I am starting to think about LF again and am really leaning toward a 120ish on 4x5. I enjoy my 58 (Koni) in 6x7 and when I was shooting 8x10 the 250 was my favorite. Am I missing something here? I would appreciate the greater coverage as opposed to a 90 which always seemed a tad wide for me as a moderate wide. Also, what are my choices and your thoughts on them?
I've enjoyed using medium format film on a 4x5.
Of course, one gets the movements of a 4x5. The lenses aren't as good, if one uses 4x5 lenses. (Compared to say, the latest RZ lenses on an RZ67.) But, I think that they're good enough. Plus, if one uses a lens shade, they can go a long way towards reducing flare, since there's far less opportunity for light to reflect off the bellows onto the film. If I were going to photograph a snow scene, I'd pick my format and then use the next larger camera with an effective lens shade. Focus is more critical, since it requires greater enlargement to obtain the same sized print or image. One can even use the zone system for B&W by reserving a different film magazine for each development. And of course, one for color negative, one for transparency, etc. Depending on print sizes, one would want the best possible scanner for color. Even a high-end Epson consumer scanner tops out at about a 3-4x enlargement. I think that an 11"x14" would be about the limit for color images, whereas a decent 16"x20" color image is within range of a 4x5 color negative or transparency.
I think that one has to pick their camera. It might be difficult using a clamshell camera, since the restricted bellows can make it more difficult to use the wider angle lenses needed by medium format film. A rail camera would be best, one that accommodates a bag bellows.
Kirk Gittings would have some very good insights to using a medium format film on a 4x5 camera. As I understand, he spent years photographing architecture using Calumet medium format holders on a Calumet wide camera. (Very reasonably priced equipment.)
When I got back into LF in 2001, it was with a APO-Symmar 120/5.6 on a Tachihara. I've just recently picked up an older 125/5.6 Fuji W with much greater coverage, and sold the Schneider, since I moved to an Ebony with much more movements, and the limited coverage of the older pre "L" APO-Symmar was occasionally a problem. I still prefer a 125 or 120 as a good general purpose somewhat-wide lens. If I take just one lens on an outing, it'll be my 200/8 Nikkor-M, but if I take just two, I'll add the 125 Fujinon. There are some 120mm wide angle lenses for larger formats that are quite large, and there was the Schneider SS HM, but if you're looking for something that isn't huge or very expensive, you'll mostly be looking for the APO-Symmar (or APO-Symmar L with greater coverage) or one of the Fuji 125mm options. If you can find one and it fits your budget, the Super Symmar HM is reputed to be excellent. Both Schneider and Nikkor made 120mm macro lenses, but I don't know how well they covered 4x5 at regular focal distances. There's also the Schneider 110mm SSXL if you want a lot of coverage and can afford it.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_saunders/
FWIW, a 240 (actually a 9 1/2") Dagor is one of my favorite lenses on 8x10, the only reason I don't use a 120 for 4x5 is that I don't have one. The 120 (4 3/4") Dagor might not be the best choice for negatives that will be enlarged, though, the corners of mine on 8x10 get soft in a hurry when I apply movements. Straight on it's fine.Originally Posted by Jim Rice
One man's Mede is another man's Persian.
A 250mm on an 8x10 translates to 125mm on a 4x5. If you are looking for a 4x5 equivalent, then I highly recommend the Rodenstock 150mm apo Sironar-S which will deliver the same field of view as the 250. The Rodenstock is an excellent, if costly, lens but well worth its price. But then when I purchased it the selling price (new) was 1/2 of what it is today.
Some years back I purchased a 120mm Nikkor-SW for the 4x5. It's an excellent lens but the FOV is only slightly, very slightly, greater than the 150mm Rodenstock and for some time I thought that I had made an unwise purchase since the FOV of the two lens were almost identical. But I have since purchased an 8x10 system and the Nikkor covers 8x10 where it is an extremely wide angle for that format so I remounted the 120 on a 6" toyo-view lens board and dedicated it to that format.
Thomas
My favorite lens is the 135 Apo Sironar S, I just bonded with the 135 focal length more than the 150 so I don't even own a 150. I also have a 120 AM Nikkor Macro, great special purpose lens that has proven super sharp at close ranges.
Anyone using a 115 Grandagon?
I have the Calumet re-branded version of the 115mm. I have used it on 5x7 and 4X10. I like it.
Regular 135 mm Sironar N or Caltar lenses have somewhat limited coverage. I found it easy to max out the rise for example. The apo Sironar S 135 has better coverage, is tiny and light, and expensive. Some of the 120 or 115 mm lenses are much larger, heavier, and use large/expensive filters. I would consider the 135mm apo Sironar S if you have the money. Otherwise, any modern 150 would have good coverage and be excellent.
I would not use 120 on my 4x5.... a good twin lens or a Koni Omega...now there is a camera i miss. i used to do weddings with several years and years ago... fast and very reliable... then there is the Mamiya 330... another walking camera.... and i am more of a wide angle shooter...... give me a 65 or a 75 and i am in love
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks