Hello,
so I am getting my Sinar F1 with 90mm lens soon. I will acquire a rollfilm back, so I can practice a little bit, without spending huge amounts of money on film (those 4x5 sheets are damn expensive). I will need a lens that equals the 90mm on 4x5 on either a 6x7, 6x8 or 6x9 back (haven't decided yet). I was thinking of maybe a Schneider 58mm XL? Or a Rodenstock 55mm. The 47mm XL would be too wide, or am I mistaken?
If you download some of the spreadsheets at http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/ you will get information on all the various lenses and their rough 35mm equivalents.
A 90mm on 4x5 is actually quite wide: it is around a 47mm on 6x7 or slightly longer on 6x9 or around 20mm on 35mm. Having said this, wide angles on LF seem somehow less wide than on smaller formats.
The other issue to consider is the cost of rollfilm back plus wideangle will probably buy you quite a lot of 4x5 film to practice with. Given the processing (I assume you are doing your own) is a bit different from MF, using sheet film is important to get familiar with both the whole loading holder, using holder, processing film routine. I started by buying 100 sheets of shanghai b&w film most of which was stuffed up in some way, but it got me up the learning curve for modest cost.
"In the field of observation chance favours the prepared mind" -- Pasteur
It is reasonable to want to practice using roll film, and learn the camera before leaning a whole new way of handling film. That assumes, of course, that you are already familiar with roll film.
If you shoot 6x7, which has an aspect ratio most similar to 4x5, you'll want a 47. But you do not need a 47XL, unless you plan to explore ultra-wide-angle photography with the 4x5 film later. A 47/5.6 Super Angulon will cover up to 6x9 with ample movements (for a lens that short) and 6x12 if you won't mind the corners going dark.
You'll want the Wide Angle Bellows 2 on your Sinar. With that, you'll be able to mount a 47 on a flat board, and the handling will be pretty reasonable, despite the very tiny shutter.
The older 47/5.6 is quite affordable but not common.
At 6x9, a 65 might be wide enough for this purpose. A 65/8 will sell for cheap because it will be a fairly old lens, but even the newer 65/5.6 isn't terribly expensive. And the 5.6 will cover 4x5, too.
The smaller format and shorter lenses will sharpen your skills with movements. A 2" lens will need about half the tilt of a 4" lens (this is approximately true at the small angles allowed by the lens coverage). 4x5 with 90 and 120mm lenses will not require the same barely-off-the-center-detent angles needed by the really short lenses.
Rick "who was forced to (unhappily) use a recessed board with a 47 until discovering the WA Bellows 2" Denney
Roughly speaking 6x7 is about the same aspect ratio as 4x5, so in theory you'd want a 51.8mm lens, which doesn't exist. So you can either go with a 47mm, a 50mm mamiya press lens, or a 55/58mm. It'll depend on exactly which 6x7 back you use since they all give slightly different frame sizes, from about 56x68 to 56x72. Personally i'd go with a 58mm or even a 65mm and just take a step backwards, as the longer extension and of these lenses will be easier to work with than a 47mm.
Might seem like nitpicking, but this got me thinking. I do have a 90mm lens, and have recently used it for several 4x5 shots - and I don't remember it giving an impression of a 20mm in 35mm film format. Now, a 20mm lens on a 35mm camera is wiiiiideOriginally Posted by Brian Stein
According to the lens focal chart here, 90mm lens on a 4x5 camera/negative would be more like 27mm lens on a 35mm camera - which is actually my impression. Wide, but not THAT wide
Approximately like 28mm on a Nikon/Canon/any other 35mm camera...
To get the wide perspective/angle of view that you get with a 20mm lens on a "mini" (35mm) camera, in 4x5 format you would use a 65mm lens.
doesn't make sense,, why would you spend money on a roll back then a wide angle lens to practice with so you don't have to spend money on wasted 4x5 film..?
would a 47mm be to wide.. ? to wide for what
I've got a suggestion: spend the $$ that you were going to spend on the roll back on some expired 4x5 film and get the experiance you need.
Well, it is not an either 4x5 or 6x7 question; I will be keeping the 90mm for shooting 4x5, but sometimes I won't need the resolution of 4x5, as a professionally scanned 6x7cm negative already has a very high resolution. I have the Sinar F1 for the movements, since I'll be shooting mostly architecture, and some landscape. So the 90mm would be wide on the 4x5 and "normal" on the 6x7. The 45/47/55/58 would be wide on 6x7 and VERY wide on 4x5. Seems to give me some versatility. About the 47mm maybe being "too wide" I was thinking that I am not going for a "superwide " look, since I dont want to much of a distorted perspective. So I am looking for a wide, dramatic lens for 6x7, that doesn't look too cliché wide. maybe I am asking too much :-)
you wanna get good with a sledgehammer you start with a sledgehammer
The 45/47/55/58 have very little room for movement with 4x5 film. If you want to shoot a lot of roll film, then maybe you should consider a 6x12 back, but do it with the intent of shooting roll film, not learning to shoot 4x5. Your camera won't work the same with the bellows collapsed to focus a 45mm lens. Using a 90mm and film is probably the best advice to learn and enjoy the process.
"so in theory you'd want a 51.8mm lens, which doesn't exist."
No, but the Rodenstock HR Digaron-W 50mm 4.0 does which covers a 90mm circle at infinity so it will work just fine on 6x7 and leave some movement. Not as much as the 55mm 4.5 Apo Grandagon does, however.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks