Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,907   Posts: 1,555,996   Online: 1103
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    san jose, ca
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,548
    Images
    77
    I am in the camp that they all seem a bit overpriced. The best lens in the lot is probably the 210 Fuji if the shutter is in good shape. But 350 is a lot to pay for it. I would look for either a 210 or 150 Fuji at a reasonable price.

    tim in san jose
    Where ever you are, there you be.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    Fujinon L, 210 mm f5.6. But I'd find another one, as that one is clearly too expensive.

    210 is your standard 4x5 lens. They are just a hair long. 180mm on 4x5 is equivalent to a 50mm lens on a small format camera when comparing horizontal angle of view. So, a 210 being 1/6 longer than the 50mm small format equivalent makes the 210 equivalent to a 58mm lens on a small format camera. In other words, it is only slightly longer than normal on the wide dimension. And I would personally argue that it seems about the same in the end anyhow, as the 4:5 ratio frame makes a lens of a given horizontal AOV seem a bit wider than its small format equivalent. I prefer to use a slightly longer than normal lens as a standard lens, as opposed to a slightly wider than normal one, like a 150. When using my standard lens, I like being able to move back a bit from the subject just a bit more than normal, for various reasons. For example, I slightly prefer a 55mm lens to a 50 on a small format camera.

    The benefit of 210's over 150's (which most people call normal for 4x5, basing their definition on the diagonal AOV) is that they generally have larger image circles, which allow more movements.

    For studio and close-to-the-car work, I recommend a 240mm lens built for a 5x7 camera, such as a Symmar or a Nikkor-W. The extra size and weight won't bother you if you are not lugging it far, and you will never have to worry about running out of image circle on 4x5 when using one of these lenses. They are also quite cheap, as 5x7 tends to be an overlooked format. These lenses were thousands of dollars when they were new, but can be had for a few hundred today on the used market. For the same $350 you would spend on that Fuji lens, you could probably get one. And you would also be covered with a normal lens for 5x7 if you go that route some day. Most of them will also cover 8x10 to give you a moderate wide, though they will not allow a lot of movement with that format.

    But make sure you don't get a 240mm telephoto design. It will make working with tilts a bear, and they have smaller image circles than non-telephotos of the same focal length.

    If the size of 240mm non-teles bothers you, I'd suggest any quality 210mm lens from a reputable maker like Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikkor, or Fuji. I'd not bother saving money by going for models slower than f/5.6. The 5.6 ones will be cheap enough, and will help you with focusing and composing. Same thing with new versus old. I'd get a newer one, as they are technically superior in a few ways, and not much more expensive. Though the older glass does make beautiful and technically sound images, many improvements have been made in coatings and what not for both casual and serious shooters. Also, there may be an increase in image circle size on the newer lenses over the older ones.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 03-20-2011 at 12:34 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,453
    Rob, the standard definition of "normal" focal length for a format is the format's diagonal. It is pretty universally accepted for formats larger than 24 x 36. Cine-camera formats and derivatives -- 24 x 36 is double frame 18 x 24, the classic "35 mm" cine camera format -- use arbitrary definitions that bear no relation to the format. By convention, 24 x 36's normal focal length is 50 mm even though the format's diagonal is 43 mm. Except when the SLR manufacturer can't make a fast 50 mm lens that will clear the mirror, in which case "normal" is redefined as 58 mm. Whence the 58/1.4s "normal lenses" for 35 mm SLRs of the late '50s through mid-60s.

    And then there's Humpty Dumpty. " “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” That's you, I think. Ignorant or willfully idiosyncratic.

    To get back on topic, 4x5's diagonal is approximately 150 mm.

  4. #14
    Mark Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,631
    Images
    152
    The suggestions of looking at KEH is a good one (along with most of the other info!). I'd sooner get one very good lens at the right focal length than two OK ones. As suggested, forget the Tele-versions. Not fun to use and may be for 2x3. The 65 may or may not cover and it is really,really wide. For what you are doing, I'd just get a modern 150 or 135 and get started. There are a number of them. Here is a Nikkor f5.6 150 for $350 which is a good lens, in a modern shutter and in great shape.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Fisher View Post
    The suggestions of looking at KEH is a good one (along with most of the other info!). I'd sooner get one very good lens at the right focal length than two OK ones. As suggested, forget the Tele-versions. Not fun to use and may be for 2x3. The 65 may or may not cover and it is really,really wide. For what you are doing, I'd just get a modern 150 or 135 and get started. There are a number of them. Here is a Nikkor f5.6 150 for $350 which is a good lens, in a modern shutter and in great shape.
    I have a copy of the lens that Mark pointed to, and it is a very good lens. It is so good that you will probably not be able to fully exploit its qualities until you've got some considerable LF practice under your belt. That said, my only and very minor complaint with this lens is that it can be a bit too wide at times. I have a 203mm f/7.5 Graflex Optar (not supposed to be that good, but I'm not complaining) when I want a little tighter view. Truth is that when you're working with such a large negative, lens quality, unless it's truly bad, isn't nearly as important a factor as it is when working with smaller formats because you won't be enlarging the negative nearky as much.. If your goal is to make contact prints, you'll never see it. Anything up to 4x to 6x enlargements will be beautiful. Only when you get into far higher magnifications do the shortcomings of lesser lenses become obvious. So my advice to you is to find something in the 150 mm to 210 mm range that fits your budget as your starter lens. Avoid the true telephoto designs for the reasons already noted by previous posters. You won't be happy if you need to use movements. A convertible lens might be a fun thing to play around with, but be advised that the results will be a little bit soft when used with the the top down (one set of lens cells removed. Then again, it might not be enough to be of any real consequence. After all, photographers have been using them happily to make marvelous images for years.
    Frank Schifano

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22
    All, thank you for your comments, it was extremely helpful. I've settled on a 210, and am excited to get started!

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm View Post
    Rob, the standard definition of "normal" focal length for a format is the format's diagonal. It is pretty universally accepted for formats larger than 24 x 36. Cine-camera formats and derivatives -- 24 x 36 is double frame 18 x 24, the classic "35 mm" cine camera format -- use arbitrary definitions that bear no relation to the format. By convention, 24 x 36's normal focal length is 50 mm even though the format's diagonal is 43 mm. Except when the SLR manufacturer can't make a fast 50 mm lens that will clear the mirror, in which case "normal" is redefined as 58 mm. Whence the 58/1.4s "normal lenses" for 35 mm SLRs of the late '50s through mid-60s.

    And then there's Humpty Dumpty. " “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” That's you, I think. Ignorant or willfully idiosyncratic.

    To get back on topic, 4x5's diagonal is approximately 150 mm.
    Dan, my name is not Rob, first of all. Why do you think that it is? Nor is it Humpty Dumpty. Nor was my tone in my post "scornful." Nor was my post off topic.

    If you read what I wrote more carefully, you should see that what I did was to equate a 4x5 lens on 4x5 to a 50mm lens on small format specifically, not to the standard definition of a "normal" lens (the diagonal), which would be 43mm on small format (and 163 mm on 4x5). I did not invent or try to push a new definition for the technical term "normal lens." In fact, in my first few sentences of the second paragraph of my post, I say, "210 is your standard lens on 4x5. They are just a hair long." Not only do I specifically not use the term "normal," but I specifically say that the lens is "long," not normal.

    Also, if you call a 50mm, 55mm, or 58mm lens normal on small format, then calling a 180 or 210 on 4x5 "normal" after explaining your point should not lead to confusion...but did I even do that, or was I very careful with my wording?

