FLs for LF beginner?

[Nick_3536]

The Fuji SW 105mm has a flange focal distance of 116mm. Wouldn't that work with a flat board on the camera? Look around it can be cheap used.

[David Honey]

Thanks Nick, that is one lens I noticed might work. I just got an offer of a recessed board, so it's worth a try (if the shutter is compact enough).

Dave

[Don Wallace]

The 90mm Angulon (not Super Angulon) looks pretty small and I bet it would fit. It has a lot less coverage, but in terms of movements, you will be surprised how LITTLE you need to get the effect you want. I know that view cameras are often shown twisted all over the place in advertisements (not so much anymore) but that is nonsense. For example, in most landscape photography, the amount of front tilt you need to get the focus you want (especially with short focal length lenses) is miniscule. Architecture, of course, is a different thing, especially interiors. The first time I actually used Scheimpflug with a landscape, I laughed out loud at how little forward tilt it took to get focus from foreground to infinity. If you want to use lenses from quite long to quite short, you will eventually have to get a camera with interchangeble bellows (a shorter or even bag bellows for short focal length lenses). The problem with the Graphic View is that it has quite a long bellows, so focusing with short focal length lenses really compresses it very tightly. Even if you get a 90mm on it, it is hard to use movements when so compressed. I suggest getting something along the lines of a 135-150mm to go with your 210. My 4x5 lenses are 210, 150, and 90. I used to own a Graphic View but went to another camera for more ease of use with the 90mm.

[David Honey]

Thanks Don, that's very helpful to hear, especially the part about being surprised at how little front tilt you often need under actual circumstances. I can understand that, as a short FL lens should already have good DOF.

At the moment I'm still thinking of the Fuji 105mm/5.6 SW, especially as I've found a GV recessed lens board that might allow it to work OK.

Any more feedback on the 210mm FL in general? Does anyone use it for it's intrinsic value, can it be pretty 'blah' and uninspiring? etc etc. And that particular Fuji W -- I feel like it's probably an OK lens, sharp enough, etc., but not necessarily remarkable. Will I wish I'd got Schneiders or Rodenstocks later on?

Of course I'm aware that this is probably just silly pseudo-technical stuff, but in 35mm and dSLR I always chose only the sharpest fixed-FL lenses, and FLs that were often intrinsically interesting to use in themselves (either quite wide, very close-focusing, or very long.)

Just that it's a new arena for me, so I'm pretty curious as to what you all think.

Thanks to you all for your help.
Dave

[David Honey]

Sorry -- just ignore my 'brand-comparison insecurity' and other tripe. It's not important, especially to me at this stage.

I'll start with the 'old' 210mm Fuji and go from there. Can't afford (and don't need Schneiders) right now anyway!

Dave

[Ole Tjugen]

" 'Blah' and uninspiring" is a description which fits many pictures made with excellent lenses, as well as many made with less "exhilarating" lenses.

Honestly: Don't worry about sharpness of this or that lens as compared to something else. All modern lenses are sharp enough! And some oldre lenses as well - within its limitations, a 1900 Rapid Rectilinear is every bit as sharp as a brand new Schneider or Rodenstock lens.

I use lenses from 90mm to 360mm on 4x5" and 5x7". None of them are multicoated, some are uncoated, and the newest is from 1972. In addition I have quite a few 19th century lenses. Some have less contrast than others due to flare in the uncoated lens elements, but none are "unsharp". My whole "collection" of 20-odd LF lenses has cost me less than one single new lens from any major manufacturer!

If you stick to coated lenses, you could get a 90, 135, 150, 165, 180, 210, 300 and 360 for about $2000 - in total.

[David Honey]

Good point, Ole!

(It's not the lens, but the nut behind it!)

;-)

Dave

[William Mortensen]

"Honestly: Don't worry about sharpness of this or that lens as compared to something else. All modern lenses are sharp enough! And some oldre lenses as well - within its limitations, a 1900 Rapid Rectilinear is every bit as sharp as a brand new Schneider or Rodenstock lens."

I agree with Ole. I have a 121mm Linhof-Select Super Angulon in a Copal shutter for my 8x10, but it's big and heavy so I leave it at home and take a tiny 125mm brass-barreled Neuhring from the late 19th century.

Earlier this year, I took eight of my favorite lenses out and shot the same scene with each. The lighting was quite subdued (which I prefer), and technically, the results, while not identical, were remarkably similar, especially in sharpness. Under harsher light (direct sunlight), there is a marked difference between coated and uncoated lenses, but if the sun is kept from directly hitting the elements, I generally prefer the softer uncoated optics. Your mileage may vary, but don't discount those old lenses til you've spent time with one...

BTW, 127mm Ektars and 135mm Optars, coated and in working shutters, are to be had in the $50 range sometimes.

[David Honey]

Thanks Mark. That sounds like a lot of fun. I always go to the photo swaps, now with LF in mind, and as I get to know what to look for I'm sure I'll collect all kinds of lenses, and most will of necessity be cheap.

Probably takes time to learn which old lens can be made to fit which shutter assembly, etc; but if you can get it to focus on the ground glass, who cares? Non-working/inaccurate shutter speeds would seem to be another damper, but as has been said, it still doesn't preclude using the lens.

I recently went through a two-week novelty phase of sticking prisms and various old optics on a bracket in front of a dSLR lens to see what came about. One shot was the closest I think I've gotten to something that, once converted to b+w, looked like a 19th-century daguerrotype (only without the resolution, and completely by accident!)

Dave