I use a 4x5 camera with a 150mm lens and I'm thinking of buying a 210mm or 240mm. A 210 is significantly cheaper than a 240. My question, given that these lenses are rather close in focal length, is this: why would someone buy a 240 rather than a 210?
If you are looking at an f/5.6 type of lens with a plasmat or similar design, a 240mm lens is going to be on a big No. 3 shutter. The 210mm will be on a No. 1 shutter. The No. 1 is smaller, lighter and not as likely to cause camera shake (compared to the No. 3). A 240mm like a Fujinon A with a max lens opening of f/9 will be smaller and lighter than the plasmat design.
The 210mm plasmat is one of the most widely used lenses. It will likely be less expensive than the 240mm plasmat.
A 240mm is approximately equal to an 80mm lens in 35mm terms, and a 210mm is closer to a 70mm. The 240 lets you get back farther from a table top or portraiture subject or closer to a landscape subject than a 210. HOwever, since you are working with a big negative, the difference between the lenses might easily be offset by purchasing the smaller, lighter, less expensive 210 and cropping when necessary. If you are thinking about the Fujinon, then weight and size are not an issue.
Many photographers find the 210mm to be their most used lens, perhaps because it fits in the gap between normal and long.
If you live in an area with rental shops it might be worth trying both focal lengths out by renting.
Actually, just after I posted the above, I think that my last comment may also be the reason why photographers might choose a 240. The 210mm is sort of a "tweener" to some, and they want the longer lens which will compress things more, and/or give a little extra reach.
I think that the 210 might often be a longer than normal lens for the 4*5, while the 240 could be either a standard portrait lens for 4*5 or a standard for 5*7 and a short lens for 8*10. 240 portrait lenses, or short lens for 8*10 can be larger than many 4*5 photographers would want to carry into the field. Also, a standard 240mm vs. a tele will require the full extension of bellows. Best
I understand the relationship to 35mm, and that's why I don't get it. A 210 is about US1,000 and a 240 is about US1,700. I gather that Schneider doesn't make a 240, but their 300 is about US1,800. I don't see that the extra working distance of a 240, whether for portrait or still-life, especially if one is mostly using available light and maybe a reflector, justifies the additional expense. I suppose that one might want a 300 to flatten the image, but I still don't get the 240 as distinct from the 210. That's why I'd like to know if I'm missing something.
Rory,
FWIW, my limited experience with 4x5s leads me to think that a 210 ( well, mines a 203 actually) isn't that much different than a 'normal' 150. For many, a 210 IS 'normal!' I'm not trying to be a wise guy or anything---thats just how I see it. You'll see a greater difference between lenses that have focal lengths around 100mm or more apart(this I can state is the case with 8x10s, anyway), so a 240mm will, I think, put more 'long' in your long lens selection that a 210 providing your camera has the bellows to handle a 240. Of course, YMMV. My favorite 240mm at present is the G-Claron, which strangely enough often goes for less than the 210 G-Clarons these days(perhaps the 210 is more popular as a 'normal' lens?) They both utilize the Copal #1 shutter and the difference in size and wieght of the two are, once again IMHO, insignificant.
Cheers!
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
In addition, most 240mm's will cover 8x10 with a little movement while most modern 210's don't really do that great a job giving slightly dim corners.
CP Goerz
While I use the 10" (254mm) more than I use the 8 1/2" (216mm), the 9" (229mm) get the most use these days for 4X5 portraits. Funny thing... the 9" is an Ilex Copy Paragon barrel lens that set me back less than $50.00 (brand spankin' new) with a front mounted Packard shutter. All I had to do was doctor up the barrel so the lens would stop down past f/11 and make a mount for the Packard...
Damn nice lens.......
The difference is just 30mm but the 240 is a better bet due to your other lens at 150mm. 210mm is not much of a difference at all. I would even opt for a 300mm instead of the 240. Same difference as a 50mm and a 100mm in 35mm format. 150 vs 240 is a little less than half again as large. You can move the camera easily enough to accomplish the difference between 150 and (210) 240. But 300 gives you a better view if you can't move the camera around. This is for landscapes (medium to far distances) mainly and not portraiture or still life which entail different approaches and considerations anyway.
It might help to also consider what other lenses you might want to get further down the road. I like to have a constant factor between the focal lengths, which translates into a constant factor with respect to the angle of view (with some rounding to accomodate actually available focal length). A factor of 2, as mentioned as a possibility by james (going from 150 to 300mm) would mean that on the wideangle side the next one is a 75mm. I have actually used that combination for several years but always wanted something in between. If a factor of 2 is the upper limit, a factor of 1.4 (square root of 2) is probably the lower one, that would be something like 55-75-105/110-150-210-300-450-600mm. Any other factor in between is also possible; the 150-240 combination is a factor of 1.6, or as a series 55-90-150-240-360-600mm. the often recommended 120/210mm combination is a factor of 1.75 or expanded a 75-120-210-360-600mm combination. Of course this constant factor thing is quite subjective and just my personal preference.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks