Help picking LF lenses, etc to start with

[craigclu]

I purchased a Zone VI field camera and am deciding on optics, etc. I notice that the Fujinons tend to be more affordable used than the German options. Is this a direct reflection on their quality? I've developed a positive feeling for any optics by Fuji after good experiences with various MF rangefinders that I've owned and was just assuming that their LF optics would be good performers, too. I'm not absolutely certain of what duties I'll settle into with this camera but likely outdoor pictorial primarily. I was thinking of a 210 workhorse lens and something wide to complement it.

I've had some past experience some years back with LF but just with various Graflex rigs and moderate quality optics (Ektars, Xenars). I've got an old Yankee daylight tank someplace and a 150mm Rodagon for printing. I'm assuming this is decent enough for printing, at least to start with? Any film holders to avoid? I've got a Rodenstock 4X loupe, is this adequate for ground glass duty?

[David A. Goldfarb]

Your 150mm Rodagon is a good lens, and a Rodenstock 4X loupe is excellent. Not many people get on well with the Yankee tank, but if it's worked for you, it will do for now.

Fuji lenses are decent lenses. The older Schneider Symmar convertibles are particularly good values in terms of price for performance.

Most of the standard filmholders are good as long as they're in good condition--Lisco, Fidelity, Riteway, old wooden holders made by Graflex (but use Graphic-type, not Graflex-type, which are larger) and other companies--they're all suitable. Toyo holders are made to slightly tighter tolerances, and there are other options like Grafmatics, Kinematics, Quickload and Readyload. I think the only holders to avoid are Tiltall holders that you sometimes see on eBay for cheap, because they don't have a lock rib. What they are intended for nobody seems to know.

[Ole]

Generally speaking, all LF lenses made in the last 60 years or so are good lenses. Fujinons, Schneiders, Rodenstocks, Nikkors - excepting damage and the occasional "dud", they are all plenty good enough!

I've noticed that the price of the old convertible Symmars has been creeping up, so that a newer Symmar-S can often be found for about the same amount. I fear some might blame me for that, just like the price increase on old Angulons...

Since you mentioned Xenars, you might want to look for one of the last ones of that type: The 210mm f:6.1 Xenar. They are great lenses, and far smaller than the older f:4.5 version. Mine is one of my most used lenses on 4x5", and gets occasional use on 5x7" too.

[Stephanie Brim]

I'm starting with a Rodenstock Geronar, an Ilex Anastigmat of some flavor that is as yet unknown, and this little gem that was a spur of the moment purchase.

I'm impulsive. Pretty soon I'm going to have more lenses than Ole and nowhere to put them.

[mark]

Nothing wrong with fuji lenses. I have a 90mm fuji something that looks really good on the GG, I have not had the chance to shoot it yet. My other lenses are a mix of other brands. I sometimes think lens brands are like cigarette brands. Some people stick to one and tote their excellence, when in reality they all give you cancer (the cigarettes not the lenses). There are some people here doing some really cool stuff with really old cheap lenses.

[Nick Zentena]

Some of the Fuji are much sought after.

The first W line had more coverage and are fairly small up to the 210mm

The A are sought after.

Fuji makes a wide angle 105 that is much cheaper then the 110xl on the used market.

[coriana6jp]

I have quite a few Fujinon lenses, and have had a chance to use just about every lens Fuji currently makes. I have never had a dud yet. They are all extremely sharp and equal to anything out there.

Actually Fuji makes 2 105mm lenses currently. The 105mm CMW which has a 67mm filter size and an IC of 180mm. And the 105mm SW f/8 which uses 77mm filters has a 260mm IC. Both are great lenses.

Gary

[John Kasaian]

I've had some past experience some years back with LF but just with various Graflex rigs and moderate quality optics (Ektars, Xenars). I've got an old Yankee daylight tank someplace and a 150mm Rodagon for printing. I'm assuming this is decent enough for printing, at least to start with? Any film holders to avoid? I've got a Rodenstock 4X loupe, is this adequate for ground glass duty?

A 203 Ektar and a 135 WF Ektar are moderate quality?
Craig, Craig...tsk...tsk!

As for your other questions:

A Yankee daylight tank makes a mighty fine pencil holder. Just throw the lid and the guts away---you'll be able to keep a lot of pencils in 'er.

The Rodagon is a fine lens for enlarging.

A Rodenstock loupe is a fine loupe for fine focusing.

2 out of 3 ain't bad. Just don't go around trash talkin' those Ektars!

[vet173]

A 203 Ektar and a 135 WF Ektar are moderate quality?
Just don't go around trash talkin' those Ektars!

Just what I was thinkin'.

[Ole]

Just what I was thinkin'.

As was I - but about the Xenars.