First post: please, some help in choosing my first lens setup

[MWitmann]

Hi everybody,

i've spent some time reading several thread from this forum before decide to sign to it and post.

After many years in the field of 35mm and 6x7 photography, i've decided to make the big (but natural) step of the large format. I've decided to start with a good camera, in order to don't have it changed after few months and i stubled in a very good EbonySV45TE body, in very nice condition. I find that the camera has all the needed movments, probably more that i will use, considering my intentions with the camera and the type of approach.

If the body seems to be settled now i have some difficulties in choosing a first 2 lens setup:

I intend to do mostly landscape/urban landscape and i thought that will be great to start with a combo of a wide lens and a moderate wide lens. I'm looking for the "great sharpness" (like almost everybody :) )

I'm intrested in a combination of a 90mm lens and a 135-150mm, so the possibilities and nominees are:

Nikkor SW 90mm f 4.5 vs Nikkor SW 90mm f 8

from one side i understood that the F 4.5 version is sharper and will be also better for the focusing at 4.5; on the other side i read that the f 8 version is better and sharper because has more elements. What do you think?

Rodenstock Sironar S 135mm vs Schneider Super Symmar 110 XL

from one side the Sironar seems to be sharper and cheaper, from the other side the 110xl has more coverage and better results in color transiction and separation

Rodenstock Sironar S 135mm vs Sironar S 150mm

from one side the sharp and wider 135, from the other side the also sharp 150mm and a bit longer focal.

Rodenstock Grandagon N 90 mm F 4.5 - Green Stripe - Caltar II N vs Nikkor SW 90mm f 4.5 and f 8 version vs Super Symmar 110 XL

fell free to advice about this last combo of three :)


Later on, in few months i will probably also go for a shorter focal, probably 210mm or even a Fujifilm Fujinon C 450mm f/12.5, but only after having chosen a good combo from the ones listed up here.

I will use the SVTE with universal bellows so that will let me use the 90mm focal without problems of bellows; but i want to ask you if there will be any problem if i will choose a 75mm lens, in order to have a more variate focal range (75mm and 135/150mm vs 90mm and 135/150mm).

I want a versatile lens, very sharp and stable; so please, advice me from your experience; any kind of advice or confirmation would be a great help.

I want also to apologies for my bad english and for not having been very exact with description and "case documentation".

Thank you!

Mike

PS- i know that a lot of these lenses have been already discussed in several threads; i've read them but in this thread i've tried to do a "resume'" of the situation having more specific and centred aswers.

[Louis Pacilla]

I can tell you that the Nikkor 90 f4.5 and f8 both have 8 elements. Unlike Rodenstocks 90 mm f4.5 having 8 elements and the 90 f6.8 having only 6 elements and a smaller IC.
So the up side to the Nikkor 90mm f4.5 versus the f8 is the f8 is "as sharp" and close to same IC as the f4.5 but is much smaller and lighter.

Hope that helps a bit.

Peace

BTW- Welcome!

[Alan Gales]

A Caltar II N is a rebadged Rodenstock Grandagon. The advantage of the Caltar is that their resale value is a little lower so you can pick them up used a little cheaper.

From my understanding any later Caltar, Rodenstock, Nikkor, or Schneider lens is going to be plenty sharp.

[Bill_1856]

They're all good. Fine. Excellent. It don't matter which -- just pick the one with the lowest price and the newest shutter, (and the easiest one to return to the seller if there's a problem).

[Gem Singer]

Having owned/used the Nikon/Nikkor f4.5 and f8 90SW lenses, both lenses have a 235mm image circle, and they are equally sharp and contrasty.

The f4.5 is slightly brighter and easier to focus in dim light. However, it is larger and heavier than the f8 version and takes 82mm screw-in filters.

I sold the f4.5 version and still have the f8 version. It's my most used WA lens for 4x5.

The Nikon/Nikkor f8 120SW is the WA lens I use for 5x7.

[Mark Stahlke]

If you're contemplating getting both shorter and longer lenses in the future, I'd like to suggest starting with a 110mm and a 180mm. The 110 SSXL is an outstanding lens and any of the modern 180mm lenses will be very nice.

For what it's worth, I often go out with a 75/110/180/300 lens kit. I'm very happy with that setup.

