Suggestions for 4x5 Lens Sets (3 lens, 4 lens and 5 lens sets)

[angusparker]

Image goals easily decided what lens then camera required to support them.


Bernice

Absolutely right. A wide aperture is key when trying to focus on dark and gloomy subjects. The good news with 4x5 is the weight and filter size penalties for f5.6 versus f8 are not as severe as in 8x10. My 8x10 lens suggestions are here: https://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blo...10-view-camera

[abruzzi]

Well, you could always trade it in for a Fujinon 105mm f5.6. They don't come much smaller than that. Yes, I know the image circle is small, too!

I do sort of wonder why small wides went by the wayside? I guess it has to do with people needing/wanting more and more image circle, but the WF Ektar and the regular Angulon are tiny compared to the equivalent focal length Nikkor SW, or Super Angulon.

[John Layton]

I've often wished for an updated, modern series of F/9 ultra compact lenses of different focal lengths, with conservative coverage...enough to allow for a decent amount of tilt for most landscape use - combined with rise or fall when necessary (or base tilt does the same) to conserve available coverage - with the advantage of stunning performance out to the edges...at the expense of a huge image circle - to have as a compact set in addition to the typical large aperture (5.6) plasmats and wide angles. Something like a 65/90/135/210 set for 4x5, with matching (48mm?) filter diameter, to pack with my Gowland Pocket View. Would be great!

[LabRat]

The most important point is deciding the one important lens you would leave on camera to do over 75% of your shooting with... Then other lenses can be added to your needs...

Wides can make a difference (when needed), but longer lenses don't make a big difference compared to other smaller formats...

My two lenses FL used most of the time are 135mm (WF Ektar) and a 270mm process lens...

Go with what your eye usually sees...

Steve K

[linhofbiker]

I was re-reading my Zone VI newsletters by Fred Picker. In one he asked Ansel Adams what lenses he would recommend for 4x5. The answer was use just these two: 121mm Super Angulon and the 210 Symmar. Fred said at that point (in the news letter) about 90% of his photographs were taken with these two lenses. Fred Picker was very opinionated and many people had issues with him, but re-reading these letters did show that he knew a lot about the photographic process and had a lot to offer.

[xkaes]

I've run across a lot of photographers who took the Schneider (of course) 120mm & 210mm pair as gospel. I suppose if you are only going to play with two lenses they are as good or bad as any.

But for me, the 120 is not wide enough and the 210 is not long enough.

[Havoc]

Just SWD 75MM, CM-W 125MM and CM-W 250 mm. Sometimes add a 90mm or a 150mm. I'll take a 2 lens outfit over a 5 lens set any day. It makes no sense to take lenses that are too close together.

[Doremus Scudder]

I've run across a lot of photographers who took the Schneider (of course) 120mm & 210mm pair as gospel. I suppose if you are only going to play with two lenses they are as good or bad as any.

But for me, the 120 is not wide enough and the 210 is not long enough.

For me, the 120mm/121mm (Super Angulon) and the 210mm (f/5.6 Plasmat) are both simply to large, heavy and bulky. Fred Picker touted these two lenses for whatever reason, and the focal lengths are fine. However, for us lightweight fans, there are better alternatives in these ranges with just about as much coverage: 135mm WF Ektar, 203mm f/7.7 Ektar (or the Nikkor M 200mm or the 210mm G-Clarons).

And, if you need wider or longer, adding a 90mm wide works too, since the size is manageable; and the 240mm Fujinon A or the Nikkor M 300mm are both relatively small. My 90mm f/8 Nikkor SW is the largest lens I own.

Best,

Doremus

[Bernice Loui]

IMO, if the exposure aperture is f16 to f45, why lug around a hunk-O-f5.6 modern plasmat when a different optical formula does easily equal or better?

It is possible during the Fred Picker era, modern lenses like those hunk-O f5.6 plasmats were easy to obtain (know this as fact) new or used with good predictable performance and all that.

If you're deep into lightweight field folder, makes zero sense to lug around two lenses that can weigh more than the camera..
If about 210mm and 121mm is the target focal lengths, better choices could be a 203mm Ektar or 8 1/4" dagor or similar non-plasmat lens formula.
The 121mm could be a 120mm f6.8 Angulon, wide angle dagor, wide field Ektar or similar non-Biogon style wide angle..

Another example of lens choice driven by image goals and how the specific image goals and environment should decide..

~BTW, for the Linhof TK23s, current lens set: 58mm Super Angulon XL, 75mm f4.5 Grandagon, 5" f4.7 Kodak Ektar, 180mm f4.8 Zeiss Sonnar(boat anchor of a lens), 300mm f9 APO ronar, 500mm f9.5 Tele Congo.. and this varies depending on what the image goals are..

~5x7 Sinar Norma with Sinar shutter for barrel lenses: 115mm f6.8 Grandagon, 165mm f6.8 Angulon (in barrel), 300mm f10 APO saaphir (Boyer, in barrel. alternates 10" f6.3 C. Ektar, 240mm f4.5 Xenar, 12" f6.3 C. Ektar), 480mm f9 APO ronar (in barrel)...and this varies depending on what the image goals are..


Bernice

For me, the 120mm/121mm (Super Angulon) and the 210mm (f/5.6 Plasmat) are both simply to large, heavy and bulky. Fred Picker touted these two lenses for whatever reason, and the focal lengths are fine. However, for us lightweight fans, there are better alternatives in these ranges with just about as much coverage: 135mm WF Ektar, 203mm f/7.7 Ektar (or the Nikkor M 200mm or the 210mm G-Clarons).

And, if you need wider or longer, adding a 90mm wide works too, since the size is manageable; and the 240mm Fujinon A or the Nikkor M 300mm are both relatively small. My 90mm f/8 Nikkor SW is the largest lens I own.

Best,

Doremus

[Greg]

I finally settled on the following:
90mm f/4.5 WA Nikkor
180mm f/5.6 FUJINON-W
330mm f/6.8 IA Raptar
600mm f/12 FUJINON T

The 330mm f/6.8 IA Raptar is a convertible and can also be used as a 508mm or a 647mm optic. OK for enlarging to 8x10 but the 600mm FUJINON T is noticeably sharper when enlarging 11x14.

Although I learned to shoot 4x5 with a 210mm, it just always seemed to be a tad bit too long for my tastes. The 180mm isn't all that much shorter, but to me just enough to make a definite difference. If I had to shoot with only one lens, the 180mm would be my choice.