new member intro, and, lens purchase dilemna...

[wayne77]

There is a 4.5 on eBay with a buy it now of $249.00 at this very moment.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/14399429143...kAAOSwItRfjD9~

That one looks just a little rough. I am considering a 6.8 lens though... the one I sent back was in really nice condition. The price wouldn't have been good though for that lens. My thought is to maybe get a 6.8 and then wait for the lens I want and sell it. I have a long history of buying decent equipment, selling it, and then buying even nicer stuff.

[nikonf]

If the lens was advertised as a Grandagon 90mm f4.5, you have buyer protection from Ebay and PayPal.

I guess i was first surprised that it fit in the mailbox, and second that the box was so light (from what I've read the 4.5 is a Big lens).

Any thoughts on whether I should keep it and what compensation is justifiable anyone? If a deal seems too good.... if i really want to hold out for the faster lens it looks like minimum $350 difference for the fast lens.

[Alan Klein]

If you add a center filter, the size will get even bigger for add-on contrast, polarizing and other filters.

[h2oman]

I offer the following thoughts, and I take no offense if anyone wants to take issue with them. I'm a relative noob compared to many here - I've probably shot 500-700 sheets of 4x5.

I have the Caltar 6.8, and it has served me well when I want a widish view, which is less and less these days. You can see that I did get some vignetting with that lens on this image, most evident in the upper left corner:


Everything is a compromise, so I'd start with what you tend to photograph. If you do tall architecture, or tall trees, you might want a large image circle so you can use front rise to keep verticals parallel. You'll pay for it with $$, weight, and need for larger filters.

If you photograph landscapes in open country, or maybe seascapes, you can just tilt the camera instead of using front rise, and no one but you will know the difference. Here's an example of that sort of image, although not taken with a 90mm:


In that case you can get away with a smaller image circle. (Less $$, weight, and smaller filters.) Same if you do "intimate" landscapes with the camera pointed down somewhat, as long as you have nothing in the image that a viewer would know is vertical. Even if you do architecture or trees, if you don't want or need to get tops of them in, you might rarely or never need rise, so a smaller image circle is again acceptable.

I'm sure many here have no such problems, but I find a 90mm a bit hard to work with. I bought a nice, small, light (and inexpensive - something ridiculous like $125 on ebay) Fujinon 125mm that I much prefer if I want to go wider than a standard lens. I have lenses that are 90, 125, 150, 240 and 400, but tend to use the middle three 90+% of the time, and could easily live with having just those three lenses. (OK, I like "extractions" done with a very long lens, but just use a 4/3 digital camera for those.)

One mistake I made as a beginning LF user was to try to do too many images with challenging focus issues, where I was trying to use a lot of movements. I'd suggest keeping it as simple as you can for a while, in that regard.

[nikonf]

Excellent suggestions! I have used large format for more than 40 years and I agree with just about all of your suggestions.
One of my favorite landscape lenses is the Fujinon 125mm f5.6. It is more versatile than a 90mm or 135mm lens. I frequently use the 110mm Schneider XL, 125mm Fujinon and the 210mm Sironar f5.6 N lenses for landscapes. Occasionally I will require a 90mm Grandagon or a 65mm Nikon SW.
For 8x10, I limit myself to a 240mm f5.6 Sinaron and a 360mm f6.8 Sinaron lens. If I carried more lenses such as the 155mm Rodenstock Grandagon, I would require a mule or a dog sled.
Cheers!
Mike