View Full Version : Large Format Focal Lengths
dazedgonebye
12-09-2008, 11:33
Well, I've got the stuff I need for developing 4x5, I've got enough things for sale on ebay to raise a little money...there's a real danger of my doing something large format in the near future.
Here's the thing I'm wondering at the moment.
I know I'm going to want wide angle...something maybe 65 or 75mm. I shoot a lot of wide landscapes and am looking forward to shooting them large.
Here is the sort of thing I do in wide (21mm on 35mm film).
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/173/477853764_7a22b93924_o.jpg
At times though, I like to shoot a more compressed landscape and that's something that's got me a bit concerned. This shot was with an 85mm lens on a Canon crop dslr. That's about 135mm in 35mm terms and what...about 500mm on 4x5?
Is this something I just have to learn to live without?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/101/256080640_654e56d350_o.jpg
I'm not a big fan of "normal" focal lengths, prefering to go wide or go long. Since long doesn't seem to be a practical goal with large format, I wonder if I shouldn't just plan my kit around wide and be done with it.
rogue_designer
12-09-2008, 11:57
A 300 is pretty long in 4x5 - and equivalent to an 85mm. But maybe not enough for true compression. Many can do 400mm or so, and there are telephoto lens designs that less the load on the bellows.
You could always use a 120 back on the 4x5. But that does defeat some of the point of bothering with the big camera. :)
KEH has a Fujinon 400/8 for $500 or so. That length isn't a problem with my Wisner, but I know not all bellows go past 15 inches.
Al Kaplan
12-09-2008, 12:33
A common thing for using wide angle lenses on a view camera is a recessed lensboard. On most cameras a recessed board can be reversed to give you an extra inch or so of extension, or you can build your own board out of thin plywood and pick up another two or three inches of extension. At one point I had a Rodenstock Rotelar, a true telephoto design,on my view camera.
drewbarb
12-09-2008, 12:37
It should be no trick to get a 300mm or 400mm lens that will work with most 4x5 cameras. It does depend to a certain extent on the bellows draw, but this will restrict your close focus more than anything else. Longer lenses do exist, and there's no reason why you shouldn't look into them; just don't expect to be able to get the sort of reach we've come to expect from 35mm.
The other point to consider is that focal lengths don't necessarily behave the same way on a view camera as they do on a fixed camera like an SLR (or a RF). Focal length depends to some extent on the distance to the subject, and you can really mess with things here with a view camera. You may be surprised how plastic the concept of focal length can be with a view camera, and how far you can press a given lens to do things that an equivalent length on a fixed camera could not accomplish.
Roger Hicks
12-09-2008, 12:47
Working from negative diagonals, if you multiply 4x5 focal lengths by 150/43 you'll get fair 35mm equivalents. The two cannot be compared exactly because they are different shapes but this will work OK.
Drew's comments are also very true.
Cheers,
Roger
sepiareverb
12-09-2008, 12:49
LF lenses denoted as 'telephoto' apparently require less bellows draw than straight lengths of the same size. Never had one as I shoot 810 and 1114 when I get large.
Information for future use: Fuji made a very nice 400mm telephoto lens. RFF member Trius had one. As I recall the bellows draw was only about 12".
There are also some very very nice 240mm-250mm lenses around. You may find that they are more image friendly in a long lens sense and way more budget friendly.
All of this talk is going to make me get all my lenses out and see what's what. A fun project for my Christmas vacation.
rogue_designer
12-09-2008, 12:59
Along drew's point about plasticity, my favorite focal length for wide landscapes on a 4x5 is 90mm. My 65 is too wide for just about everything except architecture interiors.
The ability to get some rise or fall as I see fit, adds quite a bit to the apparent wideness of the lens.
Benjamin Marks
12-09-2008, 13:00
If you want that "compressed" look, I'd go with one of the telephoto designs. A 400 or 500 symmetrical design will need a lot of bellows extension.
I once built myself a five inch "snoot" for a long process lens I was using on a 4x5. I needed C-clamps to keep the lensboard from slipping and pointing down with the weight of the durn thing.
Ben Marks
i'd be interested if you happen to still have the details of aperature, iso ,speed and focus distance (presumably on the main catus) for the catus shot, to make a better comparison to 4x5...nice shot btw...i wonder if that type of shooting could be called something other than landscape though
longer lens on view camera is fine, i prefer them for protraiture.
but one thing to consider is the depth of field is different for the (4x5?) veiw camera your thinking of using.
using the long ,400 ish, lens compared to dslr. much smaller aperature and longer exposure times i suspect to acheive what you got with the catus shot and the dslr
Samples from the 200mm in a close focus enviornment.......
