Best 250 for architecture from a distance for a field camera

[Bernice Loui]

If the lens is used in a bright environment ground glass image brightness difference between a lens with full aperture of f5.6 -vs- f9 for a 250_ishmm focal length lens on 4x5 is not that much difference. This is due to the longer focal length effectively concentrating the image light on to the GG.. This is where a proper matching fresnel lens can aid in GG image brightness, but the grooves in the fresnel could hinder critical focusing on the GG.

~At best fresnel add on GG focusing aids are a trade-off, learning how best to focus the GG image is an acquired skill that demands time and practice. Brightest GG image alone will not accomplish this need.

Keep in mind there were no "hobbyist" LF view camera lenses made during the time when these modern Plasmat formula lenses were designed-produced. ALL of them designed by the big four Fujinon, Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikkor were producing these lenses for working photographers that knew precisely what they needed for images that kept a roof over their studio and food on their table. While there ARE differences in contrast rendition and to a much smaller degree "sharpness" ALL were absolutely capable of producing high quality images.. There have been Millions upon Millions of published and mass printed images made on these lenses.. Essentially, pick any from the Big four, have the shutter checked for proper operation and focus in image making.

~Simply adding a proper lens shade does wonders for image quality.

It might be possible your image goals of architectural images made from a distance will need a lens with a much longer focal length than 250_ish mm. The focal length needed might be 360mm or more. It this becomes real, then you're into telephoto design LF lenses for the Technika as it will not have enough bellows and camera extension for non telephoto lenses more than 14" or 360mm. The Technika is not the most ideal camera for using long focal length lenses as it was originally designed as a hand held press camera. Might discover there are baked in and unalterable limitations with the Technika driven by what lens is used.


Bernice

Thank you all for the examples, links and inifo!

In all honesty I think a 6.3 or 6.7 is as dark as I can deal with. All my lenses are 5.6. I have the newest GL and fresnal for the linhof and they help a lot thats for sure.

Lens size is not a terrible issue. But i will take into account.

Print wise its undecided yet. Its at initial stages and more than likely goimng into a book first. But of course its always at the back of my mind.

I think unless I see a huge sway otherwise through stuff i will research I will mostl likely go for the fujinon. My 150 is fuji and its an awesome lens.

Will see whats out there!

Thank you again!

[Christianganko]

Thanks all

Love this forum

@Jnantz I am topographic photographer. Up unitl recently I have been shooting on a medium format 6x7. But recently have found my return interest in 4x5 for detail and resolution.

At the moment i dont see myself having too many over the road shots but I dont want to get caught out and also would like to see what perspective it delivers to the work I am doing.

I use the technika out of partly not knowing completely the result I prefer and working with locations and focal lengths. I initially thought colour for instance but then realised BW would work better. I do have a monorail. A Sinar P2. Its hefty but not impossible to take to locations. Especially as I will be driving. And its dead accurate and solid as a mountain.

@Mark Sampson I will check out the 300. Members also mentioned the plasmats but in all honesty i cant find any on ebay. What am doing wrong? The ones that I have found are like 3k and over!!

Is there a specific term / number /make i need to stick in the search?

Thankj you all again!

[Christianganko]

Thanks also @bernice

Very informative information and things to think about.

As I mentioend above. I cant find a decently priced plasmat anywhere?!!! It could be i need ot empty my cache but not sure until I do i guess. I also am aware of the longer lengths and the technika. I have a monorail so depending on the results i get from tests I may need ot drag that out to locations if i get the longer lenses.

[rfesk]

Search for a 300mm lens. Schneider Symmars are good, Symmar S are better. They are not $3000. Plasmats are common on Ebay. Actually a Tessar (4 element lens) would be adequate if modern.

[jnantz]

Thanks all

Love this forum

@Jnantz I am topographic photographer. Up unitl recently I have been shooting on a medium format 6x7. But recently have found my return interest in 4x5 for detail and resolution.
==
Is there a specific term / number /make i need to stick in the search?

ahh thanks Christianganko
if you start to look into a Schneider look up "schneideritis" it's harmless, and might be the magic word that saves you some $$
here's some info on plasmat design: https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/2...-is-a-plasmat/

[Havoc]

As I mentioend above. I cant find a decently priced plasmat anywhere?!!! It could be i need ot empty my cache but not sure until I do i guess.

It is far harder to find anything else than a plasmat I would think. As you were asking about a Fujinon, something like a Fujinon (CM-)W certainly is. Just the 150/6.3 W is a tessar according to Thalmann. All the Schneider Symmars(-S) are. And loads of others.

[Bernice Loui]

The Plasmat.. most common modern LF view camera lens formula. Rooted in the Dagor lens formula from over a century ago, essentially an air spaced variant of the Dagor.. If you currently own a modern LF view camera lens with a full aperture of f5.6, it is extremely likely to be a Plasmat. Nil focus shift at full aperture of f5.6 to the smallest f-stop on the lens (typically f45), typical image circle angle of 70 degrees plus/minus.. some degrees depending on the specific variant, typically diffraction limited at f22 with GOOD optical performance from f16 to f45, Not so nice into out of focus rendition, often found with modern multi-coatings and modern glass types allowing market TooT_ed "APO" correction.. flat field... good geometric distortion and overall correction of optical "ills"..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmat_lens

~Essentially meets the majority of LF view camera image making needs with ease and GOOD results.. Or why the Plasmat lens formula has become SO common in the universe of LF view camera lenses.. it is the most fitting general purpose LF view camera lens in many ways..

