The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

LF (4x5) Newbie Questions

Oren Grad

Active member
question the symmar-s series the 120 macro will focus to infinity as well correct? on 4X5
Any large format lens will focus to infinity on any large format camera, so long as the lens can be mounted on a lensboard that will fit the front standard of the camera, and the minimum bellows extension of the camera is shorter than the flange focal distance of the lens.

But the 120mm Makro-Symmar HM won't cover 4x5 at infinity. Also, it's optimized for use in the magnification range 1:4 - 4:1. A 120mm Symmar-S, Apo-Symmar or Apo-Symmar L would be a much better choice for general use on 4x5.
 

carstenw

Active member
Another silly question, and I can already guess the nature of the answers, but boke: do APO lenses have less attractive/classic boke than pre-APO lenses? Here I am thinking of the Leica M lenses, where this is often, but not always the case, and I am thinking specifically of the 210mm f/5.6 APO-Symmar from Schneider, compared to its ancestors.
 

carstenw

Active member
I am still mulling over the universal (or bag) bellows for the Chamonix 45. If I decide that I do need it later, I will pay a lot of shipping for it, so there is some incentive to think ahead here. It isn't that expensive either, if just considered as insurance for the future. I might at some point want to do some architectural photography, so perhaps at that point, with a 75mm or even 65mm or 47mm lens, it might come in handy to get significant movements.

Does anyone think that this is silly or unnecessary?
 

Lars

Active member
Another silly question, and I can already guess the nature of the answers, but boke: do APO lenses have less attractive/classic boke than pre-APO lenses? Here I am thinking of the Leica M lenses, where this is often, but not always the case, and I am thinking specifically of the 210mm f/5.6 APO-Symmar from Schneider, compared to its ancestors.
You need to drop your Leica thinking, LF lenses are different.

LF lenses being most often designed with a max aperture of f/5.6 - f/9, the design criteria are quite different than when making an f/1.4 lens, and resulting lenses as well.

LF lens designs are fairly close to symmetrical, since there is no need for retrofocus design (no mirror box). This generally leads to good bokeh and little or no chromatic aberration.

LF lenses are generally optimized to perform at f/11 - f22. Wider openings are not always useful because of the extremely narrow DOF. In 8x10 I often find myself using f/45, f/64, f/90, thereby actually sacrificing some resolution for DOF.

So regarding bokeh, what you'll most often see is a neutral ("perfect" if you will) out of focus rendering with no artefacts. What you won't see on most lenses is "Leica glow" as these lenses most often are made to maximize resolving power.

Another thing you'll notice is that even cheap old LF lenses have a resolving power that goes beyond anything else, if you take the entire image circle into account.
 

Lars

Active member
Another silly question, and I can already guess the nature of the answers, but boke: do APO lenses have less attractive/classic boke than pre-APO lenses? Here I am thinking of the Leica M lenses, where this is often, but not always the case, and I am thinking specifically of the 210mm f/5.6 APO-Symmar from Schneider, compared to its ancestors.
If you can get a cheap Apo-Symmar then go for it. Symmar-S resolves less, and I believe is not multicoated. OTOH it is a convertible - you can remove the front element and get a longer focal length using the rear element.

Some general links:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/
http://www.viewcamera.com/
 
L

lilmsmaggie

Guest
UOTE=carstenw;175016]I am still mulling over the universal (or bag) bellows for the Chamonix 45. If I decide that I do need it later, I will pay a lot of shipping for it, so there is some incentive to think ahead here. It isn't that expensive either, if just considered as insurance for the future. I might at some point want to do some architectural photography, so perhaps at that point, with a 75mm or even 65mm or 47mm lens, it might come in handy to get significant movements.

Does anyone think that this is silly or unnecessary?[/QUOTE]

Bingo! -- for that reason alone, I would get the universal bellow when you order the camera. As you point out, it's not that much more.
 

Chris C

Member
.... I might at some point want to do some architectural photography, so perhaps at that point, with a 75mm or even 65mm or 47mm lens....
Carsten - Hi, I somehow strayed here, but shot mostly view camera work for many years. A 75 would be a good wide lens for 5x4, and after Leica you will be amazed at the low price of some fabulous S/H large format lenses. All my lenses are in Prontor shutters because they are self-cocking, I prefer them to Copal for that reason, though they will not be common S/H.

My widest lens is a Rodenstock 55mm Apo Grandagon [excellent] which I used a lot for architecture; on 6x9 it equates to an equivalent of 24mm on 35mm film but with lots of movement [the Apo Grandagon range were chosen by Hasselblad for their Arc Body camera]. Bear in mind that with wide angle L/F the use of a Centre Filter will likely be necessary to compensate for light fall off as you shift the image around the image circle, expect to lose around 2 stops of light to the C-Filter.

Getting completely clean processing is a combination of craft, art, following wind, and voodoo; for that reason I stayed with 6x9 rollfilm as I had mastered it's processing. However, the 5x4 format has great allure.

Many photographers paid dearly for their gear and are reluctant to sell for the low prices available to sellers so hang onto it instead. If you have contacts amongst older Pro photographers, try putting the word around about what you are looking out for - I'd not be surprised if photographers [like me] would have L/F gear they'd sell for a not-so-insulting offer and the guarantee of a good home. Just a thought.

Me?. I downsized to Leica without regret and don't miss those ghastly chemicals one bit or the sinking dread of having to go into the darkroom for a long printing session when the sun is shining. [And that's part of why some great L/F gear is available for silly prices].

Good luck.

................ Chris
 

carstenw

Active member
Thanks for the tips, Chris. I do not know any LF photographers around where I live, so I guess I will have to do it the hard way.

What I have settled on so far are the following: Chamonix 45N-1 walnut, if I can find it, and either maple or teak if I cannot. I am not keen on the lightness of maple or the colour of teak, but I have to choose what I can get. 5 double-sided film holders. This is slightly less film than I typically shoot with MF, which seems appropriate. Possibly the bag bellows, to keep the option for wider lenses open for later, without having to pay a lot of shipping on top.

Schneider Super Angulon 90mm f/5.6 (for brighter focusing in my typical environs) and APO Symmar 210m f/5.6.

Some kind of 6x loupe, or thereabouts. I will re-read this thread when I ready to buy this.

Jobo 3010 tank, and a motor for it (CPA-2, CPP-2, equivalent).

---

I will be using my new Tenba Messenger Bag (large) to carry things around, my Pentax Digital Spotmeter to meter, my Gitzo GT3541XLS as tripod, as well as my Manfrotto 405 or possibly my RRS BH-55. I am not sure if I will be as frustrated by the BH-55 with LF as I was with MF, but if not, it is smaller and lighter to carry.

That rounds it up so far. Did I miss anything obvious?
 

carstenw

Active member
Another topic is film. With MF I was using Adox CHS 25 or 50, as well as Tri-X, depending on the project.

I am not sure how much grain I will like with 4x5, but I thought I would start with an ISO 100 film and see how that goes. I doubt I will need the extra-fine grain from ISO 25 or 50 films with such large negatives, and I do like to see just a touch of grain, although not too much for the types of projects I will be doing with this setup. I do not want to fiddle too much with development, at least initially, so I am looking for a film/developer combo which is fairly forgiving of temperature and development times, perhaps FP4+ in Rodinal or something like that.

B&W only, for now. I am not even sure if I can find someone to develop colour for me, although I guess there must be something in a city of 4 million.

What are the films that you folks use for 4x5/5x7?
 

rmueller

Well-known member
Hi Carsten,

I use Kodak T-Max 400 developed in HC 110 and Fuji Acros 100 developed
in D76. Not sure you know about http://grossformatfotografie.de/ there are
for sure some Berlin LF shooters around.

For film development, i use a Jobo TestDrum 2820. It takes six sheets
of film and you can pretty much use it the same way like you do for MF.

Have a good weekend,
Ralf
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Carsten, just one other minor point on lens selection that hasn't been raised, and it has to with color cast when shooting color films. If you want more precise color rendering between lenses, stick with the more current brands and stay within brand, like get all Nikkor or all Schneider. Actually, late Schneider and Rodenstock render color almost identically (and very neutral) so you could mix those and be okay. Older Schneider generally leaned toward warm (yellow), older Fuji tended toward magenta, and older Rodenstock and Nikkor tended to run cool. Not a big issue for B&W, but definitely a condsideration when shooting a series in color...

My favorite lenses toward the end, were late model Schneider's -- VERY uniform in rendering between focal lengths and designs, and of course very sharp, but still with a smoothness I liked.

