I'm getting back into 4x5 after a 35mm break (several years). I do mostly urban landscape-type stuff but with quite a lot of interiors (tunnels, hallways etc) so I end up often needing lots of front rise with wide angle lenses, and need the center filters even though I shoot B&W negatives. The 72 and 90 XLs are excellent, and in my earler LF days my next longest lens was a 120mm (I don't have it anymore), which was one of my favourite focal lengths for everything from architectural to lansdscape. I think I'd like a 110 Super Symmar XL, but I'm wondering if I'd end up simply using that instead of the 90 most of the time. The 90 is nice but is also a pain in the ass (big, gigantic center filter, have to unscrew the damn protecting ring on the rear cell to get it through a Linhof-type board which is very annoying). So I'm thinking 110 might be just close enough to 90 in focal length so that I'll often end up using the 110 instead of the 90, and this very expensive 90 XL will sit around mostly idle. Has this happened to other people out there? There are some less-than-ideal things about the 110 XL (no pupil distortion trick, overly massive image circle = more camera flare). Another option would be to forget about that gentle wide focal length altogether, and maybe try to swap my 90XL for another 90 that is less of a pain. Perhaps the Rodenstock Grandagon-N 4.5. It has a smaller image circle, but you can't have everything. The downside in this scenario is I'd be missing one of my favourite focal lengths (gentle wide between 90 and 150). Regarding max apertures, I really do need the bigger ones since I'm often in dark spaces or working at night, and focusing is pretty difficult. That reminds me, for those of you who use center filters, do you prefer to focus with center filters in-place? Just curious. Tough decisions. In rebuilding some of my 4x5 kit I'd like to limit myself to 3 or 4 lenses total if possible. Already have a 72XL, 90XL and 150.