75 or 90mm?

[gmed]

90mm or 75mm for landscape photography?
I currently shoot in full frame digital and use my 16-35 a lot for seascapes but favour 24mm foe landscape. On the 4x5, I only have the 150mm it is workable for some landscapes. I don't think I will be shooting seascapes with the 4x5. The 90mm are readily available and affordable. I'm afraid the 75 may be too wide for 4x5?

What do you guys think?

[BrianShaw]

I don't like either - too wide. But the 90 seems to work out best for WA

[IanG]

90mm is a very handy focal lenght and it's my second most used lens with my 5x4 cameras. I do have a 65mm for my 5x4 kit and that's only really used on rare occasions.

Ian

[Fred L]

I have the 90 super angulon but would like to replace it with a 75. I find the 90 not wide enough and found it gave me the same vibe as a 28 did in 135 format (ie-kinda meh). Rented a 75 a couple of times and it felt just right. Also used a 65 and that was too wide for my lf work.

[Renato Tonelli]

To my taste, both are too wide; I find that even the 110 is too wide for landscape. But that's my 'landscape point of view'. It would be great if you could test drive some lenses and see which one fits your 'landscape point of view'. Perhaps you can rent them...?

[BrianShaw]

135mm is my typical "wide" for landscapes.

[turtle]

Its very personal.

A 90 is a great standard wide in the 24/28mm vein (35mm terms). 75 is certainly not too wide (John Sexton manages with his), but if I were going down this route, I might go for:

75, 120, 180/210
90, 135, 210 etc

A 110-120 would give you a significantly wider view and mean the 75 fits in neatly should you need wider. IMHO, unless you like big gaps, a 90 works beautifully with a 135. There is certainly nothing wrong with 90 and 150, but I personally like something in between and never got on too well with standard lenses, whether 50mm on my 35mm cameras, or 150s on 4x5! YMMV!

[jp]

Get a 90 if it's readily available and affordable. I've had both and find the 90 is plenty wide for most situations. I sold my 75 as it was more valuable to someone else and not getting much use. If you don't like 90, you won't have a problem selling it. I alternate between 210, 127, and 90 for outdoor stuff.

[Joe Wright]

If you can try both out before committing to a purchase. I used to shoot fairly wide on digital <=24mm, so went with an equivalent on LF, but within a few months I found 75 and even the 90 was too wide for me. Maybe because using LF changed my whole outlook on the subject material I photographed but I've now sold on the 75 and planning to sell the 90 in favour of something around 120ish. Horses for courses though... what suits me as wide is likely to be completely different to others.

[Shawn Dougherty]

My widest lens for 4x5 is a 90mm. I've never been in a situation in the landscape where I thought "I wish I had something wider". However, after seeking out images made by others with a 75mm I think it's a matter of me not recognizing the applications of the optic. I was surprised to see how many images in John Sexton's book "Recollections" were made with a 75mm and the way he used it did not make me feel like the wide perspective was dominating the picture...

I think the best thing you could do is seek out images, here - apug - flickr - books - whereever, that were made with both optics and see which seems to fit your vision best. Good luck!

Shawn

[turtle]

Shawn, exactly! I am the same with long lenses. I just don't 'see with them' and I'm going to work on it. It also depends on where you live. In the UK we have far fewer grand vistas compared to the E. coast of the US, so wide lenses are very useful in working smaller elements into the wider landscape. Everything seems to be that bit closer and so wider lenses get more use. One needs to get up to Scotland to get 'big stuff'. Even Snowdonia is not the same.

[BrianShaw]

In the UK we have far fewer grand vistas compared to the E. coast of the US, so wide lenses are very useful in working smaller elements into the wider landscape. Everything seems to be that bit closer and so wider lenses get more use.

Good point, the answer to this question can be somewhat geographically dependent. In the UK I experienced this phenomenon you describe and found "normal" FLs to be a tad constraining at times. I found occasional greater use for a slightly wider FL there. But mostly I photographed with normal FLs.

[Brian Ellis]

What camera? Some cameras will require you to use a bag bellows with a 75mm but not with a 90mm. Some cameras don't allow the use of a bag bellows and will be harder/impossible to use with a 75mm lens than a 90mm. In general a 75 will be harder to focus and compose than a 90.

I don't think anyone can tell you which to use but those are the kinds of things I'd be more concerned about at this point than which one you think best suits your vision since it's hard to extrapolate from smaller formats to 4x5. FWIW I used an 80mm lens as my widest and thought it gave the best of both worlds for me with my camera (Linhof Master Technika).

[Roger Thoms]

90mm was my first lens, and still a favorite of my mine, but really it is personal preference. I just picked up a 75mm and no it probably won't replace the 90mm but it was too cheap to pass up.

Check out Nana Sousa Dias, he does great wide angle work. Look at post #4646. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?44249-Large-Format-Landscapes&p=850243#post850243

And if you search a bit you'll find more of Nana's work. Or even better look here. http://photo.net/photos/nanasousadias

Roger

[Alan Gales]

If you can then borrow one of each and compare. If not then buy a used copy of each and then sell the one you don't want. If you buy right then you should have no problem getting close to what you originally paid.

Like turtle said, it really is a personal choice.

[alexn]

After months of shooting with a 14 and 16mm on 35mm dslr, I started in LF with a 90mm and found it a little restrictive. My 75mm is my most used lens, I plan to get a 58mm and sell the 90 in favor of a 135 or 150 for those situations when I would have zoomed my 16-35 right up to 35.

What's best in my opinion is to get lenses that mimic the focal lengths you shoot most in other formats. That way you still previsualize your photographs in the same way.

[dave_whatever]

On a note of practicality, 90mm is an undoubted winner. Super-angulon type 90mms are plentiful used, good coverage, no need for CFs, and can comfortably make infinity on practically any 4x5 camera. 75mms are less common, fewer of them around, smaller image circle, a touch of falloff, and might be a bit tight for infinity on some cameras. I reckon unless you're hell-bent on a 75 then get a 90 if only for the sake of practical considerations. Aesthetically its a toss-up.

[Nguss]

I have, stupidly, two 90's (angulon and super angulon) and they are plenty wide for me at the moment. I would like to try a 75 but wondered about the need for a centre filter with them. 90's are fine I think for landscapes although I also think, having used a 135, that this is a useful focal length too.

[turtle]

CF on 75 is personal. The fall off will be more noticeable in colour than B&W and I know some users like to use a CF on this focal length. I think you could happily start using one without and see what you think - this is not like using a 47XL - and spend the money on a CF if you feel the need at a later date.

It would be worth considering a 75 for which centre filters are not too hard to come by on the second hand market, because new they cost the same as a bargain used lens.

[Nguss]

That's really useful, thanks. I may now also have to look out for a 75.

[IanG]

Shawn, exactly! I am the same with long lenses. I just don't 'see with them' and I'm going to work on it. It also depends on where you live. In the UK we have far fewer grand vistas compared to the E. coast of the US, so wide lenses are very useful in working smaller elements into the wider landscape. Everything seems to be that bit closer and so wider lenses get more use. One needs to get up to Scotland to get 'big stuff'. Even Snowdonia is not the same.

Shooting in the UK is why I find my 90mm lenses so useful, and also the 65mm :D I've never been bother using my 65mm f8 SA without a CF and I do use a 75mm f8 SA but usually it's fixed as the standard on my MF camera - a 6x17 :)

Ian

[Old-N-Feeble]

I really like wide and ultra-wide but, beyond that, I like "options". Since I only shoot landscapes I don't always need much wiggle room so... my "ultimate" 4x5 kit would look something like.....

47mm SA XL
72mm SA XL
110mm SS XL
150mm Apo Symmar
200mm Nikkor-M
300mm Fujinon-C
450mm Fujinon-C

[turtle]

Ian, those 65 F8s in Compur 00 shutter are the sweetest little things! They work nicely on 5x4 too, but I had to be really careful not to get vignetting when using even very small movements. I tried to combine front drop with tilt to keep the IC on target. People kept telling me they did not cover 5x4, but I have the negatives as do you!

[IanG]

Have to agree, I don't use my 65mm very often but when I do I've ended up with some great shots. I did try my 75mm f8 SA on a Crown Graphic and it could be a great conbination.

Ian

[Thomas Greutmann]

I think it really depends on your personal "view" on landscapes. When I started with LF I was mostly using a 90mm and a 150mm lens, and my 65mm saw little use. But this has changed over time. Now I use my 65mm much more often and the 90mm sits in the bag. Somehow my "view" must have gotten wider, and the images have changed, too. And I see the need to go even wider and recently aquired a 47mm SA (didn't have a chance to test it yet).

Also, my lens selection depends on the type of landscape that I try to capture:
- Seascapes (with flat shoreline): 65mm and 150mm
- Inside the forest: 65mm and 90mm
- Flat landscapes (which are difficult): 65mm and 360mm
- Mountains, hills and meadows, or single trees: 90mm and 150mm

As to the OP's question: I would get a 90mm to start with and add a 65mm later. It is an AND, not an OR for me.

Greetings, Thomas

[Old-N-Feeble]

To clarify my post (#22)... Between a 90mm and 75mm I'd either go a tad wider and get a 72mm SA XL or a little longer and get a 110mm SS XL. This leaves the option of acquiring what's, IMHO, the ultimate W/A kit for 4x5 film (47mm SA XL, 72mm SA XL and 110mm SS XL). That's just my opinion.

[Ole Tjugen]

I really like wide and ultra-wide but, beyond that, I like "options". Since I only shoot landscapes I don't always need much wiggle room so... my "ultimate" 4x5 kit would look something like.....

47mm SA XL
72mm SA XL
110mm SS XL
150mm Apo Symmar
200mm Nikkor-M
300mm Fujinon-C
450mm Fujinon-C

That's not too far from what I use...

47mm SA XL, 65mm/5.6 SA, 72mm SA XL, 90mm/8 SA and 90mm 6.8 Angulon, 120mm Angulon and 121mm SA, 150mm Germinar-W, 210mm/6.1 Xenar, 300mm Symmar, 355mm G-Claron. Except that the 300mm Symmar is about as heavy as all the rest combined..

I don't only shoot landscapes, and even when I do I often find myself in very tight places. So wiggle room and wide to ultrawide are quite necessary to me.

[shallow_man]

I have a Nikon 75mm lense, it's too wide in landscape shoot, it very hard to handle the distortion.
but in architectural Photography, wide angle lense is very useful.
depend on which kind of photo you want to take!

[John NYC]

There is nothing that says you can't have both! LF gear is relatively cheap these days.

[Leonard Evens]

I have both Rodenstock Grandagon-N 90 mm and 75 mm lenses. I frequently use the 90 mm lens for landscapes and I often use the 75 mm lens for architectural photography, particularly when it is difficult to get sufficiently far back from the subject . I only rarely use the 75 mm lens for landscapes.