See my last reply.
A cam cut for a IV will have the camera’s serial number stamped on the back of the cam and the lens focal length and serial number stamped on the top face of the cam.
Since the V and the Master have factory zeroed gg position only the lens has to go for camming and the cams for these cameras will only have the focal length and lens serial number stamped on the top of the cam.
A cam cut for a V or Master will couple properly, with the lens it was cammed to on any V or Master.
A cam cut for a IV will only couple properly with the camera and lens it was coupled to.
While IV, V and Master cams all fit any of these cameras the IV cam is not interchangeable between different cameras and models.
You've already stated you want to shoot mountain scenery, a.k.a. landscape. There is not an absolute need for a rangefinder in this application. That being said, some people like to use the RF for focusing even in this application - but if you want to use movements you'd really want to check the GG for precision.
Between the two lenses, the f/8 one will certainly be smaller and lighter. In my opinion, that is an important distinction, that will be more important than the likely only slight difference in performance. But if you are mostly driving up to a viewpoint and snapping a photo than perhaps that doesn't matter to you.
To me a 90mm on 4x5 feels like the 25mm lens I had on my 35mm Contax camera. A 90mm is a very popular lens for 4x5 shooters for a wide view. You probably want one if you like wide angle lenses.
You will like the brighter f/4.5 lens better for shooting but like the smaller and lighter f/8 lens better for carrying up and down the mountain!
There is a lot of talk about the differences in weight while not telling exactly what that difference is. In Rodenstock’s case the difference in weight between the 90mm 6.8 and the 90mm 4.5 is just over 8.4 oz. for that difference you get a larger image circle, better resolution, less distortion, fall off starting further out from the center which may minimize the need for a center filter, in short-better performance.
Other differences; the 4.5 is in a 1 size shutterrather then a 0 and, as noted, overall a larger lens.
How important is 8.4 oz to you?
Half a pound.
My statement was, smaller and lighter. That's true, as you have shown with an exact figure. If you used the excuse that half a pound here and half a pound there is no big deal, suddenly instead of a 25 pound kit in a medium-sized pack, you've got a 35 pound kit in a large pack and a significant difference in overall weight and bulk. Whether or not this is important depends on the photographer and how he plans on using his gear. To answer your last question, for me, it is very important.
Besides which, you've also specified an f/6.8 lens, not f/8 as per the OP. So your comparison isn't valid anyway. Edit: My quick look at specs online shows a 90mm f/8 SA weighing another 2.5oz less. So, more like 11oz total. That's another whole lens!!
I had a 90mm f/4.5 Grandagon-N. It was a great lens. I found I did not use it much, not only because of its size, but because of the filter size as well. At the time, I could not afford to purchase a bunch of 82mm filters for black and white. I had one filter, if I recall. I already had lots of filters in the other sizes I might need, so they were basically free. I ended up with a 90mm f/8 Nikon. That one gets used a bit more. It takes 67mm filters and is lighter. Both are excellent lenses. If you hike with a camera, a half a pound or more can matter. A stack of 82mm black and white filters is not light either. Probably ends up being heavier than the lens.
Bookmarks