I've got a Schneider 121mm Super Angulon that I paid about $175 for on eBay. It feels like a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera to me. It's a bit large but has huge coverage for 4x5. I've seen a number of them on eBay sell for similar prices since. Sometimes you have to be patient to find what you want.
Giganova, I may have mentioned this one over at Rff, I used a Congo 120 on my 5x7 before i got a wide angle Dagor. This one's worth a try because it is in the last series (all-black) Copal shutter. Even if you go on to other lenses, it's worth having a spare shutter since they're not being made any more. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Osaka-Wide-...AAAOSw7oBeC2Cz It's a very small lens & may well be able to close the Linhof with this one mounted.
Years ago I purchased a Caltar II-N (re-branded Rodenstock) 115mm f/6.8 for use with 5X7. Purchased it from Kerry actually. It may fit your use for a wide angle. It is kind of large due to the f/6.8 I guess, but coverage is huge - will just barely cover 8X10.Originally Posted by giganova
I recommend that your first lens be a 150mm, a "normal" lens. Yes, yes, yes, I know you didn't even own such a lens in 135 format. But this isn't 135 format. With LF you have separated the film plane from the lens plane. You've got to learn how to use camera movements. And to do that, you have to be able to see the effects of movements on the ground glass. The shorter the lens the smaller the elements of the scene are on the ground glass, and the harder it is to see the changes that come from using movements.
Starting out with a short lens will increase the time and effort you spend learning movements. Been there, done that. Learn from my mistakes. Or don't.
And yes, I refused owning a "normal" lens in the 135 world too. I could frame with my feet as it were, and I was taught to use all the film area I could because the 135 frame is so small. But in LF (5x4 in my case) film area is not a problem, while framing with your feet is. There's a world of difference between handholding and always working off a tripod. It turned out for me that about 1/3 my photographs came from my 150mm lens in LF. For me a normal lens is way more useful in LF than it is smaller formats.
You asked for recommendations. There's mine. Do with it what you will.
Bruce Watson
While I can see your point, I cannot say this is what happened to me. I preferred the 35mm in 135 format and with 4x5 I go even wider. I cannot see what "separating the film plane from the lens plane" even has to do with what focal length you prefer. I could understand that the ratio of the film 4/5 vs. 2/3 influences your choice. For me it did because the far more "square" proportions of 4x5 compared to 135 I go even wider, just to keep that wide view. A 35mm on 135 is barely what I would consider "natural" view of your eyes.
Movement might be better to understand in longer focal lengths. But for portraits and landscapes I rarely go further than shift which is purely a composition aid in that case.
Expert in non-working solutions.
One more question: where can I find the filter sizes of different 4x5 lenses? I find it odd that LF lens makers don't seem to engrave filter sizes on their lenses.
On the .info home page under lenses you can find a "Comparison Charts" link that will take you here: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/
That has most information you would need.
If you need other info about a certain lens, such as flange focal distance, you may have to search the the wayback machine for your lens manufacturer.
Giganova, Why do you find it odd? Off hand, I can't think of a 35mm or med format maker that does...
But almost any one can be googled if you have the focal length & max aperture.
90-180-300
Because almost all 135 and 120 lenses have the filter size engraved on the barrel.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks