no worries about digi and 35mm ... it is 2012 after all
cla costs anywhere from 50$-100$
maybe more, maybe less .. maybe more if parts are gone, and need to be machined.
have fun !
FWIW, my kit consists of a 75, 90 and 150. I use the 90 more than the other two combined, and I use the 150 at least 2X as often as the 75. I acquired the lenses in the order in which I use them most: 90 then 150 then 75, I sometimes wonder if I had gotten the 75 first, if my whole approach to image making would be different, resulting in my hardly ever using the 150....
Lots of great answers in here! As a freshly minted (relatively) LF photog myself, let me share my experience with you.
I started with a Toyo 45F monorail and a Schneider 150mm/265 convertible in a Compur shutter. That is a fabulous lens. I couldn't believe it when Ken Rockwell turned out to be right about it
I then got a Graphic lens board adapter for my Toyo. I mount all my lenses in Graphic boards and they can go on the TOyo, or on the Super Graphic I bought with a Fuji 135 and an Optar 90.
I got an Optar 135 from The Bay. Had the Fuji CLA'd at Flutot's Camera Service, thinking it to be the better lens between the two. After some comparison, Kept the optar, sold the fuji.
I also happened upon a 75mm Rodenstock which *just barely* has enough focal length to use on my cameras, and found a Schneider Xenar 210/6.1.
So I now have 2 Optars, A Schneider Convertible, a Schneider 210 in a Copal, and a ROdenstock 75 in a Copal. This lens kit does pretty much anything I ask of it. I mostly shoot LF portraits and landscapes.
I do want to eventually upgrade the Optar, even though it's adorably tiny, for something a little faster, with filter rings.
How fast is the schneider? I like that its convertible! I find that Rockwell is on point (im a nikon shooter).
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The thing I never get is how people come up with 3x as a comparison factor to 35mm. I get 4x. That makes...
A 90 about the equivalent of a 22mm lens on 35mm
A 100 about the equiv of a 25mm
A 135 about the equiv of a 35mm
A 150 about the equiv of a 38mm
A 165 about the equiv of a 43mm
A 200 about the equiv of a 50mm
A 250 about the equiv of a 63mm
A 300 about the equiv of a 75mm
A 400 about the equiv of a 100mm
The kit I always favored was a 90 + 150 + 250 as those are in a 60% ratio to each other. A 420 would continue the ratio, I guess a 400 would be close enough.
Another good combination is a 90 + 135 + 200 + 300 those are about 67% to each other.
For a press, techinical, or field camera I would select older lenses that are lighter and more compact.
For a mono-rail I would select lenses with wider coverage.
Although, in my own case, I would probably go with the same lenses for the press camera, with an adapter board to use them on my Toyo, as I now have both those cameras. However, I have gotten by with just the 135mm on the Graphic for years and years. In 35mm my most used lens was a 35mm, with a 100mm second. On a 4x5 that would be a 135mm and a 400mm telephoto as the Graphic would not focus a straight 400mm lens.
I used to think fast lenses were important, but my base exsposure on 4x5 is f/22 at 1/50th of a second these days. That combination works in sunlight, with a #5 flashbulb, and a 200w/s strobe.
There you have my base thinking about 4x5 lenses. My actual experience has been with the 135 Optar on the Graphic, and in the past a 90mm Angulon & 15mm Xenar on a Super Technika. I will be using the Optar on the Toyo 45G for the time being as well.
When I was just starting to set up my kit, I went with the 3x and in actual use, comparing to a DSLR set in 4x5 crop mode find the 4X method above to be exactly right which is great because my 90mm is a fair bit wider than I thought it would be so I can avoid the need for bag bellows and center grad filters.
Originally Posted by graywolf
My current kit is 90 + 135 + 180, soon to add a 240mm F/9.0. I thought about a 300mm but they are well, kind of huge where as the Fuji 240 in Copal-0 is nice and small, something I love about my 135mm 5.6 Apo Sironar.
Last edited by PKM-25; 05-11-2012 at 06:52 PM. Click to view previous post history.
153/42.5 = 3.6
Not 3... not 4... but 3.6.
What are you comparing there? I base my 4x from the narrow side of the film being 96mm vs. 24mm. That is the critical dimension if your output is going to be an 8x10 print. If you were going to do 4x6 prints (I only consider those to be 35mm proofs anyway, why would you want to crop your 4x5 images to that? I might crop them to 2in x 5 in or something like that.) the ratio would be something different, 122mm vs. 36mm (3.4x). Comparing the diagonals has no aesthetic value at all, as it only has to do with lens movements.
Originally Posted by Old-N-Feeble
Only the diagonal of the two formats.
Originally Posted by graywolf
4x5 = 95x120mm = 153mm diagonal.
135 = 24x36mm = 42.5mm diagonal.
If cropping to 8x10 then 135 would be 24x30mm with a 38.4mm diagonal... damned near 4x compared to 4x5. So,. if cropping that much then, yes, 4x is appropriate. However, I truly dislike square-ish images most of the time so I'd be better off cropping 4x5 down to 2:3 ratio like 135. That would make a "normal" FL on cropped 4x5 (80x120mm) 144mm so the ratio compared with 135 format is more like 3.4. So, yeah... mathematically we agree.
ETA: I think we only disagree on cropping to preferred ratios.
Last edited by Old-N-Feeble; 05-11-2012 at 07:18 PM. Click to view previous post history.