Examples:

Fujinon:
~W / WS series, inside and outside lettering.
~A series.
~CM-W series.

Rodenstock:
~Sironar.
~Sironar N / S.
~APO Sironar series..
~Sironar W (variant of).

Nikkor:
W-series.

Schneider:
~Symmar, Convertible series.
~Symmar S series.
~Symmar APO.
~Symmar L series.

These are a partial list of "taking" LF view camera lenses. There are enlarging lens variants and LOTS more..

ALL of the above is absolutely capable of delivering excellent images If the optics are in proper condition and properly applied. As previously mentioned, differences will be in contrast rendition and other less significant aspects of lens personality.

Bernice

As I mentioend above. I cant find a decently priced plasmat anywhere?!!! It could be i need ot empty my cache but not sure until I do i guess. I also am aware of the longer lengths and the technika. I have a monorail so depending on the results i get from tests I may need ot drag that out to locations if i get the longer lenses.

[Drew Wiley]

Plasmats tend to be the most abundant variety of modern view lenses on the used market, and therefore generally the most affordable in common focal lengths. But there are certain exceptions, depending on supply and demand. 150's, 180's, 210's, and to an only slightly less extent, 250's, are abundant in several brands. But once you reach 250, some of them are going to be in big no. 3 shutter rather than small 0 or 1. A series Bernice skipped on her above list is the later Schneider G-Clarons, which are their equivalent to the Fuji A "Super Plasmat" series, especially well corrected for very close range as well as infinity. But given the stipulation for an f/5.6 or close to that viewing aperture, that narrows down the list to "general-purpose" plasmats from any or the "big four" manufacturers.

Tessars have less image circle relative to focal length, and anything 300mm is going to be distinctly longish and narrow perspective with 4X5 applications. I find 250's and 300's different enough in view angle that I generally carry both for 4x5 format. But in the most modern tessar version, Nikkor M's, toting a 200M and 300M is an especially nice petite combination, but again, of smaller aperture than requested. Most often I carry a 180 Fuji A, 250A, and Nikkor 300M, and optionally a 125 Fuji W for cramped architectural work, and maybe a 450C (dialtye design) for very long views. All but the 125 have small max apertures; but that fact never bothers me personally.

For an entire decade I shot nothing but a 210/5.6 Symmar S for all my 4x5 usage: landscape, outdoor architecture, and color portraiture. It had a generous image circle and nicer "bokeh" than my subsequent super hard-sharp, more contrasty plasmats. But it required fairly large 77mm filters.

[Bernice Loui]

Schneider G-Claron... Plasmat formula indeed. Notable today, the 355mm G-Claron has become an item due to image circle and optical performance in a modest package. This and many other really Good optics are of this age old lens formula-design.

During the early years of 4x5 (circa 1980's) A 210mm f5.6 Rodenstock Sironar-N was the main lens, used it for virtually all images made, simply worked in most every way. Some time later, it was replaced with a Kodak Commercial EKtar (Tessar formula) for lens personality differences.

In recent times, there has been a flood of Sinar DB mount lenses for surprising cost.. Ended up with a few. All are good and useful in their own way.
Notable is the dimensions of the 300mm f5.6 Symmar S..


IMO, unless there are specific image goals and lens personality preferences related directly to lens personality. A modern Plasmat from any of the Big Four will often prove to NOT be the limiting factor.. There are Too many other aspects of image making that can go so very wrong in so many ways.


Bernice

Plasmats tend to be the most abundant variety of modern view lenses on the used market, and therefore generally the most affordable in common focal lengths. But there are certain exceptions, depending on supply and demand. 150's, 180's, 210's, and to an only slightly less extent, 250's, are abundant in several brands. But once you reach 250, some of them are going to be in big no. 3 shutter rather than small 0 or 1. A series Bernice skipped on her above list is the later Schneider G-Clarons, which are their equivalent to the Fuji A "Super Plasmat" series, especially well corrected for very close range as well as infinity. But given the stipulation for an f/5.6 or close to that viewing aperture, that narrows down the list to "general-purpose" plasmats from any or the "big four" manufacturers.

Tessars have less image circle relative to focal length, and anything 300mm is going to be distinctly longish and narrow perspective with 4X5 applications. I find 250's and 300's different enough in view angle that I generally carry both for 4x5 format. But in the most modern tessar version, Nikkor M's, toting a 200M and 300M is an especially nice petite combination, but again, of smaller aperture than requested. Most often I carry a 180 Fuji A, 250A, and Nikkor 300M, and optionally a 125 Fuji W for cramped architectural work, and maybe a 450C (dialtye design) for very long views. All but the 125 have small max apertures; but that fact never bothers me personally.

For an entire decade I shot nothing but a 210/5.6 Symmar S for all my 4x5 usage: landscape, outdoor architecture, and color portraiture. It had a generous image circle and nicer "bokeh" than my subsequent super hard-sharp, more contrasty plasmats. But it required fairly large 77mm filters.

[Christianganko]

Thank you all for the vast information!!

Total noob on 4x5 lens design so completely missed the obvious!!

I found a few Nikkors but man do they look hefty! I think I am settling on the fujinon. Relatively small and the 6.3 and image circel seem more than adequate.

Unless of course I find another brand cheaper or in better condition etc

Is there a beneifit in getting the black Fujinon W over the not black??

Would like a Symmar APO but besides the physical heft, the price also seems to be on the higher end.

Thank you!