Switching from Small to Large Format and Relative Focal Lengths.

[TrePiedi]

I recently bought a 4x5 camera to begin shooting LF landscape and nature scenes mostly. I have been shooting 35mm and 120 film off and on for years - most recently just shooting 120. Back when I shot 35mm I exclusively used a 50mm fixed focal length lens. With 120 I shoot on a Rolleiflex 2.8F with a fixed 80mm lens. Both these are the "normal" perspective focal lengths for their given format. I have always preferred shooting this way - embodying the perspective of the camera when taking my shots.

My question is whether people who have come to LF from 35mm and Medium Format have found that they continued to use the same relative focal length after they switch to LF - in the case of 4x5 a 150mm lens. Should I invest most heavily in a 150mm lens for my 4x5 since I preferred to use 50mm and 80mm for small and medium formats respectively? Or have people found that when they move to LF the relative focal lengths they were using in the smaller formats no longer applies? I was thinking of investing in a higher end 150mm lens for my 4x5 since I assume I'll mostly be using that focal length.

I'm just curious to hear other people's experiences.

[Two23]

My question is whether people who have come to LF from 35mm and Medium Format have found that they continued to use the same relative focal length after they switch to LF -.

No. I found I tend to shoot different stuff or compose differently with 4x5 & 5x7 than I do with 35mm or 120. With my Nikon DSLR I find I often use my 24mm PC-E lens. With my Chamonix 045n I find I gravitate more to the Nikon 90mm f4.5 instead of a 75mm lens. As far as a 150mm lens, I have one but ended up getting a 135mm, and now pretty much leave the 150mm at home. Not a big difference, but again, I find I shoot differently with LF.


Kent in SD

[Jim Andrada]

+1 on shooting differently and not trying to think in terms of what things looked like on a different camera. Sort of like not translating when speaking a different language I guess. Even when the aspect ration is the same (ie 4 x 5 and 8 x 10) things look different to me. Not to mention that lenses are often not really exactly the nominal focal lengths engraved on them.

[Phil_F_NM]

Kind of apples and pears comparison. I recently moved into shooting 4x5 and happened to get a 180mm Fujinon W. It is mathematically on the slightly "longer" side of "normal" but with the fact that the camera has movement capability, I find the 180mm is just about perfect for me, personally. Now that I can control my DOF and perspective with movements of the standards I find less need to have a wide angle to account for needed DOF. I just compose how I want the image to look and expose. Granted, I DO want to find a shutter for these old Ilex 90mm Caltar optics I have but it's not dire. Just like using a 21mm on a 35mm camera, I'm going to have to do some real work getting a composition I like with that 90mm. I'm taking it slow though. Find your "normal" and get used to shooting with it, I'd say. I'm still learning my 180mm lens, while occasionally popping on an old Kodak meniscus for a specific look to a shot.

Phil Forrest

[xkaes]

This proves what I would have predicted -- If you ask 10 photographers a question, you will get 20 answers. Make that 30.

Think about 35mm for a second. Some photographers recommend using a "normal" lens that is the same length as the diagonal of the film format -- for 35mm, that is 46mm. Others claim that the angle of view closest to human vision is a 43mm lens. So there is no "clean" definition of what "normal" is or should be. That's why in 35mm, photographers can consider lenses from 55mm down to 45mm to be "normal". Some prefer, 57mm, 58mm, and even 40mm. So there really isn't a perfect normal lens in 35mm, and the same is true for medium format and larger formats.

So for 4x5, most photographers will probably use anything from 150mm to 210mm -- and some use lenses wider or longer -- as "normal". In short, what is normal for you will not be normal for me.

I like a slightly wider view. One reason is that I often do a little bit of cropping in the darkroom (much easier in 4x5 that 35mm). You can always remove things from a picture, but you can't add in what isn't there. My most often used lens in 35mm is 45mm, and in 4x5 it is a 150mm, so perhaps that's "normal" for me. Maybe, maybe not, for you. Think about what you prefer to use in 35mm. If you tend to use wider lenses, consider a lens in the 125-150mm range for 4x5. If you tend to use longer lenses, consider a 180, 210, or 250mm.

Your thinking is on the right track, but just like in 35mm, others will try to convince you (for some unknown reason) that you should do it the way they do it. Do it the way YOU should do it!!!

[Alan9940]

I tend to pick LF lenses based on the camera and the types of images I anticipate making with that camera and/or what range of lenses makes the most sense given bellows extension/compaction restrictions, etc. For example, with my Crown Graphic I use a 90/135/240 set. With my Toho, I use a 75/135/200/300 set. All lenses for the Toho, for example, are very small lightweight glass because I pack this camera over long distances.

[John Kasaian]

This is your first LF lens you're selecting, right?

I would be more concerned over the condition of the shutter than the precise focal length. Budget in the cost of a CLA (clean-lube-adjust) just in case. A modern (say 1970s or newer) respected lens by Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon or Fuji in a good shutter will give you a place to start. I'll suggest using it exclusively for about a year---you'll learn a lot about what you want out of a LF lens.

If you're wanting a concrete suggestion for a specific make/model/focal length, then take a look at the works of other photographers who do similar work to what you want to accomplish and find out which lens works for them.

[j.e.simmons]

I had a nice conversation with Clyde Butcher a few years ago. He was still using several sizes of large format cameras. He said that he had lenses for each camera that gave him an equivalent view regardless of camera size. That way he could walk into a scene and determine where to put the camera.

That said, get a somewhat normal lens for the 4x5- say 135 to 210- and shoot with it for six months. You'll know if you frequently wished for a wider or longer lens most often.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I can't speak for others, but to me a normal lens for 4x5 feels wider than a normal for 35mm. It's the aspect ratio which in a horizontal composition is wider on the vertical dimension. It is not all about the arithmetic. It is about the look. Regardless, a 6" or 5.5" lens which allows adequate rise and a little rear tilt will probably be a good introduction to LF. You might even find it the lens for you.

Good luck!

[TrePiedi]

Thanks for all the responses, everyone.

I already picked up a 105mm Nikon and I plan on getting a 150mm copal style shutter lens as well. There are a lot more options in the 150mm range than for 105 so I'm spending more time researching what I want to get for the 150mm. The 105mm was about $200. I might splurge a little more on the 150 since I anticipate using it the most, but who knows.

I think I'll stop at 2 lenses for now and see how I like those before getting anything else. I feel like 105 and 150 are a good starting place. I know a lot of people use 90mm but I have never liked the look and image distortion of really wide angle lenses, so I felt like 105 was a good compromise for going wide but not too wide. I never crop my negatives, preferring to do all my composition in camera.

If I were to go for a third lens in the future it would probably be a 210 or maybe a bit longer, but I wanna see how things work out with the 150 first. Maybe I'll have no desire for a longer lens.