If you had to only have ONE lens what would it be? You had to shoot everything with it; Portraits, Tabletop, Landscapes and Interiors. I am wondering what wo uld it be? Would the movements in Large Format be enough to deal with the limit ations of one lens and fit everything in like a wide angle lens? Would cropping a big large format negative be enough to get a telephoto effect? Do you REALLY need all those lenses?
No question for me. 135mm on 4x5 (equiv. of 40.5mm in 35mm). How about two lenses only? 90mm and 150/162mm. For three, just add a 250mm. Picking the focal lengths is easy, specifying exactly which lens is a lot harder. Dagors are hard to beat, all 'round.
Gotta go with Bill on this one. 135mm is best for one all around lens. Second choice is 150. Can't go real wide, but fits the other criteria the closest. Would add 90mm and 250 next, in that order. Many old photographers never owned but a 135 for their Graphics and got by.
For the first couple of years I worked in 4x5, I only used a 210mm 5.6 Symmar-S and a 90mm f8 Super Angulon. Come to think of it, I really don't believe I gained that much--except weight, bulk and expense--by adding a bunch of other focal lengths over the years.
I just remembered I have an article from a pro-oriented magazine in which a fella relates starting out in L.F. with just one lens - a 120 Super Angulon. His camera was the 5 X 7 Deardorff - so he could shoot 5 X 7, 4 X 5, and all the 120 sizes with one lens - and apparently got along o.k.
Bookmarks