Noob question... how much coverage is MUCH coverage on 4x5?
Looking into LF getting my first LF (4x5) setup, I'm getting unsure of what lens to choose, and what to avoid.
In particular, I'm unsure about how much coverage is needed for the front movements. I used the old Pythagora formula and found out that the diagonal of 4x5 film is about 160 mm. I need at least 160 mm of coverage then. But 160 mm allows for no movements, focus only at infinity and f/22.
How much is much, and how much is OK? How much is not enough?
Thanks! (I did a search on this... to no avail)
What are Your subjects ?? e.g. portrait, landscape, closeup, product, buildings.. This will define requirements for movements and larger than minimum coverage.
(other will transform this to numbers, I'm quite sure)
Best regards and happy LF'ing Morten :-)
"Please ! Bring me into the company of those who seek the truth, and deliver me from those who have found it."
My old 203mm Ektar, made for 5x7, has enough coverage for most front movements. Where it won't do, my 165mm Angulon certainly will.
An image circle of 230mm or so will give you a fair amount of wiggle room, but more is better. As noted, how much more is really a function of what you're shooting, and how. Another consideration is whether you might eventually migrate to a larger format. If that's a potential, buy for the larger format now, rather than replace lenses later.
[COLOR=SlateGray]"You can't depend on your eyes if your imagination is out of focus." -Mark Twain[/COLOR]
Rio Rancho, NM
Take a look at this page... it'll tell you what lenses are suitable for 4x5.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I'm looking at a Schneider Symmar 135/5.6. It's a convertible, so it could double up as a 235 f/12 portrait lens. Image circle 190 mm. Maybe I should hunt for a 150 Symmar instead? 210 mm IC, and becomes a 265 mm without the front element...
Looking through the specs on different lenses, there are only a few of the wider lenses that exceed 210 mm IC. Are all "vintage" wide angle lenses, like S-A 75 / 5.6 etc out of the question?
Nothing is out of the question.
If I feel I'll need lots of movements I'll pick a lens which covers "one size up" - a 5x7" lens for 4x5"; a 8x10" lens for 5x7" and so on. Having a 210mm image circle to play with on 4x5" is - usually sufficient.
150 or 180 Symmar, 210 Xenar, 90/8 Super-Angulon, 360 Tele-Xenar - all of these have plenty of image circle. If you "need" even more, there's old things like the 165/6.8 Angulon, the 240 Symmar (both of which came in #2 shutter and cover 8x10") which can be fun to play with without costing an arm and a leg.
Don't be afraid of older lenses. The main differences between a 1950's lens and a brand new one is in the coating. Keep the sun from shining on the glass, and you'll never notice the difference.
-- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
How much is enough ?
Are you going to take pictures,
or play with the camera ?
You don't need much movement to make good pictures.
Still, it isn't hard to get a lens with more covering power than you'll ever need.
In the Golden Age, we often chose a Dagor/Angulon type design for a shorter lens ( eg 120 ) and a Tessar / Artar design for a longer lens ( 180 - 210 ).
In World Cup chronology, this spans the time between Uruguay's win over Brazil, and Germany over Holland !
A Schneider Angulon 120 and 210 Xenar will cover a larger area than anybody will need, and make images of the highest quality. These are representative of the lenses Schneider and Rodenstock has made since the '50s and ( in good working compur or copal shutters ) should be easy to find near home.
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
Yes but focussed closer lenses cover more. Some times stopped further down then cover more.
Originally Posted by timeUnit
Enough depends on the subjects.
Originally Posted by df cardwell
Nah, it just for fun: I'll wiggle the standards every now and then, say between posts on APUG...
Seriously though, what I'll use the camera for is portraits and urban landscapes. At least for a start.
But the main thing I want to use is movements. Correcting perspectives, yes, but also the opposite. Playing with focus plane, etc.
I think now that the 135 mm Symmar is a tad bit short. I'll go with a 150 or 180. If I want short I can always get a 75 SA, or something.