4x5 210mm or 300mm
5inch (127mm) or 210mm for 4x5
210mm for 5x7
Good focal length for portraiture, I thought.
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera".
- Yousuf Karsh
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit".
Normal to wide. I very rarely use a lens that's longer than normal.
"What drives man to create is the compulsion to, just once in his life, comprehend and record the pure, unadorned, unvarnished truth. Not some of it; all of it."
- Fred Picker
Well, I'm wide; especially around the middle, my eyesight is normal (for my advanced years) and they see in telephoto and so that is what is at the end of my RZ most of the time. I like to take statue pictures as portraits. Film is fabulous with texture and the look I am going for and the RZ is slow enough to be enjoyable and relaxing to use and the subjects are mostly mute and never complain.
Yup, I've found my niche!
To find the answers .... Question them!
That's an interesting thought!
Originally Posted by Vaughn
I suspect it will just make a further generation of people that think that they look rubbish in photos. All of the crappy zoom compacts seem to open on max wide and make people look like their ears have been pulled round the back of their heads
Maybe the youngsters will just get with it and we will see another visual revolution.
210mm on 5x4 (75mm on 35mm?) would be my main lens.
For portraiture, I prefer longer lenses (210 and 360 on 5x4) unless I am trying for a 'dynamic' wide angle effect in which case, I'll generally reach for the widest glass that I can get my hands on.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Don't know yet, I've only had a 210mm with my 4x5. But, just this week my Nikkor SW 120mm arrived, but have yet to be able to use it. With 4x5 it would be considered a moderate wide angle lens, I think equivalent to 35mm in small format, looking forward to my first exposures with it this weekend.
"The difference between a very good
print and a fine
print is quite subtle and difficult , if not impossible, to describe in words."
---AA (The Print
I like hovering just either side of 'normal', slightly wide (135) or slightly long (210, both on 4x5). I have a 300, but like Mike (post #3) it just comes along for the ride most times. Besides, I've only got a 300mm bellows draw, so even with raking my back out I can't focus closer than about 20', which is where a lot of the things I like usually are. I also like going super-wide too, I had a 90 (again, on 4x5) but just couldn't quite find a 'groove' with it, now I'm considering a 75, so my 300 may get passed off since there's only so much room for things that don't get used... but then comes the thought: "What if I ever get an 8x10?".
On my 645 kit I like the dramatic angles of the 35mm (which is why i'm looking at 75's for 4x5). Again, that's a wide-normal lens set, 35, 55, 75, the only exception being the 150 (comparable to the 300 on 4x5, except it actually gets used because I can actually focus it!).
My goal in life, is to be as good a person as my dog already thinks I am.
I calculate that a 210mm lens on my 5x4 has the equivalent effect on perspective and viewing angle as a 52mm lens for the equivalent aspect ratio centre portion on a 35mm frame.
So, stipulating that a 210mm lens is 'normal' for 5x4 (NOT 150mm as seems to be the popular conception), 210mm is my longest lens followed by 135mm, 90mm and 65mm.
So I guess I'm wide-angle.
I am the opposite of most people here: i am longer lens person. My most used lenses on 4x5 are a 240 and 360, closely followed by the 150. My 90 mm i use seldomly in landscapes and my 58 mm gets almost only used indoors. Because my 240 mm is pretty dim, i use a 210 for portraits when working in a studio. It just fits my way of seeing better. In 35 mm i prefer my 28 mm and 21 mm lenses...
A motorcyclist is the only one who understands why a dog rides with it's head out the window.
"I had an idea once, it died of loneliness"--George