[Gary Tarbert]

Hi , If your main work is landscape /Urban landscape then i would be keeping weight down , also my advice for easier workflow avoid large filters such as on the nikkor 4.5
I have kept my filters at 52or67 with only one stepping ring and all filters @ 67 .
My landscape kit is 90mm Nikkor (67)135mmNikkor(52)Fujinon240A (52)Fujinon300c(52)
I also Have 2 extra Wide angles but i never take all 3 on the same trip Schneider super angulon 58xl(67) andSchneider 75super angulon(67) But if i have any advice that will make your life easier is note the filter sizes in brackets , Don't have a lot of different filter sizes it will make your life hell !! Regards Gary

[MWitmann]

Thank you all for your answers !

I must admit that my idea was to get the Nikkor 90 f 4.5 and the Rodenstock Sironar S 135mm; the first for the 4.5 and for its quality, the second because more sharp that the Sironar 150mm, with which i initially intended to start the set. Now i'm reconsidering the Nikkor 90mm f8, due its better dimensions and weight.

I also admit that the 110XL tents me somehow; i've read only brilliant reviews about it, but i've also read that the Sironar-S is sharper. I'm pretty aware that at this level on quality the difference of sharpness/results isn't strong, every lens being very sharp, but i'm also aware of the price difference so, if possible, i will try to spot the "bust money can buy" combo/deal for that range of price.

I allready think that the ebony SV45TE is a pretty serious machine, and that if wasn't for the sale occasion i would had chose a more "common" body, so i try to be more temperate about the lenses.

The ebay offerts for the Nikkor 90mm are pretty good, in the range of 500-800$, the Sironar S 135-150mm sticks at ca. 1200-1500$; my goal is to buy 2 very good lens in a buget of ca.2000$, two lenses that will provide covering for most common landscape scenarios and also for some interiors.

I was also thinking to go under 90mm but i'm not sure about that, but the combination of the 110SSXL and a 180mm ( Mark's advice) is interesting.

Unfortunatly i'm not able yet to search the "market" section of this forum so i'm using only the ebay support.

Thank you all.

[MWitmann]

i forgot to say that at this point i think necessar put in the game also the rodenstock 90mm f 4.5, which seems also sharper than the 110 SSXL.

So after reading tons of posts i just trying to debunk the 110 SSXL issue; smaller, lighter, brighter + big image circle are the cause of the extra money, otherwise solutions can be found also elsewhere.

I'm tempted to have a "rodenstock line", something like 90mm+150mm, but i found more intresting to have different producer, also in order to better understand the possibilities, as newbie.

[Mark Stahlke]

It sounds like you have a lot of food for thought to chew on.

A nice thing about LF lenses is that they hold their value. If you buy a decent used lens for a reasonable price you can usually resell it for about the same price. This makes it cost effective to try a number of different lenses to find the ones you like.

Another good source for used lenses is KEH. (http://www.keh.com/)

[Alan Gales]

Mike,

In the early 1980's I bought a Contax 139 35mm camera which used the fabled Carl Zeiss lenses. Why a Contax? Because I wanted the sharpest lens line for a 35mm SLR. Soon after, I joined St. Louis Camera Club. At the meetings they would project everyone's slides and critique them. Club members used Zeiss, Leitz, Nikkor, Olympus, Cannon, Minolta and only God knows what other lenses. When I looked up at that screen to save my life I couldn't tell you what image was shot with what.

Like I did with my 35mm, I think you are worrying too much about the small differences in lens sharpness.

Alan

[Gary Tarbert]

Mike,

In the early 1980's I bought a Contax 139 35mm camera which used the fabled Carl Zeiss lenses. Why a Contax? Because I wanted the sharpest lens line for a 35mm SLR. Soon after, I joined St. Louis Camera Club. At the meetings they would project everyone's slides and critique them. Club members used Zeiss, Leitz, Nikkor, Olympus, Cannon, Minolta and only God knows what other lenses. When I looked up at that screen to save my life I couldn't tell you what image was shot with what.

Like I did with my 35mm, I think you are worrying too much about the small differences in lens sharpness.

AlanAlan you are right on the money ,smartest thing ive heard today Regards Gary

[Alan Gales]

Thanks Gary!

[MWitmann]

Mike,

In the early 1980's I bought a Contax 139 35mm camera which used the fabled Carl Zeiss lenses. Why a Contax? Because I wanted the sharpest lens line for a 35mm SLR. Soon after, I joined St. Louis Camera Club. At the meetings they would project everyone's slides and critique them. Club members used Zeiss, Leitz, Nikkor, Olympus, Cannon, Minolta and only God knows what other lenses. When I looked up at that screen to save my life I couldn't tell you what image was shot with what.

Like I did with my 35mm, I think you are worrying too much about the small differences in lens sharpness.

Alan

Hi Alan,

i'm perfectly aware that the quality differences between those lenses isn't dramatic, and all of them will deliver superb results (or better say that the photographer will deliver superb results, using the setup :) ).

My intention is to strike out some of these hesitations, trying in the same time to make a useful and practical decision for the starter kit.

After some time spent on the forum and reading many reviews, i've realized that i can't find a clear answer for the questions/comparsions stated in the first post: all of those lenses have great reviews, i didn't saw a clear separation between them, in order to be able to choose without doubt.

So that was the source for my "many thoughts to chew on", especially when i've realized that will be more a matter of price than quality (i mean..all the lenses seems to be very good and in a similar range of price).

For me move to the LF is a pretty big step, somehow is a moment charged with responsability, which for me also define a new aesthetics and way of working, so that's why i'm trying to learn how much as i could, before take action and spend money.

Considering my 2000$ budget for the lenses i know that i'm able to buy a combination of any of the lenses initially compared; standing that i've started with researches and found out that the 110 SSXL isn't so easy to find, and the Nikkor 90mm f8 can be bought in mint condition for 400$.

When i started with the 35mm i've worked for several years with all kind of cameras before handle my first Leica. I must admit that when i started to use the M7 with the 35mm F2 ASHP (not even one of the top lenses) was magic after the first roll, because the lens has something that i didn't felt with any other lens. With the SV45TE i bealive that i've compensated somehow the "leica feeling" without being snob ( i really use my equipment and i've choose the ebony because of its many movements, which i didn't found in another non-monorail camera, seems to be a high quality product ) now i'm just trying to spot the magic of the LF lens in my range of price :)

thank you all

[eddie]

you should be able to buy several lenses for your $2k price cap.

i would do a 90mm f8 smallish and a great lens. i think you will be satisfied no matter which you buy. most MC can be found fro under $400.

i would go 150 before i went 135. just an opinion.

then a 210 or 240.

then use what ever $$$ you have left and get a great fast portrait lens or a soft focus lens....you will be there eventually...:)

i bet you could easily buy all 4 lenses for $2k or under....maybe even get a camera as well....:)

[MWitmann]

you should be able to buy several lenses for your $2k price cap.

i would do a 90mm f8 smallish and a great lens. i think you will be satisfied no matter which you buy. most MC can be found fro under $400.

i would go 150 before i went 135. just an opinion.

then a 210 or 240.

then use what ever $$$ you have left and get a great fast portrait lens or a soft focus lens....you will be there eventually...:)

i bet you could easily buy all 4 lenses for $2k or under....maybe even get a camera as well....:)

Hi eddie, and thank you for your advice.

It seems that i already have a camera (the sv45te), that's why i'm focusing (what a perfect term for this situation) on the lens :)

At this moment i think that i will probably go for the nikkor 90mm f8 and for the Sironar-S 150mm; both seems to be great lens, very sharp and very popular, so i think that everythink will be just fine.

I was tempted by the Sironar S 135mm instead the 150mm because a good friend of mine has the 150mm, so probably i will be able to use it anyway.

The 110 SSXL comes with an extra price which i couldn't clearly justify, also after reading your advices, so i think that the Nikkor 90mm f8 will be a great lens for a great price.

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

If you are going to stick with 4X5 I don't see the point in paying extra for the much larger image circle. Does anyone know if the APO Sironar-S is significantly sharper, more pleasing than the APO Sironar-N?

Also, the 90mm f/6.8 Grandagon N has a 221mm image circle. The Nikkor has a 235mm image circle and can cover 5X7. Used the Nikkor costs 50% more than the Grandagon. ($695 vs $465 for EX rated lenses at KEH)

If you are not going to be able to tell the difference in use with 4X5 I would suggest getting the less expensive lenses.

[Bob McCarthy]

Youve been doing your homework, all the lenses your concidering are late model best of the best.

Let me add a few comments,

fast = heavy and bulky in your bag/pack. I can assure you the difference in optical quality is basically =0. Your buying light on the ground glass to focus with. In dim indoors shooting it can be invaluable. If your shooting outdoors and using a proper darkcloth, then the ground glass will be bright with the slowest lenses. A good groundglass is also important, but the Ebony should have that covered.

You rarely/never shoot wide open so only the optical quality at your shooting aperture counts on the film.

I like the 90/135/200-240 also.

I would suggest a fast 135 plasmat, with a f8/90 and a f/8+/_ 200 to 240. Like a Nikon M, G Claron, fuji A, or a Ronar.

Light capable and will make great sharp exposures.

bob

[Alan Gales]

I'm no lens expert but I have done a lot of research on lenses. I have no practical experience with either lens but from what I have read on this forum and elsewhere, the Apo Sironar-S is slightly sharper than the Apo Sironar-N. You are really paying more for the coverage of the Sironar-S.

Shooting landscapes you really shouldn't need the extra coverage. Now if shooting architecture I could see a need.

With lenses I try to buy just what I need as cheap as possible.

[Jim Jones]

. . . With lenses I try to buy just what I need as cheap as possible.

Another gem of wisdom from Alan Gates. The question should not be which lens is better, but what lens is good enough. Some of Edward Weston's masterpieces were captured with an inexpensive rapid rectilinear that was obsolescent before he ever began photography. It was certainly good enough. My lightweight 4x5 kit includes a 65-year-old 203mm f/7.7 Ektar not because it is the best, but because it is light, compact, and certainly more than good enough for me.

[MWitmann]

The fact is that the Sironar S 135mm has a smaller IC than the 150mm..

The final decision will stand between the Sironar S 135mm + Nikkor 90mm F8
and the 110SSXL + the Sironar S 150mm

In the setup 110XXL +150 S i would appreciate the IC factor and the overall quality; in the setup 135S+ Nikkor 90 f8 i would aprpreciate the fact that the Nikkor is cheaper, wider and (considering the reviews) sharper than the 110XL, and the fact that the 135 S is a bit wider than the 150S, and is told that even sharper (probably nothing recongnizible without tests), but has smaller IC.

So what do you think would be the best?

I'm intrested mainly in landscape and urban scenes, but it would be nice to be able to shot also some interiors scenes, so in this case probably will be better have a larger IC and a wider lens, correct?

I want also to ask you for some advices regarding a good source for the lens; i'm already scanning ebay but sometimes may be not enough :)

I still have time to find the right lenses and choose, because i have to wait until the camera will arrive, so it will be the best to achive the feeling that i've made the right research and choice.

Unfortunatly here i can't test similar products before buy them, because there aren't shops dealing something like that; i've only tested and used a friend's shen hao with the sironar s, in order to start from something.

[Gem Singer]

You can purchase previously owned lenses from KEH.(www.keh.com)

They have a huge selection and are now offering free shipping.

KEH has a generous return policy, in the event that you are not satisfied with your purchase.

(I am not connected to KEH. Merely a satisfied customer)

[Alan Gales]

Another gem of wisdom from Alan Gates. The question should not be which lens is better, but what lens is good enough. Some of Edward Weston's masterpieces were captured with an inexpensive rapid rectilinear that was obsolescent before he ever began photography. It was certainly good enough. My lightweight 4x5 kit includes a 65-year-old 203mm f/7.7 Ektar not because it is the best, but because it is light, compact, and certainly more than good enough for me.


Thanks Jim! There is nothing wrong with Kodak Ektars. A 14" Commercial Ektar is the first lens that I bought for my Wehman.

[John Kasaian]

Jim at Midwest Photo is a great guy to buy a lens from, as is Jim Galli who posts here. Might I suggest finding an established photographer whose 4x5 work has the same perspective you're after and enquire which focal lengths he/she uses? That should at least put you in the ball park. Also, you have a very generous budget. I'd take my time selecting glass for your kit, but you may consider getting a less expensive lens (like the venerable Ektar 203 or Wollensak Velostigmat or 215 Ilex Acuton--just as an example) for $200 + or - so you'll have something to shoot while crunching the performance data of the uber glass---these old timers might surprise you! If not you can easily sell it for what you paid.

