What am I about to do?

**Carsten Wolff** · 11-Jun-2007, 15:43

Brian,
you can talk....I'm starting to like John Sextons philosophy more and more.....

Isn't it that if one only uses a few lenses (and their shutters by the way!... I'm currently using Auto, Alphax, Betax, Compur, Prontor and Copal shutters) one starts to "see" with those lenses and use them in a better way. I think I've liked LF initially because the thought that the "image is everything" appealed, and because of it's generosity in resolution per-se. It CAN liberate one from gear obsession to a degree.
Although the collector instinct has everything to do with photography, hasn't it?

**Armin Seeholzer** · 11-Jun-2007, 16:07

"however, I definitely won't go into 8x10, or larger"
The same did I also tell everybody 20 years ago I will stay at 4x5 thats just fine for me. Still 10 years later the same. But since 2 Years I have a second 8x10 and it is more in use them my 4x5 outside, so go figure...
And I need all my lenses from 47 mm up to 600mm and a bit longer would be even better.
This days I have also an SF lens syndrom but it starts to get better I only need stil a Petzval and then I'm complete maybe!
Never say never or it kiks in your own ass!
Just some thing to think about. Armin

**Jan Pedersen** · 11-Jun-2007, 19:08

It's to late Carsten, do you think John Sexton could go back and use only one lens?
Just try to damage control that is much better. Accept that you are hooked and limit yourself to one lens a month

**Brian Ellis** · 12-Jun-2007, 07:51

Originally Posted by Carsten Wolff

Brian,
you can talk....I'm starting to like John Sextons philosophy more and more.....

Isn't it that if one only uses a few lenses (and their shutters by the way!... I'm currently using Auto, Alphax, Betax, Compur, Prontor and Copal shutters) one starts to "see" with those lenses and use them in a better way. I think I've liked LF initially because the thought that the "image is everything" appealed, and because of it's generosity in resolution per-se. It CAN liberate one from gear obsession to a degree.
Although the collector instinct has everything to do with photography, hasn't it?

I meant to put a smiley at the end of my post. I actually think that in John's case it was a more a matter of what he could afford rather than a belief that owning only one lens was a good thing.

However, I do think it's easy for some photographers to convince themselves that they need to own a lot of different lenses to make good photographs, especially LF photographers, for many of whom the gear seems to hold an unusual amount of interest. Fortunately for me my GAS has been confined to cameras, I've never had it for lenses and so have managed to stay pretty rational when it comes to owning them. I usually own no more than four at any one time - presently it's a 100mm, 135mm, 210mm, and 300. I also owned an 80mm until recently but sold it because I wasn't using it. I'll probably add a 75mm at some point but I've owned three of the four I now have for 10 or more years and the 100 for about a year (it replaced the 80).

**Sylvester Graham** · 12-Jun-2007, 08:25

Originally Posted by Ole Tjugen

65, 90, 90, 120, 121, 121, 135, 135, 150, 150, 150, 6", 165, 180, 180, 210, 210, 210 240, 270, 300, 355, 360, 420, 480 and 500mm - none of them tele. and several in some focal lengths, just because they're totally different.

Good God! How do you do anything? At one point I had quite a few lenses, but I sold most of them off. I just could never make a decision in time, and most of them were dead weight. No matter what format I'm using I only find the need for three lenses; a moderately wide, a normal, and a telephoto 2X that of the normal. And I rarely use the wide. I find I can react faster with only three choices.
-Alex

**Nick_3536** · 12-Jun-2007, 08:43

You don't have to bring them all with you-)

My widest two lenses won't cover 8x10. So no worries about hauling them with the 8x10. I've got one lens that's so heavy it needs it's own camera -) So even if the focal length is fairly similar to some other lens I own it'll never get used for the same things.

**Ole Tjugen** · 12-Jun-2007, 09:09

Same here - while all of those lenses could theoretically be used on the 4x5" camera, I generally cut that down to a "subset" of 65, 90, 120, 150 and 240. Or maybe a 355 too, depending on how far I'm planning to walk. And maybe another 150 - there's a huge difference between an Apo-Lanthar, a Tessar and a Germinar-W!

The 65, one of the 90's, the 135's, and all but one of the 150's won't cover 5x7" which makes that simpler. And the Gandolfi doesn't have lensboards big enough for the #5 Compound shutter, so that eliminates the 360. The 210/6.1 Xenar is so good i usually don't bring anything else in that focal length, but I might bring the 240 Symmar just in case i need it as a 420.

for 8x10" it's even simpler: 121/8 Super Angulon, 165/6.8 Angulon, 210/9 G-Claron (or 210/6.8 Angulon - depends on whether or not I think I'll need lots of movements), 240/5.6 Symmar, 300/5.6 Symmar, 355/9 G-Claron. The 360/5.6 Symmar stays at home, unless I bring the 24x30cm camera too - and I'm not carrying that one more than about 20m from the car!

**Carsten Wolff** · 13-Jun-2007, 20:20

That's exactly what I was eluding to, Ole. Cutting down... I was just wondering about the odd focal lengths/lenses in my case....and all that 5x7 gear could also occasionally be used on 4x5 for color. I figure I'd carry a mere 3lb in lenses with me. All I need?! (75/4.5) 110/8 165/8.5 (or 4.5) 254/6.3....well, may be back to adding a 450 Fuji C one day (or I could even try one cell of the 10" Conley by itself as a long (20"?) lens).