Making Room in My 4x5 Pack...

[Scott Rosenberg]

good day...

when i got into 4x5 about a year ago, i set out to put together the most capable outfit i could afford, not really giving much thought to other variables like how much room all this stuff takes up. i told myself many times that i'd shoulder a few extra ounces for a better kit. with lots of help from this forum, kerry thalmann's site, mpex, etc, i assembled the following field kit:
-linhof technika IV
-ss110 xl
-sironar 150-s
-fujinon 240-a
-fujinon 300-a

after a year of backpacking my rig over the us, canada, and europe, i've now begun to think more practically about what is going into my bag - starting with my lenses. i'm extremely satisfied with the performance of all my glass, however, i have found that the 150 and 240 are very close. it's usually a toss up which one gets mounted... normally coming down to whichever is easier to get to.

as such, i'm giving serious consideration to replacing the 150 and 240 with something close to 180. my focal lengths would them change from 110 - 150 - 240 - 300 to 110 - 180 - 300. i know this a very personal decision, and everyone shoots differently, but i was wondering if any of you had gone through a similar progression and had any regrets. thinking back over the last year, i can't remember a time when there was an absolute need for the 150 or the 240. as such, i'm giving serious consideration to the fujinon 180-a (i'm concerned about edge sharpness with this one), sironar 180-s, 180 ss apo symmar, or the nikkor 200-m as a replacement for the 150 sironar-s and 240-a. before i did so, i figured i could profit by someone else's experience.

thanks,
scott

[Glenn Kroeger]

Scott:

I have used the 110-180-300 set up and was very pleased with the ratios. I did use the 180 Fujinon-A and found it to be very sharp and its coverage is so large you won't have edge problems. Ultimately, I wanted a faster lens for my older eyes and switched to the Rodenstock 180 Apo-Sironar-S which I love... and it has the same filter size as the 110.

[Ralph Barker]

Personally, I'd lean toward just dropping the 150 and keeping the 240. The question then is how much you use the 300 in the field.

[Scott Rosenberg]

thanks for the tips glen. i do a fair amount of shooting while the sun is low in the sky, so lens brightnness is a concern to me as well. i've been meaning improve the gg on my technika, but didn't want to invest any more $$ into it, as i'm not sure i'll be sticking with this camera. a friend of mine recently suggested i look into a lighter field camera (canham or phillips) with 'real' rear movements and a better gg.

ralph... i only bought the fujinon 300-a because i got it for a song. for what i paid, i figured it couldn't hurt to have it in my pack. i have really suprised myself by how often i use it. i don't know how it compares to the fujinon 300-c, schneider 305 g-claron, or nikkor 300-m, as it's the only 300 i've used, but i've generally been pretty pleased with it... when the wind isn't blowing! the 240 isn't that far off from the 300, so i figured a 180 would be a nice comprimise.

thanks again, fellas,
scott

[Eric Leppanen]

Scott,

If you are primarily concerned with reducing weight, then the small and light 180 Fuji-A is clearly the best choice if you don't mind focusing at f/9. If your concern about edge sharpness stems from Chris Perez' lens test results, please note that there can be significant sampling variations among lenses (take a look at the 300 Nikon-M, for example, which in my experience is a razor sharp lens), so I suggest you test a lens yourself before drawing any final conclusions. Midwest Photo currently lists a 9+ 180 Fuji-A and 180 APO Symmar, maybe you can persuade Jim to ship you both for test purposes and keep the one you prefer?

The 180 Sironar-S is also a superb lens and the one I would personally prefer if weight was not an issue. For my taste the gap between 110 and 200mm is too large to go that route.

[Mark Carstens]

Scott, I own the same range of focal lengths that you do and have, in the last year, contemplated whether I should make room in my pack by “replacing” the 150 and 240 with a 180 (mostly to make room for a Fujinon 450-C, but that's another story).

I had used both lenses about equally, so there was no rationale for shedding one lens or the other because it was laying dormant in my pack. I soon discovered that I value the flexibility that having both lenses affords me. Maybe this comes from my days of shooting a Pentax medium format and using zoom lenses, but from my perspective at least, the 180 would be an inadequate compromise rather than a true replacement for the two lenses.

Another thought. I sometimes fall into the mindset that I can’t leave any of my lenses at home or back in the truck because I might “miss” an opportunity. Truth be told, this really hasn’t happened since my 35mm days when I shot wildlife and had a couple of occasions when I could have used a shorter telephoto, but had left it back in the truck. So, if weight is a primary consideration, you may consider leaving a lens behind for a hike or two and see if it changes you. The experience may force your hand one way or the other. Or not.

In the end, as you mentioned, this is a very personal decision and what works for others might not work for you. Know your shooting patterns and know that your lens choices don’t have to adhere to any prescribed “formula.”

Good luck!

[Gem Singer]

Hi Scott,

The Fuji 180A, 240A, and 300A are the most compact, light weight 6-element lenses that are available from any of the major lens manufacturers. The "A" stands for "Apo". They have ample image circles compared with other lenses of the same focal length. They have a similar lens design to the Schneider G-Clarons, except that the Fujis are smaller and lighter in weight. Since you will only be using them on the 4x5 format, you will probably be using the center (sweet spot) of the image circle of the lens. No need to be concerned about edge sharpness from any of them. The Nikkor 200M is a 4-element (Tessar) design. It's image size is fairly close to a lens of the 240 focal length.

[Scott Rosenberg]

eric...
the difference in weight between the 180-a and the 180's from schneider and rodenstock is about 1/2 a pound. i'd be willing to eat 1/2 a pound with this lens given that i'd estimate 40% of my shots will be taken using it if it meant better performance and a brighter gg. i keep each lens in identical rigid boxes with custom inserts sized to the rear element. so for me, the real gain here is not so much the 1/2 pound, but that i'd only need to make room for three boxes and not four. appealing to jim's more generous side is a great idea... he could probably come up with a Sironar-S for me to compare against the fuji if i give him a few weeks. the fuji seems priced right, which is another consideration for me.

mark...
again, thanks for the inputs. i've done just what you suggested, not exactly, but sort of. in considering my last several outings, there was never a time when i could not have gotten by with only the 150 or 240, and like i said, lens choice usually came down to whichever was closest. i've never owned a zoom lens, in any format, so am not accustomed to having such incremental control over my fov.

[Scott Rosenberg]

hi eugene...

good to hear from you. thanks for the background on the lens design. i agree that the nikkor 200-m is too close to the 240 that i already have... i'm not quite sure why i included it on my list. it's really not being considered. if i decide to go this route, i'd probably look very closely at the fujinon 180-a that you recommended and the 180 sironar-s.

[Gem Singer]

Scott,

I am only referring to replacing the 150 Sironar-S with the Fuji 180A in your backpack. Keep the Schneider 110XL, the 240A, and the 300A. With the addition of the 180A, they will make a unique set of lenses to carry in your kit.
I was thinking in terms of the weight savings. Replacing the 150 Sironar-S with a 180 Sironar-S is only going to add weight to your pack and offers very little advantage in focal length spread.