Hi, please recommend a small lightweight lens for back packing, I will be using a Chamonix 4x5 and making prints no larger than 12x16.
Printable View
Hi, please recommend a small lightweight lens for back packing, I will be using a Chamonix 4x5 and making prints no larger than 12x16.
What focal length do you like???
Steve K
125mm,135mm or 150mm.Quote:
Originally Posted by LabRat
Look for small aperture lenses - regardless of focal length.
Fuji "A" series and Nikon "M" series lenses are well regarded, small and light - but they are longer focal lengths.
Any of the standard 135mm and 150mm lenses from the big 4 are reasonably small and light.
Small light wide angle lenses are a problem - all the wide angle lenses are fairly heavy due to the amount of glass you need.
Again the thing to look for is nothing with too wide an aperture.
My problem had been not the size or weight of any individual lens, I too have gone for fairly compact lenses, but the number of lenses that I have accumulated.
Also, once you have your lenses, invest in some step-up rings so you only carry one set of filters - it is too easy to fill your bag with lots of filters.
Martin
I've been satisfied with the Fujinon-W 125/5.6 and the Fujinon-W 150/6.3 (inside lettering). Both a very small lenses.
Schneider angulon 90mm/f6.8, symmar 135mm f5.6 and Kodak Ektar 203mm f7.7 are very light and good performers.
I second the suggestion for the 203mm Ektar lens. It’s an outstanding performer and it’s tiny and lightweight.
The Kodak Wide Field Ektars are nice, for example the 135 mm, or 100 mm (no movements). For some reason, old Kodak lenses are expensive these days.
Kerry Thalmann was our resident expert in lightweight LFP kit, especially for hiking. He's still keeping his old website up, but it hasn't been updated in quite a while (a couple of decades?). That said, there's no real reason to update it -- nothing has changed. No one is designing or making new lenses. What's available new is just stock that was made years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodOldNorm
I bought most of my kit, most of my lenses, based on Kerry's work. I'm grateful that he published it, and sad that he's no longer active on this site. His was a valuable voice of reason.
Except he never tested many lenses that were current while he was doing his “tests”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Watson
If you’re only carrying 1 lens, almost any will do just fine and you won’t notice the weight difference.
In that focal range you can pick any in this list and it will do fine:
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...s/LF4x5in.html
You can decide how many more grams you can allow to gain a bit more coverage for movements.
Top info. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Watson
I went the other way Kerry suggested -- just one lens (Caltar IIN 150/5.6) with 4x5 for 8 years or so. The shutter is a big hit in weight -- so anything in a Copal 0 (like my Caltar) will be on the lighter side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi7475
I suppose a casket set and one shutter would give one the range minus the weight. I have a casket set that is set-up for Speed/Crown Graphics, but 4x5 does not see much use right now. I am not a big fan of having a bunch of exposed glass elements and a naked shutter out in the field. Between wind and dust and my clumsy fingers, I'd probably end up lens-less 4 days out.
The condition of the individual lens you use will matter more than the name on the front. One of the best lenses I've ever used was a Xenar 135/4.7, which I regrettably sold for a more modern Symmar-S 150/5.6. The Symmar is an ok lens and I've never bothered replacing it, but that Xenar i sold was outstanding. Since these lenses are cheap and plentiful, I suggest you try out 2 or 3 different ones and pick the one that produces the images you find most pleasing.
Are you taking a lightweight tripod?
Yes I believe a lightweight tripod is an essential bit of kit. Reducing the weight of my rucksack prevents blisters on my feet and aches and pains from the straps. I am talking about 3-4 day hikes over mountains.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Klein
I quite agree. If it is only a single lens I would either use the Rodenstock Geronar 6.3/150 (Caltar) or the Schneider-Kreuznach G-Claron 9/150. The first one is very well coated, which improves contrast, even if the corners are blurred at open aperture, because there are only 3 elements in 3 groups. The second one is very sharp also in the corners, because it has 6 elements in 4 groups, but it has "only" single coating - this is only problematic with backlighting, and there you have to use a sun shade anyway. - Two lenses are not necessarily heavier than one, just compare a Symmar 150 in Copal 1 with two Fujinon W 5.6/125 and A 9/180, filter thread 46mm, Copal 0.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaughn
You want to travel lightweight? What is the weight of your darkcloth? Do you have the Chamonix leather wrap? What filmholders - Grafmatics, standard 4x5 holders, how many of them? What is the weight of your lightmeter? The backpack weight? The tripod? The heaviest accessory is a film holder with a blurred image in it.
There are many options to travel lightweight. The abandonment of optical possibilities is counterproductive, IMHO. Just think how much volume a 125mm lens gives to objects or how much structure is accentuated with a 180 or a 210. Some lenses can serve to both landscapes and macros, e.g. Fujinon A 9/180, G-Glaron 9/210.
Tschau zäme
Generally, Nikon has quite compact and lightweight lenses. I even have a very short 300mm which fits in the Chamonix canvas little bag (that comes with the camera) alongside the film holders.
As Martin has mentioned, all the major LF lens manufactures made compact lenses in the 120 - 150mm range, most weigh 200 - 300 grams. If you only want to carry one lens you could consider splitting the difference and getting a 135mm.
The Rodenstock APO Sironar Ns are amongst the lightest, most compact lenses in that focal length range. The Fujinon NW lenses are also quite light, multicoated and have a sensible 52mm front filter thread compared to the later CM-W design which is 67mm.
Otto, I see you use Chamonix holders as I do (I use 4x5). Have you figured out a good place to stick notes on them as to type of film, labelling, etc?Quote:
Originally Posted by otto.f
Lens choice can shave a few ounces off the total weight of the pack, but its negligible compared to other choices. In my experience, it's the number of film holders carried that makes the most difference, when considering equipment. Whether my water bottle is full or empty also matters. Then there's food. Anyway, lens choice is worth a look, but other stuff matters a lot more.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodOldNorm
As Alan notes, tripod weight is important. I carry a very light wooden tripod that most photographers would cringe at, but if the wind is calm, or at least there are lulls, the pictures are sharp. If it is windy, trees etc. move around and become blurry, even if the camera was bolted to bedrock.
If you want to cringe, see:
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1572456
I use individual holder sleeves of different colors to specify the film type very clearly visually. Some vendors’ are reversible with different colors inside/out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Klein
I think that’s better than adhering labels.
No cringing at all. My approach is similar to yours; a lightweight wood or aluminum tripod that's easy to carry but still sturdy enough to hold everything still when everything is still. I then hang my film pouch on the tripod to give it more weight and stabilize it. If I need more, I carry an empty nylon fabric "bucket" that I can fill with rocks or whatever and hang off the middle post.Quote:
Originally Posted by mmerig
Excellent, Doremus! I have one of those 'buckets' -- somehow ended up with it, tried it backpacking, and found it was not worth its 2 or 3 ounces for keeping water in camp. Might be worth taking for the tripod.
Do you have a brand name or link? Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi7475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Klein
There’s this route...Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Klein
https://www.stonephotogear.com/films...x5singlesleeve
and then the eBay ones:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/254379569537
(Those are 8x10 but there’s similar ones for 4x5; they are reversible, black inside and red outside or viceversa).
My 4x5 camera and Calumet IIN 150/5.6 when weighed together is just a touch over a kilo, not quite 2.5 pounds. Most my traveling with it was with a pre-carbon Studex w/ a ballhead...probably 6 to 7 pounds. But even carbon will not reduce as much weight as one might expect, as I am 6'3" and will not stoop to save a pound or two.
But add holders (5 to 6), a changing bag, a couple boxes of film, meter, notebook, spare GG on a long trip, or whatever one needs and it all adds up. To save weight on more recent backpack trips, I take a small shoulder bag that I pack the holders, meter, notebook, etc in. Once in camp, I can walk around with the 5x7 on the tripod, with the bag over my shoulder. I'll take 5 or 6 holders for a 3 or 4 night trip and not worry about reloading...make 'em count!
Had a 3.75" (basically a 90mm) W.A. Dagor years ago that was truly great...and very tiny. My current 90 is an f/6.8 Grandagon-N...still reasonably small but not like the Dagor. For something a bit more "normal" in terms of F.L. for 4x5, I can highly recommend the 135mm f/5.6 Sironar-N, and the 150 f/9 G-Claron. For something a bit longer, either a 210mm G-Claron or 200mm M-Nikkor would fit the bill for light weight compactness, as would the above mentioned 207mm E.K. lens.
I'm a couple inches shorter than Vaughn...but at 6'1" - I find the Feisol "Tall Traveler" CF tripod to be a perfect combo when out and about with either my Calumet/Gowland ultralight 4x5, or my almost-as-light DIY 5x7 plywood "minimalist."
Hello, I have an ultra light Feisol CT-3401 with an extra center column. I thought I'd take it with me for a hike. Because of the plus of possibilities I installed the center column. Everything was solid, at home, at 20°C. Then it went into the cold and the rain. The three grub screws made of aluminum, that hold the center column, shrunk, the center column loosened as a whole in the tripod, everything wobbled like a cow tail. I saved 1.5 kg of weight compared to the Gitzo Reporter made of aluminium. but because the tripod became useless, I lugged 6 kg of equipment around for free. Now I always take a very thick and heavy swiss knife with me to be able to screw in loose screws. I removed the center column an glued the CB-50 ball head directly on the plate. Next measure: soldering the head on the tripod. That is somehow stupid ... with aluminium Gitzo tripods you don't ask yourself such questions. Tschau zämeQuote:
Originally Posted by John Layton
65mm f/8 SA
90mm f/6.8 Angulon
150mm f/9 G-Claron
300mm f/9 Nikkor-M
Adjust to taste.
My new Intrepid weighs 2.5 pounds, my lightweight CF tripod + head is about 3 pounds, I use Grafmatics for hiking usually which are lighter per sheet (or a Kinematic if I want best weight-to-sheet ratio). Total pack weight for the kit is about 8-10 pounds.
