Two Lens Set for 4x5 Field Camera - Choices

[John Layton]

I find it almost impossible to decide on exactly two lenses when I take out my 4x5. Its either my "grab and go" outfit of the super light (1st gen) Gowland 4x5 with 135mm Sironar-N (plus Feisol CF, four to six holders, Pentax spot)...or more "involved" (and heavier!) kit of an L-45A, 90/135/210 lenses (usually also a 305), plus a greater volume of film and other associated goodies.

But with my currently preferred format of 5x7 (L-57A) - its either the above mentioned four lens setup, or two lenses...a 120 SA plus 210 Sironar-N. But never just one lens.

If I were to recommend exactly two lenses for 4x5...it would probably be something like 110/180.

[Luis-F-S]

8 1/4" Dagor and either a 6" Dagor or a 120 Angulon. L

[esearing]

I use a 65MM and 135MM most for landscapes. I also carry 180MM and 250mm. I'm considering a 75/80 MM to replace the 65 since they have almost same angle of view and slightly more movements.

[Vaughn]

Just as a follow up to all of this, I wanted to mention what I did wind up buying. It was possible to get a Kodak Ektar 203mm in Compur, and there is a 135mm Wide Field Ektar that is on its way for inspection. Thanks to one and all for the feedback! Very much appreciated.

Ed

Sounds great Ed. A 203mm is an interesting focal length -- sounds very useful. I am not much of a wide-angle image-maker, but the 135mm with the coverage that Steve indicates, again, sounds very useful. While not mathematically equivilent, I do like my 300mm for 8x10...a wide normal (or a long wide?)

I bought an 180mm Fuji W for my 5x7, but I think it will start spending time on the 4x5 as well! Hope the 135mm fit the bill for you!

[EdC]

Just as a follow up to all of this, I wanted to mention what I did wind up buying. It was possible to get a Kodak Ektar 203mm in Compur, and there is a 135mm Wide Field Ektar that is on its way for inspection. Thanks to one and all for the feedback! Very much appreciated.

Ed

Well, I probably jinxed myself by speaking too soon. Sad to say, both lenses wound up being returned, so I am back to looking around again. That being said, I will be making use of the advice provided in this thread in order to get this camera into use.

Thanks,

Ed

[MAubrey]

If I had to choose just two lenses, I'd probably cheat.

A 90 and a 180/315 Symmar convertible.

90 is a solid focal length that isn't excessive in its perspective distortion and can still have plenty of movement.
180 is just slightly longer than normal--closer in AoV to the traditional 50mm for small format.
315 is an nice ~2x normal, which is great for portraits.

[gnuyork]

Mainly I use a 90 and a 210. I don't really wish for anything more. (I also have a couple vintage Ektars 203 and something wider that don't get much use).

[Doremus Scudder]

I've been following this thread with interest for a while now. I guess I'll finally chime in.

First, sorry to hear that you had to return the Ektar lenses. I own and use both regularly. The 203mm f/7.7 is small, sharp and has great coverage, the WF 135mm has more coverage than a standard 135mm Plasmat by a long shot and is about the same size. You might continue searching for these same lenses in better condition. You couldn't go wrong with either if you find good ones.

To address the original question however: My favorite two-lens kit is a three-lens kit. I like 90mm, 135mm and a lens in the 200mm range. I carry a 90mm f/8 Super Angulon, a 135mm WF Ektar and a 203mm Ektar just about always. They were cheap enough that they are the equivalent of two other LF lenses in price as well as in size and weight.

My recommendation is not to limit yourself to two lenses, but get three - wide - middle - long. Look for deals and sleepers. A bit of patience and you'll have a kit you won't need to augment much at all, maybe never.

90mm Fujinon SW and Schneider Super Angulon lenses are plentiful and cheap.

135-150mm Plasmats are all over the place for cheap too. (FWIW I use 135mm for the greatest percentage of my shots.) That just leaves a longer lens to choose.

210mm Plasmats are plentiful, but too heavy for me; I like my 203mm Ektar, but would be happy with others in that focal length. A G-Claron in a shutter is likely not too expensive. A Fujinon A 180mm is a bit shorter, but also a super lens: light and small. I have a Fujinon L 210mm 210mm lens that performs just fine (Tessar) and is not too big. If you want to go a bit longer, the 240mm Fujinon A is tops for size and weight.

Smaller lenses in the 200-240mm range have smaller maximum apertures. If you need brighter, you'll have to go larger, so you're back to the Plasmats...

Hope this helps,

Doremus

[EdC]

Well, thought I'd chime in with what I ultimately bought. First, I did take the advice of several posters, and went with a three lens set. That did make sense. I ultimately gave up on finding any classic lenses in a condition that I felt I could live with. Here's what I wound up getting -

210mm 5.6 Rodenstock Sironar N - Picked this up at a price well below $200. There is a coating flaw precisely in the middle of the front element about the size of a pinhead. From my research on this forum, that shouldn't matter. Marvelous condition otherwise.
135mm 5.6 Rodenstock Sironar N - Near new condition. This was the priciest of the three.
90mm 4.5 Rodenstock Grandagon - Near new condition. Larger than I was planning on, but between the condition and an extremely competitive price, and the slightly brighter focusing that I could use for interior shots when out and about, I couldn't pass it up. For the money, I'll go with the size, and use Lee filters.

Anyhow, thanks for all of the advice! It did come in handy in regards to looking at focal lengths, and the number!

Ed

[Bill_1856]

Sounds like you've got a near-perfect setup.