Voigtlander Collinear II (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64116)
dazedgonebye
12-09-2008, 13:39
i'd be interested if you happen to still have the details of aperature, iso ,speed and focus distance (presumably on the main catus) for the catus shot, to make a better comparison to 4x5...nice shot btw...i wonder if that type of shooting could be called something other than landscape though
longer lens on view camera is fine, i prefer them for protraiture.
but one thing to consider is the depth of field is different for the (4x5?) veiw camera your thinking of using.
using the long ,400 ish, lens compared to dslr. much smaller aperature and longer exposure times i suspect to acheive what you got with the catus shot and the dslr
85mm, f14, 1/80th. On a crop camera, so about 135mm fl equivalent on 35mm
No real idea of the distance. Perhaps 30ft or so?
85mm, f14, 1/80th. On a crop camera, so about 135mm fl equivalent on 35mm
No real idea of the distance. Perhaps 30ft or so?
so at around 30 foot you would need about f64 maybe a touch smaller compared to f14 for the crop dslr (to get a simular DOF)...so there you can see your exposure time will lengthen considerbly (that may be an issue with wind or clouds), also take into acount bellows extension when making exposure times, the further they are extended the more time you need to add
rogue_designer
12-09-2008, 13:53
"the further they are extended the more you time you need to add"
Only if they extend beyond the infinity focus of that lens. If the bellows are at 400mm for a 400mm lens, there is no bellows adjustment. But if you are 400mm bellows for a 200mm lens (ie. macro or studio work) - then you need to compensate.
Also - depending on the particular image, some of the DOF can be achieved with movements (scheimpflug or similar) - so you may not have to stop down that much.
"the further they are extended the more you time you need to add"
Only if they extend beyond the infinity focus of that lens. If the bellows are at 400mm for a 400mm lens, there is no bellows adjustment. But if you are 400mm bellows for a 200mm lens (ie. macro or studio work) - then you need to compensate.
true..i should have said, that is just something i refer to (worth remembering), that is often forgoten, but meant when extended longer than the focal length
you dont think he would have to stop down that much? hmm i think so, but happy to see different, could tilt a little though i suppose. but i was trying to keep it a simple comparison
Steve,
The "rules" on focal length that we all know from 35mm photography don't really apply with LF photography. Partly because of aspect rations, but mostly because of the ability to control perspective, plane of focus etc. While I enjoy taking shots with my C/Y 18mm Distagon lens as much as the next guy (or more), I don't have anything wider than a 90mm lens in 4x5, and never felt a need for it either...
Send me an email offline if you want to discuss...
rogue_designer
12-09-2008, 14:12
you dont think he would have to stop down that much? hmm i think so, but happy to see different, could tilt a little though i suppose. but i was trying to keep it a simple comparison
I hear yah. I didn't want to scare him off either though. It's anything but a simple comparison, unfortunately.
I think the shot he has there could probably be achieved with a 210-300mm lens, and that would help mitigate some of the DOF issues and the need for a excessively large fstop. As would the smaller magnification of a print or other display from the large neg (unless he was making giant prints). He could probably sneak a stop that direction too.
But apples to apples doesn't exist here. Always at least 7 ways to skin a cat with a view camera. :D
drewbarb
12-09-2008, 14:31
I'm with Mike and rogue on the issue of wide angles here; I love 21mm on 35mm, but with 4x5 I have never really wanted or needed to go wider than 90mm, except for some interior work, as rogue describes.
dazedgonebye
12-09-2008, 16:57
This is mimicking the feedback I'm getting on the large format forum.
Quite surprising to me that I should feel so much wider with narrower fov. I hope I see it that way.
I'll likely be getting a crown graphic with a standard lens, so I'll have a chance to try things out before deciding what wide lens I want. It'll be some time after that before I have to tackle something long, since I don't shoot that way very often.
Actually, I'll probably do some wide angle pinhole work with it before investing in a lens. We'll see what I can learn that way too.
Thanks all. I'm sure I'll let everyone know how it turns out.
This is mimicking the feedback I'm getting on the large format forum.
Quite surprising to me that I should feel so much wider with narrower fov. I hope I see it that way.
I'll likely be getting a crown graphic with a standard lens, so I'll have a chance to try things out before deciding what wide lens I want. It'll be some time after that before I have to tackle something long, since I don't shoot that way very often.
Actually, I'll probably do some wide angle pinhole work with it before investing in a lens. We'll see what I can learn that way too.
Thanks all. I'm sure I'll let everyone know how it turns out.
i'm afraid i go against the grain (common concenses ) . i see it as you are proposing that a given focal length is exactly that. the caveat (i think thats the correct term to use here) is that not all LF lens of equal focal lengths have excactly the same FOV as each other, so different people get different results. however if you say, FOV is more or less the same with different brand/year/model lenses, for a given focal length then the end result will be different, using those different focal lenghts.
as rogue says you could probable get the same 'sort' of shot of the catus using a shorter focal length lens..but IMO it is only simular, not the same, not the same compression or FOV you end up with in the final print. meaning you get different results if using 210mm against a 400mm lens
you can make it look simular (using 210mm) by moving closer to the catus and using the movements so the catus looks the same (or by cropping but that is silly, IMO, hate to waste neg) , but IMO the rest of the scene looks different...not neccessarely bad, but if you are after exactly that look you are mentioning, you dont get it.
the other thing that will contribute of course to it looking the same as you had with the dslr, is that the aspect ratio of the sensor size to the shape of the squarer 4x5 (cropping needed), which i think plays a real part when using wide angle lens on 4x5 , a little cropping and the pic easily looks wider.
...ok here's what you do see.......
Listen up.
You buy a 4x5 camera. Then you lay in the weeds waiting...and waiting
patiently waiting for a long lens for your 4x5 camera
then one day it appears...condition is good...price is right...you poince on it...
A nice shiny perfect working order 305mm G-Claron in a Copal #1 shutter. Nice size. It fits your 4x5 camera perfectly. Focuses just fine at infinity with something left over for close-ups.
Ah, but you still long for "something wide" for the 4x5. No worries mate. You look around. 90mm fits the budget. It just doesn't seem wide. The really wide lenses for 4x5 cost more that a used car. What to do? What to do?
You really like the G-Claron. You want a wide lens to match it.
The lightbulb goes on!
Get a bigger camera. The 305mm G-Claron covers 7"x17" and then some. And boy do 7"x17" images look W-I-D-E! Lovely format. Make contact prints. Heaven!
Search around the Large Format Photography Forum On Photography area and note the various lenses used and the effect they give.
Ya savy?
rogue_designer
12-10-2008, 10:05
Oh! I like the way you think.
To add to the confusion:
Some older lenses (I think the Symmars) can be used with only the front or back part, yielding a lens with much larger focal length. You can try experimenting with this (if bellows draw is not the limiting factor).
Greetings,
Dirk
Rogue Designer,
Thanks! I wish I could afford to put my thoughts into practice.
Lots of symmetrical lenses out there that function very well with one cell in place. I have two: A Voigtlander Collinear II that goes from 200mm to about 300mm and a Bausch & Lomb Rapid Rectilinear that goes from about 150mm to about 250mm. The only problem is figuring out the new f-stops.
The Schneider Symmar Convertibles are nice too. The f-stop scale is present for both focal lengths.
Here's a nice comparison of 210mm lenses:
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/BigMash210.html
Are we having fun yet?
As others have said, anything wider than 90mm on 4x5" is a PITA. You start needing bag bellows, recessed boards and other expensive headaches.
When I was in a similar position my choices were 90-150-240mm. Found a 90mm Super Angulon at a decent price and haven't had the urge for wider.....at least not too often. For real wide there's always 15 and 21mm on the Leica.
My 90mm Super Angulon is not the fastest lens at f/8 wide open, but it does cover 5x7" and allows a lot of movement. Tilts can give you an everything in focus effect like super wides so DOF isn't a problem.
Because the 90 Super Angulon covers 5x7" I've even thought of building an ultra light Hobo style camera with nothing other than focus. Might be fun as long as I stuck with scanning negatives and didn't start looking for a 5x7 enlarger. ;-)
Glenn
Glenn,
It's a slippery slope isn't it? 5x7 could be wonderful or very dangerous.
dazedgonebye
12-10-2008, 12:07
Speed graphic won't go as wide...right?
Sorry, I remain unconvinced that I'll never want to go wider...in spite of just about everyone saying 90mm is enough.
I start to wonder who is buying the 65mm and 75mm lenses.
Speed graphic won't go as wide...right?
Sorry, I remain unconvinced that I'll never want to go wider...in spite of just about everyone saying 90mm is enough.
I start to wonder who is buying the 65mm and 75mm lenses.
...for interiors, etc.
Folks who can afford them and just want them.
My 105mm lens works on my Speed Graphic. I'm pretty sure I have read that 90mm lenses work as well. Zero movements with the Speed Graphic. The front standard is inside the box.
Sample with 127mm Ektar. First photo. I think I was about 15' from the drill press.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55190&highlight=heavy+metal
If you frame for it, you can always crop a 4x5 negative to 2x5 which equals 4x10 which LOOKS wide. Heck, you can crop 4x5 to the 7x17 aspect ratio. And still have about half an acre of negative.
edit to add ps:
Since you will be scanning and ink jetting, just stich a few frames together. That will get you W-I-D-E.
rogue_designer
12-10-2008, 13:08
With the Speed graphic, you'll certainly have to drop the bed, and even then, you may not be able to use a 65.
Architectural photographers are the biggest market for the 65/75 lenses. And those using digital backs on viewcameras.
I'm not saying you won't find a use, or come to love a 65. But at the price they run, even used, I'd start with a cheap 90 and see how you feel first.
90 is pretty wide
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3115/3096800284_e8c14ef96a_o.jpg
first off, i didn't know you *could* drop the bed on a graphic. so i learned something here today.
excuse me if you've moved on from this topic, i was just perusing old threds and thought i'd chime in. i use a 90 on my graphic frequently and like it a lot, but as others have mentioned here, the bellows are in the box to enable use of it. i don't think you'd be able to use anything much wider on these cameras, just not physically possible. if you try it and find different, please follow up, as i myself could see going wider.
rogue_designer
01-23-2009, 09:15
first off, i didn't know you *could* drop the bed on a graphic. so i learned something here today.
I'm pretty sure you can on some models. But frankly, I was going by the Linhof technika and Horseman metal field bodies, which I know you can drop the bed on.
You can certainly drop the bed on my 1953 Pacemaker Speed Graphic. I think it drops 20 degrees and the front standard tilts 20 degrees back to make the lens board align with the film plane.
amoebahydra
01-23-2009, 09:20
Using 400mm with tele design is not that bad as the actual extension required is about 2/3 of the actual focal length. An example is Schneider Apo-Tele-Xenar 5.6/400 Compact...
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm100/amoebahydra/Photo%20Equipment/Technika45400-56.jpg
Stop it! I had to get a paper towel and dry off my keyboard. That is gorgeous industrial design and manufacture. The photo ain't shabby either!
You can certainly drop the bed on my 1953 Pacemaker Speed Graphic. I think it drops 20 degrees and the front standard tilts 20 degrees back to make the lens board align with the film plane.
yeah, mine's older, an army graphic, don't know the year. but i read that, took a look at the camera and noticed there was more travel in the hinge. awesome, i kept getting rails in my pics with the 90mm.
amoebahydra
01-23-2009, 10:43
My technika with wide-angle-focusing device, Hassy CFV digital back and Apo-Grandagon 1:4.5/35 lens at "drop-bed" configuration. Actually, the wide-angle-focusing device is good for 58mm and for 35mm it is more practical to use the back plane for focusing instead.
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm100/amoebahydra/Photo%20Equipment/TechnikaCFV35-56.jpg
dazedgonebye
01-23-2009, 11:58
That's one pretty set up.
Just to round this thread out...Today I bought a super angulon 90mm f8. I still feel I would have preferred a 75mm, but this was a good deal and I need to keep my total investment down.
Now all I need is something around 240mm. I'm hiding and waiting for a good deal there too.
amoebahydra
01-23-2009, 12:42
That's one pretty set up.
Just to round this thread out...Today I bought a super angulon 90mm f8. I still feel I would have preferred a 75mm, but this was a good deal and I need to keep my total investment down.
Now all I need is something around 240mm. I'm hiding and waiting for a good deal there too.
Similar view, my most used lenses set are the Linhof selected trio:
Super-Angulon 5.6/75
Apo-Symmar 5.6/150
Tele-Arton-S 5.6/250
The Linhof calibrated cams for each lens together with the Linhof multifocal viewfinder enable me to do shoulder top shooting without need for focusing with ground-glass.
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm100/amoebahydra/Photo%20Equipment/Linhoflensesset.jpg
David Goldfarb
01-27-2009, 07:21
One thing I found when I added medium and later large format to the arsenal was that I used wide lenses less on the smaller formats and more on the larger formats, because a wide lens can take in lots of information, and it's often better to get it all on a bigger piece of film, presuming of course that the logistics of the larger camera don't prevent you from getting the shot.
I also use a 4x5" Technika with 55mm, 65mm, 75mm, and 90mm lenses at the wide end, and I'd say in order of frequency of use, that would be 90mm, 75mm, 55mm, and 65mm. I use the 55 more than the 65 because the 55mm is a better lens than the 65mm I happen to own.
At the long end I have an old 360/5.5 Tele-Xenar, and if I need something longer, I switch to a rollfilm back.
Nikon made a 360/500/720mm telephoto set for 4x5", where you can exchange the rear cell to change the focal length, and since it's a telephoto design, you only need about 2/3 the focal length in terms of bellows extension.
Take a look at Arizona Highways Magazine for lenses use to produce a shot. Check out their website
Even better, get an old copy (pre-2007 or so) -- the magazine simply isn't what it used to be :(:(:mad::(:(
That's one pretty set up.
Just to round this thread out...Today I bought a super angulon 90mm f8. I still feel I would have preferred a 75mm, but this was a good deal and I need to keep my total investment down.
Now all I need is something around 240mm. I'm hiding and waiting for a good deal there too.
Hi I just saw this useful thread as I am looking into additional lenses for my crown graphic and have also found a 90mm SA f/8. Did you try it yet?
What IS a good deal on it? You can PM me if you prefer, but I'd love to know yyour experience with the system.
Thanks
George
thetooth
02-04-2009, 05:35
That's one pretty set up.
Just to round this thread out...Today I bought a super angulon 90mm f8. I still feel I would have preferred a 75mm, but this was a good deal and I need to keep my total investment down.
Now all I need is something around 240mm. I'm hiding and waiting for a good deal there too.
BUY A 250MM 6.3 FUJINON NICE LENS AND CAN BE HAD FOR UNDER $200.00 . I THINK I PAID $160.00 FOR MINE WITH BOTH CAPS AND A LENS BOARD I RESOLD .
thetooth
02-04-2009, 05:40
just checked keh they have a couple from $250.00 to $180.00 . alot of people over look these because the image circle will not cover 8x10 but if your shooting 4x5 who cares . plenty for 4x5 .
KEH has a pair of 240mm 5.5 Tele-Somethings relatively inexpensive-for KEH.
They also have a 240mm Fujinon-A. A bargain at almost any price.
dazedgonebye
02-04-2009, 11:15
I got my SA 90mm f8 for $200. I haven't seen anything cheaper than that and the lens looks great. I haven't used it yet. It is on a board and I have high hopes of at least playing with it this weekend.
I've decided to get a the Fujinon 250mm f6.3 from KEH. I've been watching those for awhile and the prices recently dropped by about $40. I've actually already contacted them, but did not place the order because I thought I might like to have an accessory or two on the same order.
I read Arizona Highways all the time. I've even been to their offices. Just a few years ago, they were still large format film only. I believe they've moved on to a digital workflow. They must have been one of the last hold-outs.
I agree that their newish format isn't an improvement, but that's not about the equipment used or the quality of the photographs. They're apparently experiencing budget problems, which, in light of the state's deficit, is bound to get worse.
thetooth
02-04-2009, 11:20
i think you will be happy with the fujinon . that was the first lens i bought just for the price . it ended up being a very nice lens that i use often enough . good luck
I'm totally jealous. You are about to assemble the lens set of my dreams. I need to save some money. Sell a little used organ. Enjoy!
dazedgonebye
02-04-2009, 11:58
I'm totally jealous. You are about to assemble the lens set of my dreams. I need to save some money. Sell a little used organ. Enjoy!
I sold gear to buy gear.
For the short term at least, I think I'm done. With as little time as I have to actually devote to photography, it will take some time before I'm comfortable with large format to any meaningful extent.
Total cost of the Crown (minus the things that came with it that I sold) was $160. $200 for the 90mm and $254 for the 250mm brings me to a total of $714 for a 3 lens LF kit.
Well done! Now use them! Let us know what you think of the 250mm Fujinon. Also, the handling of the 90mm lens on the Crown.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.