If you want a more classic look like older Mandler Leica glass, look to get some of the older Tessar design LF lenses, preferably single coated.
 

carstenw

Active member
Given that I am pretty decided on the 210mm f/5.6 APO Symmar, does the (older?) Schneider 90mm f/5.6 Super Angulon make a good match then?

I understood from your previous comments that the f/6.8 90mm was not such a great lens, being a bit older and softer, and I find myself thinking that f/8 might be a tad dark for focusing since I often shoot in the shade on dim, overcast days. Am I off in my thinking here? Are there other options which fit well with the APO Symmar 210mm?
 

carstenw

Active member
Ralf, I will see if I can hook up with some others once I start getting the bits and pieces collected. Thanks for the tip!
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Carsten,

It was the coating changes that signaled the first Schneider "APO" designation, and after then they pretty much all will match color-wise. Super Angulons are relatively new designs, but the earliest versions did unfortunately have the older, more yellow coating. Fortunately, almost all these first ones had silver front barrel noses -- so if you get a black-nosed SA, you are probably 99% safe. However, if you get one marked "MC" or "Super Multicoated" it is recent and you are 100% safe ;)

PS: There is another reason many older lenses (manufactured in the 50's through early 70's), LF or otherwise, generate yellow casts. It has to do with containing elements that used thorium oxide glass, which happens radioactive -- yes, really. Over time, the radioactivity actually yellowed the glass. I have read claims where folks cleared the glass by exposing it to strong UV radiation for a few days, but bottom line is I personally would stay away from lenses that look predominantly yellow as you look through them towards a white surface...
 

Oren Grad

Active member
If you can get a cheap Apo-Symmar then go for it. Symmar-S resolves less, and I believe is not multicoated. OTOH it is a convertible - you can remove the front element and get a longer focal length using the rear element.
The Symmar series was convertible, but that feature went away with the Symmar-S series. Most Symmar-S lenses are multicoated, though the very earliest ones are not. The biggest leap in bench-test performance was probably going from Symmar to Symmar-S.
 

Oren Grad

Active member
Another silly question, and I can already guess the nature of the answers, but boke: do APO lenses have less attractive/classic boke than pre-APO lenses? Here I am thinking of the Leica M lenses, where this is often, but not always the case, and I am thinking specifically of the 210mm f/5.6 APO-Symmar from Schneider, compared to its ancestors.
Not necessarily, and sometimes the newer lenses are better than the old.

There are differences in bokeh even among late-model plasmats, though they won't be apparent in many situations, and many users won't care about them even when they're present.

My own favorite in this respect is Rodenstock, especially the current Apo-Sironar-S series, though the (Apo-)Sironar-N is very similar. The earlier plain Sironars are a different animal - there was a big change (for the better, IMO) between the Sironar and the Sironar-N generation.

After that I'd pick the Apo-Symmars (I've never used an Apo-Symmar L), with Fujinons and Nikkors last.

Afraid I'm less familiar with the subtleties of the different Schneider generations, though I'm sure they're there - Symmars look different to me compared to Apo-Symmars, though I don't know the Symmar-S generation well enough to say when the change occurred. With that caveat, I prefer the Apo-Symmar rendering to the Symmar.

I should add that you can't really take someone else's word on this aspect of optical behavior - it's the sort of thing that's so subjective that only you can judge whether the differences matter and if so, what will be best for your tastes and purposes. You just need to plunge in somewhere, gain some experience, and try different brands and generations within brand for yourself. Or if you like the lens you buy initially, and you're not too exercised about this sort of thing and just want to leave well enough alone, that's fine too.
 
Last edited:

Jeremy

New member
The 90mm f/5.6 is a big lens with an 82mm front filter ring size, fyi.

I'd suggest looking at the 90mm f/6.8 Grandagon (67mm filter ring) if you want something brighter than f/8, but still a reasonably sized lens.
 

carstenw

Active member
Do you suggest this just because of the size? The weight is only about 200g different. Yes, some lenses weigh only 200g, but I am used to heavy lenses, and plan on just the two, so if they together weigh about a kilo, no problem. Is the lens really so much larger? I am having trouble finding specs on the non-XL lens...
 

Jeremy

New member
If I can get my friend's f/6.8 I'll photograph them next to each other as I have the non-XL f/5.6 Super Angulon and he has the Grandagon f/6.8. I personally much prefer the Grandagon (and am planning on getting one at some point) just based on the size of the lens and I don't see as big of a difference from f/6.8 -> f/5.6 as you do going from f/8 -> f/6.8.
 
Top