    Nor did I tell the OP that he ought to strive for a "normal" lens. Quite the opposite, in fact. My point was to not be drawn in to what lens to choose by picking the one that meets the technical definition of "normal." A 50mm lens is not "normal" for small format; it is simply "standard," and that doesn't seem to bother anyone. If one gets a 150mm lens for 4x5 expecting it to "feel" like a 50mm lens on small format, then he or she will be disappointed. Based on the diagonal, a 150mm 4x5 lens is closest to a 40mm lens on small format, which is closer to "normal," but only 80 percent of the "standard" 50mm.

    Additionally, to be clear, I even defined the common use of the term "normal" a bit later, by stating that it is based on the diagonal, but made it clear early on that I was talking about comparing horizontal AOVs. I was talking about horizontal AOVs not to redefine the term "normal," but to try to give a 4x5 equivalent of the width one gets with a standard small format lens. This was to prevent the OP from being disappointed if he were to select a FL based on comparing diagonals between formats with different aspect ratios.

    I was making a point against the common "150mm on LF is equivalent to a 50mm on SF" statement that the OP is sure to encounter along the road, by saying that a 150mm actually seems quite more wide on 4x5 than a 50 seems on small format. Not only is a 150mm actually 8 percent wider than the technically "normal" lens for 4x5, but 50mm is actually 6 percent longer than the technically "normal" lens for 35mm format. (In other words, a 150mm lens is farther from "normal" on 4x5 than a 50mm lens is from "normal" on small format, though in the other direction.) Look at this difference (one 8 percent under normal and the other 6 percent over normal), then consider the difference in aspect ratio, and you have a notable difference between how a 50mm lens "feels" on small format and how a 150mm lens "feels" on large format. I said that if you look at horizontal AOV, a 180 mm lens gives you the most similar match to the horizontal AOV of a 50 mm on small format; then I made the point that a 210 is probably read by our brains as being the most similar to a 50mm lens on small format, due to the fatter frame of the 4:5 ratio.

    I was also making a point against the common argument that a 210 sounds too long to be a standard lens for 4x5, by saying that it really is not that different than some standard lenses used for small format (which, again, are called "normal," even though they are not). And since you mention "convention," I should also say here that 210 is pretty much the most common standard 4x5 lens, even though it does not meet the technical definition of a normal lens, just like 50mm is pretty much the most common standard small format lens, even though it does not meet the technical definition of a normal lens.

    So, again, my point was that if you like your 50mm lens on your small format camera, and that is what you want for 4x5, do not use the "normal" length lens on 4x5, but use the lens closest to a 50mm on small format, which would be either a 180 or a 210. I am making a point against the argument that a 150 lens should be ones standard lens on a 4x5 camera if one wants a lens equivalent to 50mm lens on small format.

    So, please reread and tell me where I have turned the world on end or scorned anybody by attempting to redefine the technical term "normal lens."
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 03-20-2011 at 12:00 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  8. #18
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,570
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    Dan, my name is not Rob, first of all. Why do you think that it is?
    2F/2F:

    I think a lot of us here thought your name was Rob Tyner, because of the way your APUG "signature" is laid out.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,453
    1:1, with feathers now ruffled, wrote:

    210 is your standard 4x5 lens. They are just a hair long. 180mm on 4x5 is equivalent to a 50mm lens on a small format camera when comparing horizontal angle of view.
    Standard? Really? (120/36)*50 = 167. (180/120)*36 = 75. Check your arithmetic before posting and remember that the long side of the 4x5 gate is 120 mm. (210/120)*50 = 87.5. That's more than twice normal (43 mm) for 35 mm still. More than a rch long, I think.

    If you use a pseudonym for a screen name and use a real name in your tag line you must expect a little confusion about who you are.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    Hi,

    No, that's not me! He was the singer of a great band, MC5 (The Motor City Five). The quote is from the song "Poison."

    Rob Tyner: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Tyner
    MC5: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MC5
    "Poison" after Tyner's death: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbe...ub-poiso_music
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin