo Symmar and have never regretted it. That was 15 years or so ago and the lens still gets its fair share of photon transmission.

DP

blevblev
18-Jan-2008, 18:54
I'm not seriously going to buy one. It just shows how your mind can wander when someone says "SALE"

Lucas M
18-Jan-2008, 22:35
I use only a 180mm lens and it works fine. I didn't know what lens I'd get right away either but the 180 was available used for a decent price and of a good brand, Rodenstock, so I got it. Works fine for me.
What I'd say is just get what you can. Focal length isn't that big a deal.

Dave_B
19-Jan-2008, 10:30
I also vote for the 110 SSXL. It is simply a superb lens. It is the last lens I would get rid of.
Dave B.

roteague
19-Jan-2008, 10:39
110mm SSXL.

Ditto.

davidb
19-Jan-2008, 10:47
Ditto.

ditto ditto

Mark Sawyer
20-Jan-2008, 10:55
A haiku, dedicated to those who use "just one lens":

Fine, sharp plasmat,
My only lens, forever!
(hmmm, ebay Petzvals...)

john borrelli
22-Jan-2008, 15:31
I have been a weekend 4X5 landscape photographer for several years and I own one lens; it is a 150mm Rodenstock Apo Sironar N lens I bought used from KEH for $400.00. I have bought used 240mm and 300mm lenses and returned them. The older 240mm was not sharp compared to the 150 and the viewfinder appeared too dim. The seeming loss of depth of field with the 300 compared to the 150 was disconcerting. The 300 was sharp but didn't have the three dimensional qualities of the 150. It seemed to compress the background and foreground together. Though I enjoy this effect with 35mm cameras I didn't with my 4x5. I haven't tried a wide angle lens as they tend to diminish objects in the background and that would mean making New England's small mountains seem even smaller. I eventually may upgrade to a Rodenstock 150mm Apo Sironar S, though I have returned a brand new one that didn't appear sharper than my much less expensive N version with the small amounts of movements I typically use. Incidentily, I have heard that Ansel Adams took many of his most iconic images with the equivalent of a 150mm lens for his 8x10 camera. All in all I like my one lens approach and I have been happy with the particular lens I own.

David K.
1-Apr-2008, 10:04
Lots of votes for the 110 Schnieder, but I have had the 120 SS HM since it first came out, and just love it.

The 120 Super Symmar is with me for life, and is the "one lens" for my classic Master Technika.

Gordon Moat
1-Apr-2008, 14:01
While I rarely shoot landscape, I have thought about the one lens issue. My return to large format a few years ago meant starting with one lens, so I got a 135mm f5.6. I tend to still use that for the majority of my work, though I sometimes like the greater coverage and slightly tighter composition from my 180mm f5.6. Since it is so easy to change a lens, and having at least one backup is a good idea, I don't see much reason to limit your gear to just one lens.

Another consideration is how close you want to get to your composition. If you want a tighter view without cropping, but you cannot get closer to the scene you want, then a longer focal length is the only solution. I would think this applies more to landscape, though the same idea can be used for other types of images.

Ciao!

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

John Berry
1-Apr-2008, 14:33
If your only going to have one lens make it a 210. It will be the most versatile.

Kirk Fry
1-Apr-2008, 21:43
The only lens I owned for 10 years was a 210mm f5.6 Rodenstock Sironar. Made life much easier. I could look for pictures instead of lenses. K

Mark Sawyer
1-Apr-2008, 22:52
Just one lens? As a wise man once said...

"There's too many pretty women to love just one!"

Variety is the spice of life...

archivue
1-Apr-2008, 23:46
3 lens kit : 110XL + 150AS + 240AR
2 lens kit : 110XL + 150AS
1 lens only : 135S

for 8x10 i use a 240AS and a 360N... so the choice depends also on what's possible considering price, coverage...

Kirk Gittings
2-Apr-2008, 00:00
For many years, even after I was making my living shooting architecture for national magazines, I used only two lenses. For a long time that was all I could afford. But I continued with it, as It became a kind of trademark. They were a 210 and 90 Fujinon. By changing camera position I always seemed to be able to get what I wanted. I loved the simplicity of my vision then. There was a kind of discipline to it that I was proud of. That gave way over the years, now I carry 9--a 47, 65, 90, 120, 150, 210, 350, 450 and a macro. I can handle the diversity now and rarely make a change after initial lens selection, but when I was new it would have been confusing, slowing and a detriment to developing my eye. Does that make sense?

My single favorite lens of the group is the 120 Nikkor SW. It avoids that "wide angle" look but is a "roomy" angle of view and since the lens cover an 8x10, on my 4x5 I never have to worry about running out of movements. If I could only have one, that would be it. I like it so much that I replaced a perfectly serviceable one (which I bought new maybe 15 years ago) with a new one not too long ago because I wanted a new one while they were still available.

E. von Hoegh
2-Apr-2008, 11:33
If you were to have only one lens for 4x5 landscape photography, regardless of price, which one would it be?

I use a 9 1/2" Dagor almost exclusively on my 8x10,; this would be 120 on 4x5.
For some strange reason, I use an 8 1/4 on the 4x5. This is a bit long; I'm waiting for a 7" to pop up.

If I may I'd like to pass on a bit of advice I recieved when I first had the big cameras: Pick one lens and use it. When you go shooting, take that one lens only.Learn how it "sees". I did that for about a year, and I think I learned more than I ever would have had I carried a battery of lenses to choose from.

irwinhh
4-Nov-2009, 19:28
Interesting:
I can only comment from the context of what lenses I use.
I have multiple 35mm cameras and over the years many lenses from < 15mm to over 1000mm. I take 95% of my pictures with a 50mm the remainer with a 35mm or a 90mm.
I have an 8x10” I take the vast majority of my pictures with a 14" lens. A 12” lens is a normal for this camera.
I take a very few with a 10" lens and a very few with a 6" lens. I also have a 4 inch lens a really nice aspheric - I have only used it three or 4 times over 8 years.
I have an 11x14 inch camera and have only used a 19" lens on it. Very close to a normal lens.

Looks like I take most of my personal pictures with a normal or very slightly longer lens.
So using one lens would work for me in most cases.

For commercial work I suspect one would use a lot of different focal lengths.

Go figure?
Andy

Kirk Fry
5-Nov-2009, 00:09
I started with 210mm and still use it a lot. That would be my choice. KFry

jnantz
5-Nov-2009, 05:10
a darlot wide angle rapid rectalinaer, and i would shoot it
without the rear cell

Jiri Vasina
5-Nov-2009, 13:10
On 13x18cm (5x7") I use Xenar 210mm f/4.5 (http://www.vasina.net/?page_id=260) for 60-70% of my shots, regardless if they are landscapes, portraits, details (it's an old single coated sample, but a wonderful one)... I just know how to use that lens best. The second most used would be a 300mm (http://www.vasina.net/?page_id=276)/305mm (http://www.vasina.net/?page_id=235) and then something in the 150mm (http://www.vasina.net/?page_id=983)-160mm (http://www.vasina.net/?page_id=1042) range. (in 4x5" terms, they would translate to 140mm for the most used one, and 210mm and 100-105mm respectively).

For 4x5" I have only one lens, the Xenar 135mm 4.7 (http://www.vasina.net/?page_id=63). So that might also explain, why I like it's equivalent in the larger format...

Jiri

sgelb
5-Nov-2009, 14:38
I plan on shooting almost every image going forward with a cooke f/2.9 165mm lens.