A bunch of small weight penalties can add up. I disagree with the sentiment that cutting a little bit of weight here or there isn't helpful, at least in certain situations. Depends on your other gear, where / how far you are going, etc.
I cut a little bit of weight during lockdown, I have managed to lose 14lbs of blubber and increased my fitness. That should make carrying my large format kit easier for me. Need to lose another half stone to reach my target weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran
Daniel, my Feisol model # is 3441T...so different from yours. At any rate...my Feisol continues to perform well in the cold, wet, etc. - both here in Vermont and along the Maine coast, where it occasionally finds itself partially submerged in cold seawater. I admit that my Gitzo 1375CF is a different animal, but also much heavier and so not relevant to this thread.
Good for you Norm! I am working on my own weight gain since a new job that is a lot of desk work started last year.
I sure do feel a difference though when carrying a 10 vs. 25 pound pack...or the 50 pound one for camping!
I tried my Calumet/Gowland ultralight 4x5 with a 2 pound CF tripod. Besides being too short, the whole combo with the darkcloth was maybe 6 pounds -- usable with great care...perhaps I am too clumsy with such a light set-up. I like a tripod I can use to help me cross creeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Layton
Anyone use those wood tripods that came with the Speed Graphics?
Maybe I do -- the tripod I use has "Sharman Camera Works San Francisco" on the top plate, where the camera or head would mount. It is 33" long unextended, and weighs about 3.5 pounds. In a pinch, it has worked as a crutch for crossing streams, but when it's strapped to my pack, I swear it catches on every willow I pass by. I paid $30 for it about 30 years ago, still going strong. I think the Thalhammer's came with the Speed Graphics, but the Sharmans are circa 1940's or so as far as I know, so they could be informally tied to Graflex stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaughn
I have an old wooden (1930's?) Thallhammer tripod which I do use occasionally. Smooth as silk and just works and works.
Except for shorter focal lengths, as noted on a previous post, the German selection of modern lightwt lenses was almost nonexistent. With Nikon there was the M series (below the 450, at least); with Fuji, both C and A series are especially light, excluding the rare older 600 and 1200 A's.
Tripods are a different topic. One way to save weight and increase stability - don't use a tripod head at all. I've explained it many times before, and it's worked well for me for several decades now. Conserving weight during long haul backpacking is going to be more and more a priority factor for me as I get further into my 70's. And when I refer to backpacking, I mean not just a camera pack, but all the necessary gear, food, and supplies for a week or two in the mountains. But compromising weight by resorting to a less than ideally stable set of tripod legs would be counterproductive. I have two appropriate carbon fibers tripods for both 8x10 and 4x5 and smaller use, as well as two different Ries wooden tripods for the same respective range of usages, still preferring wood for day hiking when weight is not a main priority.
The one I have unused (mint condition...I should use it!). The tops on each leg is marked;Quote:
Originally Posted by mmerig
Folmer Graflex Corp
Rochester, N.Y. USA
CROWN TRIPOD No1
Just under 2lb 6oz -- no head. Four leg sections (2 adjust) so the pod is only 16" long folded...and of course, not very tall set up...54 inches max. leg length (30" minimum). If I was a foot shorter...but the right height for the Rolleiflex and waist-level finder...hmmmm.
The screws for tightening the legs are located on the sides of the legs -- yours look like on the front.
Edit: Just weighed my little CF. The pod is 1lb 13 oz and goes up to 50 inches , a little more with center column. So for backpacking the CF makes more sense -- and it is not in 4 pieces like the Crown No2 (I'd have to use a stuff sack to carry the pieces and to strap it on a pack -- the wood is so cool.)
Agree, tiny and well made lenses. They weight nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan9940
If you didn't already, using wooden film holders will save a lot of weight.
I have a cut memo sticked on the reclined part at the top of the holder, which holds pretty well, where I have written my film type. What I did during shooting I write on an separate memo and stick it on the slider itself. But I miss a bit the dial with numbers inside the filmholder which are exposed during the shoot, so that you can easily write down per number what you did in every take. They came in the most recent filmholders from Fidelity which closed automatically with a click system. Can’t find them anymore on the market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Klein
Oh, please do not misunderstand me. I actually like the Feisol thing already. Once I have nailed or soldered the ball head to the tripod plate and the tripod plate to the tripod, it will be a very stable and light solution. It is definitely strong enough for a Horseman 45FA or 45HD with its 2kg weight. Neither the tripod itself nor the tripod head were expensive. Maybe I use knurled screws instead of grub screws, then I don't need any tools in case something gets loose. - Maybe "light weight" also means that you have to tinker with something.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Layton
Tripods are of course necessary but heavy, I reduce as much weight as I can where possible. The one thing I need to look at is my rucksack, it is a 15 year old Berghaus that is heavy but comfortable. Can anyone recommend a 65ltr+ rucksack that is light but comfortable?