Ideal lens set for a 4x5 field camera

[Greg]

While back bought a Chamonix 45. My main cameras are a whole plate and an 11x14. Love to use the both of them, but the 11x14 is anything but portable. Have been hiking with the whole plate in an older OutPack (large camera backpack). Room is tight for carrying camera, only one film holder (unacceptable), two lenses & accessories, with no room for water or food.

Think backpacking the 4x5 Chamonix for day trips a more practical choice. The camera, reflex finder, accessories, and probably 4-5 lenses will easily fit into to my ThinkTank backpack. Plus room for several holders, food, and water. The lenses I have and use on the whole plate and the 11x14 are overkills for a 4x5 and physically just large lenses. Only optics I have as of now for the 4x5 are 2 lenses:
65mm f/4 Nikkor-SW
500mm f/7 KOMURA

Would appreciate any advice on how to fill in optics between the 65mm and the 500mm.

[Leszek Vogt]

There are variety of ways you could go....and it's quite subjective. What do you shoot most ? Portraits, architecture, landscapes, etc. may require different lengths. From what I've seen here 90mm is quite popular WA....some people use 120/1 or 135/150. Some 'togs like to use 180-300 for portraits.

Personally, I prefer 250mm (or near that) for portraiture....also, just bought 152mm as an all around wide (er) angle...and will go from there.

Les

[Greg]

There are variety of ways you could go....and it's quite subjective. What do you shoot most ? Portraits, architecture, landscapes, etc. may require different lengths. From what I've seen here 90mm is quite popular WA....some people use 120/1 or 135/150. Some 'togs like to use 180-300 for portraits.

Personally, I prefer 250mm (or near that) for portraiture....also, just bought 152mm as an all around wide (er) angle...and will go from there.

Les

thanks,
Shoot classic landscape and nature, no portraits.

[BrianShaw]

For those purposes, get some "standard" lenses: 135/150 and 210. Maybe a 300.

[Willie]

Pick one lens - say a 150 or 180 or 210, and stick with it for the first few months to a year. Learn to use the camera and see with that lens.
You are looking at acquiring gear rather than photographing. Keep it simple and you will most likely not need very many lenses after you get used to your setup.

[fishbulb]

The 65mm is going to be tough to use on most cameras without a recessed lens board, unless the camera can support lenses that wide- you'll want to make sure the minimum bellows length is less than 65mm.

If you want lightweight, I'd get a Nikon 90mm f/8, a 150mm f/5.6, and a 300mm f/9.

[Brian Schall]

I preferred a 135mm over the 150; slightly wide normal lenses. Maybe a 90mm, 135mm and a 210mm to go with what you have.

[mdarnton]

For the cheap option, I'd do a 2X series between what you already have: 65/120/240/500. That has you buying two easy-to-find and cheap lenses, and makes regular steps. It would be totally usable. My personal preference is 1.66X, or for me, 65/108/190, but I also have a 250 and a 300 because I shoot a lot of portraits, and no 500 because I don't really use teles. But continuing the series strictly gives 65/108/180/300/500, which would work.

For me, I like even spacing, combined with a little walking, rather than trying to get everything possible or odd spacings, especially large ones.

[angusparker]

My advice would be to try and stick to one or two filter sizes and mix and match between Nikkor and Fujinons because they are cheaper, with modern shutters, and are multi-coated. The variation between different series in one brand is as much as that between brands and sometime Nikkor or Fujinon has a sweet lens at a particular FL. Since you are backpacking I'd go with max apertures of f8 of f9 for the longer lenses since they are lighter and f5.6 for the shorter ones since they are harder to focus in dim light. Then as for spacing I'd consider multiples of 1.5x or 1.66x. Personally speaking I find 90mm too wide and would rather start with a 125mm. Then over 300mm I'd consider a Telephoto design so that you don't have to rack out your bellows and avoid the windsock phenomena! The Nikkor T-ED is quite a bit better but much more expensive than the Fujinon T.

So my favorites to pick and choose from would be the following. Most are less then 400g, some less than 300g. Only the Teles are heavier.

Nikkor SW 90mm/8 (67mm filter)
Fujinon CM-W 125mm/5.6 (67mm filter)
Fujinon CM-W 135mm/5.6 (67mm filter)
Fujinon CM-W 150mm/5.6 (67mm filter)
Nikkor W 150mm/5.6 (52mm)
Fujinon CM-W 180mm/5.6 (67mm filter)
Fujinon A 180mm/9 (46mm filter)
Nikkor M 200mm/8 (52mm filter)
Fujinon A 240mm/9 (52mm filter)
Fujinon C 300mm/8 (52mm filter)
Nikkor M 300mm/9 (52mm filter)
Nikkor T ED 360mm/8 (67mm filter)
Fujinon T 400mm/8 (67mm filter)

Kerry's page here is a must read too: http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/lightwei.htm

For your subject matter anything over 300 is probably too long anyway. So perhaps 90/150/240 or 125/180/300 +/-10mm!

[John Layton]

I'd suggest that you either start with a single, "neutral" (perspective-wise) lens, like a 135 or 150, use this for awhile and get a sense of what more might be needed...or, perhaps, as you already know that you want to photograph "classic landscape and nature," and obviously have a bit of LF experience under your belt...that you choose three lenses - one moderately wide, one moderately "normal," and one moderately long - and with an equal percentage of angular progression between them.

With the above in mind...you might consider a 90/135/210 combo, which your 65mm, and then perhaps something close to 300mm, would compliment nicely in that the angular progression would be roughly equal between all...again, when measured as a percentage (in this case appx. 1.5x from short to long fl's). Furthermore, if you go with relatively modern lenses (circa 1980's and forward) you can realize good lens to lens consistency (performance wise), which can translate to better consistency and logistics in (wet darkroom) processing...and also the convenience/cost savings of an equal filter size (typically 67mm).

Then again, I admit that the above scenario also happens to be what works well for me...and we're all different!