Opinions as to the most useful focal legths in LF

: This conversion from 35mm to 4x5 does not work in practice, in my
: experience. I don't shoot 8x10, but I think you'll be hard-pressed to
: find someone who uses Nikkor T for portrature. And, 800mm is too long,
: anyway.

I think the working distances and bellows extension discourage use of
800mm for 8x10 portraiture and would be surprised to find many people
using it, but I still contend that just as 90mm lenses give a much more
pleasing perspective with 35mm (than shorter focal lengths), as does a
200mm lens for 6x7cm, using 360mm for 4x5 and 728mm for 8x10 would yield
that exact same preferred perspective -- the somewhat flattened
compression of features that is much more attractive than even that which
is had with a *normal* lens.

: Similarly, many people would consider 360 too long for
: portraits in 4x5. The fact that 90mm is your favorite 35mm portrait
: lens does not necessarily mean that you just mutiply 90 by 4 - you get
: to crop in 4x5 without degrading the image, and you may want to give
: yourself some opportunity to crop, just in case your framing is a bit
: off - unlike 35mm you are not looking in the viewfinder the moment
: before you shoot, and you take fewer shots.

To achieve the same desirable perspective had with a 360mm on a 4x5,
using a 180mm lens instead, the camera would have to be moved back to the
same working distance as the 360mm and then the image would have to be
cropped to half the original format diagonal. You might as well be using
a 180mm lens on your 6x7 roll-film back. But don't. Use a 200mm for
6x7!

If instead, a focal length of 180mm (or less) is used on a 4x5 at a
distance that precludes cropping, the garish exageration of features
becomes evident. Punchline: if you don't have a long lens or are
unwilling to deal with all the problems that come with it, use a
smaller format for portraiture.

: Also, there are other
: considerations - I would not, for instance, want to limit myself to a
: portrait lens that just barely covers the format, nor would I want to
: deal with the extension necessary for Nikkor W 360 (which is an overkill
: for 4x5, anyway - the lens covers 11x14 and then some).
:

: Vadim

None of what I've said negates the good points you've made Vadim. I just
have a strong preference for portraits done with the longer focal lengths
and that can only be had by putting up with all the real-world problems
you've noted.

Mike

--
/\
Michael K. Davis

MIME Attachments OK
\/

This conversion from 35mm to 4x5 does not work in practice, in my
experience. I don't shoot 8x10, but I think you'll be hard-pressed to
find someone who uses Nikkor T for portrature. And, 800mm is too long,
anyway. Similarly, many people would consider 360 too long for
portraits in 4x5. The fact that 90mm is your favorite 35mm portrait
lens does not necessarily mean that you just mutiply 90 by 4 - you get
to crop in 4x5 without degrading the image, and you may want to give
yourself some opportunity to crop, just in case your framing is a bit
off - unlike 35mm you are not looking in the viewfinder the moment
before you shoot, and you take fewer shots. Also, there are other
considerations - I would not, for instance, want to limit myself to a
portrait lens that just barely covers the format, nor would I want to
deal with the extension necessary for Nikkor W 360 (which is an overkill
for 4x5, anyway - the lens covers 11x14 and then some).

Vadim

: I am looking for some opinions as to the most useful focal lengths of
: lenses for 4 x 5 and 8 x 10 formats. If the responders would please
: tell me why they feel a given length is the most useful and what they
: primarily use it for, i.e. landscapes, portraits, still life, etc. I
: would be most appreciative. I am just seriously getting started in
: large format, having purchased an 8 x 10 camera with lens recently. I
: wish to puchase some additional lenses and a 4 x 5 in the near future,
: but as I have no access to anyone else using large format, I hope this
: group can give me some insight on this matter. FWIW, I plan on doing
: portrait and landscape work. Thanks in advance.

: Archy E. Wiseman

If I had to be stuck with one lens for each of the four possibilites you
describe I would go with these focal lengths:

4x5 8x10

Landscapes: 112 226

Portraits: 360 728

Problem is you can't get these exact lengths. They are the larger format
equivalents of using 28mm and 90mm with 35mm format. These would be my
choices for 35mm, so the focal lengths given above are just
proportionately larger.

Here are the closest available focal lengths I know of:

4x5 8x10

Landscapes: 115 240

Portraits: 360 800

Examples:

115 -- Rodenstock Grandagon N 115 mm f/6.8 (291 mm image circle)
240 -- Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S 240 mm f/5.6 (372 mm image circle)
360 -- Nikkor W 360 mm f/6.5 (494 mm image circle)
800 -- Nikkor T 800 mm f/12 (310 mm image circle)

I have separately posted an equivalent focal lengths calculator in Excel
5.0+ format in rec.photo.equipment.misc under the subject "Equvialent
Focal Lengths Calculator".

Mike Davis

I shoot still life, landscape and architecture with both 4x5 and 5x7. My 4x5
lenses include a 65mm, 90mm, 150mm & 210mm. I use the 210 and 90 the most
frequently. I find that due to the extreme wide angle of the 65mm, it limits
its flexibility. OTOH, the 210mm enables me to shoot buildings and still life
while eliminating unwanted distractions .(I rather crop in the camera if
possible).

In order to get the same feel in 5x7, I use a 90mm Super Angulon, the same
210mm that I use with 4x5 (Schneider Symmar), and a 305mm.

Harold Todman
Bronx, NY

IMO, for 4x5 I use 180mm, 90mm
and 65mm.
The 180 is marginally my favourite. I
use it for standard still lifes and
medium distance landscapes.
Although many prefer 210 over 180,
I find it has too narrow angle and
is just a bit too long, and the 180
still gives me more than adequate
coverage with all the movements
I'll ever need
The 90 I use for majority of my
landscapes and my main passion -
architecture - so I guess I actually
use it more than the 180 even
though I like the 180 more.
The 65 I use when I want an
extreme angle landscape and
movements aren't necessary; mine
is a bit old so it's not the most
efficient of my collection but it still
makes a damn fine image.
Never dabbled in 8 x 10 so I can't
comment on it.

Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion
# Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

IMO, for 4x5 I use 180mm, 90mm
and 65mm.
The 180 is marginally my favourite. I
use it for standard still lifes and
medium distance landscapes.
Although many prefer 210 over 180,
I find it has too narrow angle and
is just a bit too long, and the 180
still gives me more than adequate
coverage with all the movements
I'll ever need
The 90 I use for majority of my
landscapes and my main passion -
architecture - so I guess I actually
use it more than the 180 even
though I like the 180 more.
The 65 I use when I want an
extreme angle landscape and
movements aren't necessary; mine
is a bit old so it's not the most
efficient of my collection but it still
makes a damn fine image.
Never dabbled in 8 x 10 so I can't
comment on it.

Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion
# Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading