First and second lenses for new 4x5 shooter

[Alan Klein]

I just ordered a 4x5 camera Chamonix 45m-1. I'm trying to decide on lenses. Everyone says I should get a Rodenstock APO - Sironar - S 135mm f5.6 Lens, Copal No.0 as the first standard lens. However, I find 50mm in 35mm a little confining. Also, when I shoot Mamiya RB67 6x7 medium format, the Mamiya 90mm medium format lens is probably around 45mm lens equivalent in 35mm format. So I believe the 135 would more closely match earlier preferences of mine. So then the Rodenstock APO - Sironar - S 135mm f5.6 Lens, Copal No.0 would seem to be a better match but less available. What do you think?

PS the medium format wide angle I'm using is 24mm equivalent. So for my second lens I'm thinking about either a 90mm, 80mm or 75mm. What about the second lens?

Note I shoot landscapes in color and black and white. I only scan at home and process in outside labs.

Any suggestions? Thanks. Alan

[Mark Sawyer]

Start with a 150mm. Everybody needs a "normal" lens. Later maybe buy a 90mm. If you're going to have two lenses, 135mm is awfully "inbetween", unless you add a 75mm. Be open to letting a view camera change the way you see.

But that's just me...

[JMO]

Alan, You are right that the focal length conversion between your 6x7cm MF camera and your experience with 35mm format (24x36mm film or sensor) is 2.0. Therefore, your 90mm lens for your Mamiya MF camera is equivalent to a 45mm lens for your 35mm camera. However, the proper conversion number between 4x5 LF and your 35mm format is 3.6, so that 135mm lens you describe would be equivalent to a 37.5mm focal length on your 35mm camera - which in my mind is too wide to be considered "normal." If you consider a 50mm lens to be "normal" on your 35mm camera, then 3.6 x 50 would mean a 180mm lens for your 4x5 camera will be "normal."

[Kiwi7475]

I tend to agree that 135mm is too in between. I’d look at collecting a trio like 90,150 and 240ish mm over time, perhaps starting with the 150mm.
I do landscape and I rarely use 150mm, my most used lenses are long (400mm T) and 210mm, rarely I use 90mm or 150mm. But of course that’s different for everyone....

[Peter De Smidt]

Just get one and use it for awhile. You'll soon see whether you feel the need for something different. My 4x5 landscape lens use, from most to least used, goes: 120/125, 210, 90, 300, 420, 150 with the 120/125 (the 125 is for when I'm packing light) and 210 making up 90% of what I use, but obviously this is highly personal. You're just going to have to start and find out for yourself. Buy wisely, and you won't risk too much money. 135mm to 150mm lenses are well-priced, and they tend to be excellent lenses.

[William Whitaker]

When I started in 4x5 a few years back, I chose to go with a 210 and 120mm combination. That seemed to best address the way I look at the world.
But then, several years later my favorite image to date was made with a 150mm Dagor on 4x5, so there's something to be said for that.
As always, YMMV. Get a lens - any lens - and go make photographs. You will soon find what works best for you.

[Merg Ross]

Hi Alan,

I suggest: (1) 150mm (2) 90mm (3) 210mm.

As suggested above by William, it depends on how you look at the world. I seldom use the 90mm except for architecture; however, you may want it for landscapes. My most used lens is a 210mm.

[Alan Klein]

Thanks everyone for your input. This info is helpful too because i didn't know the 3.6 ratio and was calculating wrong. So that makes a 150/3.6= 42mm equivalent which would be good for "normal".

The Rodenstock APO - Sironar - S 150mm f5.6 Lens, Copal No.0 lenses are over $1000 from Japan. Loads of people say they're the best. They multi coated which probably is important for landscapes and have other great qualities apparently. But pretty expensive. What do you think for my purposes of landscapes? I don't do architecture. And if I do some portraits, I'll get a another lens.

[lassethomas]

Thanks everyone for your input. This info is helpful too because i didn't know the 3.6 ratio and was calculating wrong. So that makes a 150/3.6= 42mm equivalent which would be good for "normal".

The Rodenstock APO - Sironar - S 150mm f5.6 Lens, Copal No.0 lenses are over $1000 from Japan. Loads of people say they're the best. They multi coated which probably is important for landscapes and have other great qualities apparently. But pretty expensive. What do you think for my purposes of landscapes? I don't do architecture. And if I do some portraits, I'll get a another lens.

I think that is way too much for a first lens.

This looks much more appropriate

https://www.ebay.com/itm/EXC-5-Optic...c5f74ab7e61553

[Alan Klein]

Hi Alan,

I suggest: (1) 150mm (2) 90mm (3) 210mm.

As suggested above by William, it depends on how you look at the world. I seldom use the 90mm except for architecture; however, you may want it for landscapes. My most used lens is a 210mm.

Merg, I bought your book in 2017, Beyond Casual Vision. It's wonderful. I appreciate you including a note hoping to give me "pleasure and inspiration". It may be the incentive I needed to give LF a chance. Which BW film would you suggest for me to start on? I'm really into beautiful mid-tones and transitions of tones throughout the range. Your Mono Lake 2003 and Agave California, 2015 are examples. And I'm not afraid of dark shadows either. They add mystery and there's usually not much of interest in them anyways.