Schneider Super Angulon 72mm

[Steven Ruttenberg]

To clarify, I would not carry all at same time. I tend to prefer wider lenses and the 72 gas such a large image circle I can use it on a 5x7. The Voigtlander lenses I most likely wouldn't back pack and use for portraits.

I do not mind 95mm filters as I already use them on my wide angle 35mm digital format camera.

My camera is the Chamonix 45H-1. I would never go beyond 4 lenses on a back packing trip. I think of my list a trip would be 72mm, 150mm, 300mm. And then depending on where I go and something in a range in between the 3 choices list last sentence. Anything with a longer focal length I would use on my toyo and the 5x7 or 8x10 Chamonix I am gonna get in the future.

I do agree with all comments.

[xkaes]

To clarify, I would not carry all at same time. I tend to prefer wider lenses and the 72 gas such a large image circle I can use it on a 5x7.

I'll repeat what someone else suggested already -- as I recall. Since you tend to lean wide, as I do, you might want to consider a 65mm, 90mm, 150mm set-up. That's what I often use when traveling light. Sure, the 65mm won't cover 5x7, but it gets you super-wider on 4x5. So it's a tough call for you, but the 65mm is great for many situations, such as this shot in Zion. I was backed up against a cliff, and a 75mm would not have been wide enough. The 65mm barely covered it all.

[Corran]

I love wide angles and oftentimes my kit is 58mm XL, 90mm f/8, and 150mm f/5.6. None of those cover 8x10. When I shoot 8x10 I usually have a 120mm f/8, 210mm f/9, and 300mm f/9. My personal opinion is that if you don't have an 8x10, don't worry about immense coverage right now. For instance, I think it would be crazy to only buy a 150mm SSXL that is massive but covers 8x10 and more, and then backpack with that when only shooting 4x5, since you can buy an excellent 150mm f/5.6 of some stripe that is half the size/weight or less for 4x5 for just a couple hundred. Very rarely do I have lenses that I would use on both formats.

When I was canoeing and hiking to some really remote locales and shooting 4x5 I would usually bring my Chamonix 45n1 w/ 90mm Angulon, 150mm f/9 G-Claron, and 65mm f/8 Super Angulon, with 18 sheets of film in 3 Grafmatics. I was much happier since I wasn't fighting with massive amounts of gear, plus I could go very far without wearing myself out. Of course there was that one time I brought an 8x20 and accouterments....

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I am still leaning towards the 72mm but the 65mm is interesting, so long as I don't need shift which I use often and tilt which I dont use as often would work especially if I don't get vignetting when Ibuse mt formatt-hitech filters. The rectangle 165x185 grad nd and 150 x100 reverse grad (i hope it comes in 165x185 at some point). If it doesnt the 72 may not be as enticing.

65/72/75? 90/100 150 and 300. Are the choices. So kit could be 65mm 100mm 150mm and 300mm. Another might be 72mm, 100mm, 150mm and 300mm the dilemma is what the widest lens will be. So need to decide. 75 us attractive in Nikkor has decent image circle reasonably priced.

The difference in field of view between the 65mm and 75mm is 8 degrees. That can be a lot, but you lose 30mm on image circle size. No real difference between 72mm and 75mm other than the 72mm's ginormous image circle.

Anyway, getting close.

Appreciate all the inputs and advice.

[Huub]

One of the things i could suggest is to try to evenly space out the focal lenghts. This would make a 75mm - 90mm - 150mm combination kinda odd and a 65mm - 90mm - 150mm or a 75mm - 110mm - 150mm a better one. You could consider getting a 180mm in stead of the 150mm, especially when the 300mm is your longest backpacking lens, so you get more or less a 0.6 progression between the focal lenghts.

One of the things to consider is also that the choice of modern, multi coated glass with a decent image circle in the 100mm - 110mm region is not that big. There is only a 105mm f8 Fujinon and 110 SS XL that i am aware off. And remember: when a 75mm is not wide enough, there is always a 58mm or 47mm.

[xkaes]

I am still leaning towards the 72mm but the 65mm is interesting, so long as I don't need shift which I use often and tilt which I dont use as often would work especially if I don't get vignetting when Ibuse mt formatt-hitech filters. The rectangle 165x185 grad nd and 150 x100 reverse grad (i hope it comes in 165x185 at some point). If it doesnt the 72 may not be as enticing.

With the 65mm there is very little ability to shift or rise/fall. There is a little bit more ability to tilt or swing, but it is also limited. The 47mm XL is similarly limited. But the ability of the camera to physically move enough might be the limiting factor rather than the IC. Fortunately, most landscapes/scenics don't need much movement due to the enormous DOF.

And using filters will be a challenge. The wider you go, the fewer filters you can use, for sure. Fortunately, I'm not afraid of cropping in the darkroom if the corners are cut off by important filtration.

And don't forget that the wider you go, the more light fall-off you will encounter -- and have to "deal with" in some way -- or not. FYI, the picture from Zion was with a 65mm lens and just a UV filter.

[consummate_fritterer]

wide to normal

47 (4x5 only)
72
105/110/115
150/165
210/240

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I will be making my decision soon. Will post it here when I get them.

[xkaes]

I will be making my decision soon. Will post it here when I get them.

Always remember that you can always change your mind later. I know I did. I sold two great wide angles -- not at the same time -- and eventually ended up with three different ones, instead. My guess is that the majority of LF users have sooner or later sold at least one lens that, when they bought it, they thought they would keep forever.

Parting is such sweet sorrow -- sweet only because you have the images.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

This is true. I though don't have lots of cash to throw around and in general when I get a lens it never leaves me. I really prefer wide angles for landscape.