[MWitmann]

i've read a lot about the Nikkor SW 90mm f8, finding out that is one of the very popular lens, with an almost immaculate reputation.

I'm pretty convinced about it because of its performance (seems very sharp with nice contrast), its weight and finally its price.

It seems a very good lens also because of its image circle, which is bigger than the Sironar 135mm, so i would have a wider lens with more room movements.

I was tempted by the 110SSXL, also a very celebrated lens, but i didn't find offers for it (nothing on ebay) in order to be able to trace some calculations connected to my budget; on the ohter hand i fount a very nice Nikkor SW 90 F8 but the ebay seller won't send to Europe, neither to my uncle, who lives in Vegas (the seller dosen't want to sell the lens to a person but have it shipped to another...)

Very probably i will go for the combo of Nikkor SW 90 F8 + Sironar S 150mm; i'm pretty convinced about that, and about the fact that both are high quality lens which probably will be just great for a 2 lens starter kit.

Now i still looking after more infos about one detail: the comparsion between the Nikkor SW 90mm F8 and the Nikkor SW 90mm F 4.5.

I've read a thread exactly about this, and some say that the F8 is better because it has 8 elements instead of 7 (F4.5 verion) and it's lighter and smaller and sharper; i've also noticed that in many photographer's lens setup i will find the F8 more often than the 4.5.

I must admit that i've learned a lot reading this forum and reciving your advices; this is my first, truly positive experience in a forum.

Does anyone knows if there will be any problem in using the SW 90mm with the ebony sv45te with universal bellow (which allowd extra movements for the wide rage lens and operations)?

Thank you all, once more

Mike

[aduncanson]

The fact is that the Sironar S 135mm has a smaller IC than the 150mm.

Well yes, but, while the longer lens does have a larger image circle, it will also require greater shift to take the same picture. In fact when photographing a tall building from a close distance, using a vertical shift to prevent convergence, the 150mm Apo-Sironar S will not allow you to take any picture that you cannot also take with the 135mm lens of the same design. Magnification will be larger with the longer lens and there will be less foreground in the composition that you may want to crop out, but you can take the same picture with the 135mm.

When using swing to bring an inclined subject plane into focus, the ultimate consideration would be how close to the center line of the film will the maximum swing bring the intersection of the lens plane and the film plane. Again, the longer lens allows more swing but also requires more swing, and in the end it provides only a very small advantage. The longer lens also may require you to push back the camera position to get all elements of the subject into the frame, in which case, there will not be the same requirement that the lens plane intersect the film plane so close to center line of the film. But by pushing back the camera position, you are not really taking the same photo, and that is something that you also easily could do with the shorter lens if necessary to swing the subject plane as much as needed.

I would counsel you to select focal lengths not solely on the basis of image circle, but on the basis of the perspective (subject distance) that they offer. Or, on the basis of the maximum cropping (sacrifice of image quality) that you want to suffer. For example, I have a preferred set lenses where each is longer than the next shorter by a factor of roughly 1.414 (the square root of two). I find that I am satisfied with their ability to deliver images that do not require excessive cropping. By contrast, the ratio from 90 to 150 is 1.67:1. You could find yourself using a 90 where a 135 would get the picture with significantly less cropping.

Best of Luck - Alan

[MWitmann]

Hi Alan,

Yes, i'm aware that sometimes gain one thing will somehow mean to lose another one, but i've reached a conclusion for my lens setup.

I will go for the Nikkor SW 90mm F8, the Sironar S 135mm F 5.6 and the Nikkor-M 300mm F9.

Now i've started the hunting for the SW 90mm, which i want to find in best condition. The other 2 seems to be easier to get: the 135mm will be probably bought new and for the 300mm i will spend between 300-600$.

I've found a great 90 SW F8 on ebay, new condition, but at 800eur, which is a little bit to much.

Thank you

[Gary Tarbert]

Good choices, If you look at the nikkor m also consider fujinon C 300f8.5. Isn't there a 90mm nikkor on the for sale forum??? $800euro is a bit rich , Good luck and look forward to seeing your first efforts Regards Gary

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

Mike, you have picked excellent quality lenses. I hope you can find them for a price that is acceptable to you. I can't wait to see pictures you take with them.

Edward

[MWitmann]

Thank you Gary and Edward; i've started the hunting :)