I am thinking of the following focal lengths, 72, 90, 150, 240, 300 and an 600 or 800. The 240 and 300 will be Voigtlander lenses. With 240 and 310 counterparts for landscape and architecture work if Voigtlander lenses don't pan out for landscapes and architecture.
This would be my lens collection to choose from when back packing.
Thoughts?
My lens usage on 4x5 is like 90% 150mm lenses and under. Probably 8-9% is between that and 300mm. Once in a great while I'll use one of my long Nikkor-T lenses. But that's me. You'll have to decide what lens focal lengths are appropriate for your shooting style.
I will say you should look for the Nikkor-T 360/500/720 set if you want long lenses. I can't think of any 600mm or 800mm lenses that would be as small / light, even though they are fairly large compared to the more "standard" lenses.
For backpacking, IMO G-Claron lenses at the 150mm and 240mm lengths are a good choice due to size and weight. 300mm f/9 Nikkor is another good choice for small/light. Assuming you are talking about the 240mm and 300mm f/4.5 Heliars when you say Voigtlander lenses, those are massive lenses compared to the f/9 lenses I mentioned above and would definitely not be my first choice for backpacking...
Perhaps shoot what you have until you really decide you need those longer lenses.
Sounds pretty heavy to me. Hardly any of the lenses you list fall into my category of "lightweight."Originally Posted by Steven Ruttenberg
FWIW, my stable of lightweight lenses: Fujinon SW 75mm f/5.6, Nikkor SW 90 f/8, Ektar WF 100mm f/6.3, Nikkor or Rodenstock 135mm f/5.6, Fujinon A 180mm f/9, Ektar 203mm f/7.7, Fujinon A 240mm f/9, Nikkor M 300mm f/9, Nikkor M 450mm f/9 (I'd like a Fujinon C 450mm, since it's smaller, but I've never found one at a price I can afford...).
Of these I'll take four or five depending on space and distance. My most used kit: 90mm, 135mm 203mm 240mm (and maybe the 300mm). If I want really light, 100mm, 135mm, 203mm, 240mm. These latter four together weight less than a 72mm SA...
Just sayin'
Doremus
For backpacking, much depends on your type of photography, your scenery -- when backpacking, you may or may not be doing much architecture -- and your back (AKA spine). For backpacking, size and weight usually become very important -- and add up fast when you consider camera, film, tripod, holders, accessories, etc. If you are in canyon country, forests, etc. the use of long lenses is not likely. Frequently, the longest lens I bring is my Fujinon C 300mm because it is so small and lightweight -- tiny, really -- but I don't use it that much. Buy all the lenses you can afford, but select them carefully beforehand -- and then again when you fill your pack. You might even decide to go wider than 72mm!
Personally I backpack with a set of 58mm SA XL, a 75mm Nikon SW, a 110 SS XL, a 150mm apo-symmar, a 240mm apo-ronar and a 360-500 Nikon T* set. Of these lenses the 110mm, 150mm and 240mm get most use in landscape. When i look at your set i would suggest you rethink the longer focal lengths, as i think the difference between 240mm and 300mm is not that big and i think a 360mm would be a better choice. I can support Corran's suggestion to get a Nikon T* set of 360-500-720mm. This will safe you a lot of weight in your backpack, while you still have the availability of a nice set of excelent longer vocal lengths. Also: Voigtländer Heliars and Lanthars are big and heavy, especially the 300mm. I wouldn't want a lens of at least 1500 grams in my backback, when it can be replaced with something weighing less then 300 grams for a Nikkor-M 300mm.
A second thing to consider is the use of filters. The 72 SA takes 95mm filters, which are pretty costly. When you would replace that one with a 65mm or 75mm and use the Nikon T*-set, you could do with 67mm, which are way cheaper and weigh less.
Excellent point because if you use filters the weight and cost can add up fast. But if you stick to small, light lenses, you can make it much lighter and less costly because they will use smaller filters. I've standardized on 77mm and modified all of my lenses to that size -- even my fisheye -- and depending on your lenses, standardizing on 72mm, 67mm (or even smaller) can be easy. It makes no sense to carry filters of different sizes for most situations.
Steven, what I see in that kit is that 72 and 90 are too close, with the 72 you don't need much the 90, just cropping a bit you have the same. Some replace the 65mm and the 90mm by a 75mm. If wanting the 65mm then you can jump to 90mm.
IMHO single reason to have a 72 and also a 90 is the case that lenses are very different regarding circle vs weight.
Steven, what camera will you be carrying? Stability at extension and bellows length is an important consideration if you are using any lens in the 400mm+ range. Even the Nikkor T mention is around 800 grams, which is reasonably heavy (imho) for a backpacking lens. Fujinon’s wonderfully little 450mm C is certainly a very practical choice as an alternative.
My basic lens kit for backpacking is either a 80mm SSXL or Nikkor 90mm SW, 150mm Sironar, 200mm Nikkor M or Fujinon 240mm A and often a Fujinon 300mm C. For closeup work, which I do quite a lot of, I carry a 120mm Makro Symmar . I regularly carry that kit on trips of 9-10 days.
To the basic kit I’ve been know to add a 58mm SA XL, 110mm or 125mm lens and on a rare occasion Nikkor 450mm M. I mainly shoot colour and use Lee filters rather than screw in filters. Unless I’m taking the 58mm, which needs 100mm filters, I use the Lee Seven5 system which is much more compact and light weight.
And if I remember, the OP hasn't mentioned what camera he has. Long non-tele lenses might not even work on it, and likely the Nikkor-T 500/720 elements will be a stretch. The only camera I have capable of using the Nikkor 720mm is my Chamonix with an extension board AND the lens on an extension lens board. My Toyo monorail could handle it if I had an extra rail and bellows, but...I wouldn't be hiking with that, ever.
Focus on the essentials. Shoot enough to know what you need.
He kinda-sorta suggested 4x5. But even if that is true, the 4x5 cameras have different limits as to focal length. So that is an unknown. Plus, there are long lens and tele-photo lenses that complicate the matter. I'm able to use a 600mm Fujinon T on my Toko 4x5 because it has 360mm of bellows and I added a 2.5" extension cone. A Fujinon 450mm C would not "cut the mustard". Do I take my 600mm on many backpacking trips? Not as many as I would like. It's great, but it's large and heavy -- like many of my relatives -- and I DON'T bring them along on backpacking trips, either!!!
But the original question was about wide-angle lenses -- which, in some ways, have the same question/problem/issue, but in reverse.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks