Looking to get into 4x5, found this kit... Is it worth it?

L

lcpr

Well-known
Local time
5:55 PM
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
290
Location
London
View My Gallery
Hey everyone, after seeing all these excellent 4x5 shots and recently looking through a copy of Davidson's East 100th Street, I've suddenly had a hankering for some LF action. I'm already familiar with tilting and shifting on a DSLR, so I want an all round set-up that I can use for both hand held and tripod work. I've come across a Linhof Technika IV kit with the following stuff:

Linhof Super-Technika IV 5x4 + Anatomical grip + 150mm f4.5 Xenar + caps, 90mm f6.8 Angulon + caps, 240mm f5.5 Tele-Arton + caps, matched cams for all three lenses, universal finder (+ mask), 6x7 Super-Rollex back, cable release, 2x filters, universal lens hood, 5x Fidelity cut film holders, original Linhof outfit case.

The chrome has blistered in a few places and the covering has some staining and the circular bit around the tripod mount is gone. The total price for this lot is 990GBP/1600USD, is it worth it?

Many thanks,

Lloyd
 
Well, a IV is a mid fifties to mid sixties camera, but the Technika had fully evolved by that time and wasn't improved that significantly ever after, so a IV by itself is perfectly fine.

The condition as you describe it is not exactly collectible, and the lenses are rather outdated - a basic 50's press kit rather than a advanced architecture or landscape kit. The 90 and 150 in particular permit almost no movements on 4x5 - not really the type of thing large format is used for nowadays. That is, you'll almost immediately yearn for more suitable lenses - for modern practical purposes it is not that far off a camera without lenses (and given that, it is not cheap).

It should be possible to find some other IV and finder, a cammed Symmar and cammed Super Angulon for the same money - and these would be much more useful...
 
Honestly I do not know whether it is a fair price - sounds steep for stepping into 4x5 or the first time. All of the gear mentioned is rather old (not a problem necessarily, but you really need to check the condition). I would buy less (one decent camera, one lens, holders tripod) first to learn the basics. Before buying too fast you should really check out the LFF forum - the best source for LF out there (I started there too).

EDIT: Unless it is important to you - I would not care for range finder 4x5 camera to start with. You can either get a cheaper field camera like Tachihara 4x5 or, if you do not care for a bit more weight, but do care for full movements and mechanical precision - have a look at Sinar F or F2. Of course there are plenty others. Add (as already suggested) some nice 150/5.6 lens ( (Symmar, Fujinon W, Nikkor W or Caltar II-N or Sironar) and you are good to go. Add a wide angle lens once you get to use the camera, handle the film, etc. There is a lot to learn.
 
Thanks for the input guys, I reckon I'll follow sevo's advice and start building a kit instead of buying a whole lot at once. The sheer number of items was what made it seem like a good deal, and I really want to use LF for the movements so those lenses would be quite useless.
 
In England that is probably a fair price. Don't let the lens snobs mislead you, at f/22 those lenses will cover most of the movements on a Technika. I had one back in the 80's with the same 90 and 150. I would worry about the 240 tele as that was normally sold as a lens for a quarterplate camera or as a long tele for a 2x3. However, some people have reported that it works fine as a 4x5 telephoto, normally one does not use much movement on a tele.

The other bits and pieces are essencially free with that kit. I would worry about those blisters as a Technika is almost all alloy, so you probably are talking about serious corrosion.

In the end you have to make your own decision, but do not worry about the coverage of the lenses (I would not mind having them for my Toyo 45G, which is a camera that certainly over run the coverage of those lenses), and another point to consider is that the Technika IV is considered by the Linhof experts as the best built of all the Technikas. The problem with it is that the RF cams have to match both the lenses and the camera body (they should have both serial numbers on them) which is another reason to consider a kit.

Also please note this is a RF Large Format forum, and one guy is telling you that you do not want a RF camera? People like that are usually called trolls. His advice might make sense over on a forum where they consider folks that use anything smaller than 8x10 peasants, but it is off topic here & inflammatory.
 
Let me clarify my statement, with my old ST and the Angulon, I could get 12mm of shift at f/22. Now, lens, cameras, and personal standards vary, so your mileage may vary. Admittedly, that is not much shift on a view camera (My 45G has 145mm of rise, but it is really an 8x10 camera with a small back on it), but on a press camera that is about all the rise/shift there is and the ST has only about double that maximum. For what I was using the ST for back then, mostly photographing houses, that was enough.

If I needed more than that 1/2" of rise I, simply moved back and cropped the dark corners out when I made the print. Usually there are work arounds to most problems, but those who have a lot of money seem to think you have to pore it on top of the problem. For the time being I am going to have to use my 135mm Optar from my Crown Graphic on the 45G, talk about limited movements.

Now one of the things about more modern lenses, they get those movements buy using a lot of glass, making them far far bulkier and heavier than the old stuff. We have to hump that stuff around. I personally think that limited movements are a fair trade off of smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses.

I will add the qualification that sometimes, especially for pros, you simply need all the coverage you can get. Usually, because you can not back up any farther, which in my mind means you needed something shorter than a 90mm lens anyway.

When Roger weighs in, I find I have to qualify my statements. I have noticed that most of the time when we disagree it is because we are looking at things from a different viewpoint. Unlike a couple of other photographic authors, I have never seen him write something that was simply not true.

Unfortunately, my viewpoint often reflects poverty, therefore it also often reflects making do with what you can get. Ill health and laziness can also be added in there. Also, I guess, what the Chinese call an interesting life. Those do not lead to success, but they do lead to lots of experience in a lot of areas. Funny thing, when I see more successful people I tend to be envious, until I think about it, and realize that I would not willingly trade my life for theirs. Now you can plug this last paragraph into my posts, and I will not have to say it again (GRIN).
 
I'm not going to get into the optics or image circles of those lenses. I will say though, that spending $1600 on a large format system before ever having shot it before is a terrible idea.

Buy a graflex kit for $200-300 and a few film holders. If you enjoy it, buy a nice $200-300 standard modern lens, like a Schneider/Rodenstock/Nikkor/Fuji 150mm f/5.6 (or if you know that doesn't suit you, get something like a 135mm...or something longer like a 180mm or 240mm). After that, get a 90mm f/8 Super Angulon (again...maybe you want a 120mm, or a 75mm or 65mm). If you are still enjoying large format, then it's time to buy your Linhof Tech/Wista/Horseman/Ebony/Zone VI/Charmonix/Shen Hao/etc
 
graywolf said:
Also please note this is a RF Large Format forum, and one guy is telling you that you do not want a RF camera? People like that are usually called trolls. His advice might make sense over on a forum where they consider folks that use anything smaller than 8x10 peasants, but it is off topic here & inflammatory.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ.
I assume the above comment is about Matus' suggestion?

I'm sure he (Matus) does not need me to speak for him, but I agree with his suggestion.

One of the beauty of 4x5 shooting lies in looking at the subjects through the ground glass, not focusing using a rangefinder, which offers no difference whether you do it on 35mm or 4x5 cameras.

Of course the results are important too, but as a first timer years ago, that's what got me hooked. Later when the OP (Lloyd) has become familiar with shooting 4x5, he can choose to use RF or whatever.

To Lloyd, that price tag would be too high for me. There are excellent field cameras that will cost way less than that.

As for references, what Roger suggested and also FADU (http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk) would be good to ask around.
 
graywolf said:
Let me clarify my statement, with my old ST and the Angulon, I could get 12mm of shift [...] but on a press camera that is about all the rise/shift there is.
Click to expand...

We're talking about a Linhof Technika IV - with something like 120mm of shift in three directions without even lowering the flap. Mating a Angulon with a Speed Graphic would be a reasonable match - in relation to a Technika IV it is rather inappropriate, you'd be paying some 400% extra above a camera whose capabilities match that lens.
 
sevo said:
We're talking about a Linhof Technika IV - with something like 120mm of shift in three directions without even lowering the flap. Mating a Angulon with a Speed Graphic would be a reasonable match - in relation to a Technika IV it is rather inappropriate, you'd be paying some 400% extra above a camera whose capabilities match that lens.
Click to expand...

One thing to consider is that a Technika won't close with a larger, more modern 90mm lens - I've considered getting an old Angulon for this reason alone.
 
Thank you Will. I will let others to judge whether my post was inappropriate in any way. I surely did not intend to force my shooting style or philosophy onto anyone else.

Different people have different preferences and shoot different subjects. And there are indeed many ways to reach the goal.

I only think it may be (for a beginner) a good idea to invest more time into in 'browsing around' before buying a whole large format setup. I would even go as far as suggesting to get a book or two (about the LF itself and maybe one about the applications - to see what more experienced have to say).


- Lloyd -
There are quite a few RF shooters in 4x5 world (sear here or over on LFF) - if you are interested to go that way - it would definitely be worth to contact a few of them (Frank Petronio comes to my mind as a good candidate - check out his webpage).

Please do let us know once you dive in the LF. And do not hesitate to keep asking questions - that's what this forum is for.
 
I have a Crown Graphic for sale in the UK at the moment. Its the camera I used to find out if I liked large format. (I don't, at least for the style of shooting I do most of the time, so that's why its going)
 
Humm....?

I just checked out the 135mm Optar on my 45G. Just on the ground glass, I currently have no film loaded in holders to my surprise. Focusing on the venetian blinds on the front window I find that I get about 35mm of rise before the corners start going dark. And then they go dark very quickly, a sharp cutoff point in other words. I checked that at f/22 & at f/8 without seeing much difference. Better than I expected, and I suspect a lot better than most people would expect.

How much is that? Enough to lower the window out of the frame, I had to tilt the camera to keep the blinds in the corner of the ground glass. I just now measured and that is with the camera about five feet from the window. It would indicate the lens has about a 190mm circle of coverage. That is almost enough for a 5x7 negative.

What we are seeing here is exaggeration, people exaggerate just how bad the old lenses are, and just how good the new ones are. What difference do the numbers make if you an not see any difference in a 30x40 print? How about a 20x24?

This leads me to believe that Angulon I had may have done better than I think. I never measured it, I am going by memory from 30 years or more ago. I do know that there was enough rise with that lens to remove the foreground from a house photographed from the sidewalk out front. That is a city sidewalk, not a suburban one.
 
Just to make sure the horse is indeed dead, I found this old thread on apug.

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum44/27032-90mm-f-6-8-angulon-coverage-difference.html

Notice in his 5x7 shots that an old Angulon does indeed cover 5x7 at f/32. His comment was that it would be all right for 5x7 contact prints, but not for enlargements. I would translate that as OK for moderate movements on 4x5. Of course, many will believe what they want to believe, despite any evidence to the contrary.
 
I think that I was lucky finding a Technika IV for the equivalent of USD500, added a Fujinon 180/5.6 (about USD 180 including a lens board for the Technika) and some holders I got for free. I later added a 90/6.8 Angulon (very small and takes 40.5 filters but no movements) and after one of the shutter blades broke, I added a Grandagon 90/6.8. I think the IV, Grandagon and Fujinon together were not more than USD 1000, no anatomic grip and no cams for the RF but so far I can live without that.

Loading the holder, setting the camera properly up and finally developing the films is quite some stuff to learn and takes some time getting experienced so I would limit the choices in the beginning.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Consider joining the MPP users' club: http://www.mppusers.com/clubinfo.htm. They'll even tell you how to carve your own cams: I did one for my 150/4.5 Apo Lanthar, though I just scale-focused my 90/6.8. You might care to look at http://www.rogerandfrances.com/sgallery/g sepia 2.html to see some hand-held MPP shots.

As others have said, those lenses are pretty basic, and you won't get much movement with the Angulon even at f/22.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Adding to Rogers post, I'm about in the same situation as the OP and just to give an alternative price-wise.

Having just recently picked up an MPP mk. VIII with a Super Angulon 90mm + correct "cone" board, a Symmar 150mm convertible, a 6x6 rollfilm back , 6 4x5 film backs + various other bits and bobs for just under £350 GBP.

I was pleasantly surprised with the build quality of this kit, and don't feel the price was bad for a first venture into 4x5.

Cheers,

/Meakin
 
graywolf said:
Let me clarify my statement, with my old ST and the Angulon, I could get 12mm of shift at f/22. Now, lens, cameras, and personal standards vary, so your mileage may vary. Admittedly, that is not much shift on a view camera (My 45G has 145mm of rise, but it is really an 8x10 camera with a small back on it), but on a press camera that is about all the rise/shift there is and the ST has only about double that maximum. For what I was using the ST for back then, mostly photographing houses, that was enough.

If I needed more than that 1/2" of rise I, simply moved back and cropped the dark corners out when I made the print. Usually there are work arounds to most problems, but those who have a lot of money seem to think you have to pore it on top of the problem. For the time being I am going to have to use my 135mm Optar from my Crown Graphic on the 45G, talk about limited movements.

Now one of the things about more modern lenses, they get those movements buy using a lot of glass, making them far far bulkier and heavier than the old stuff. We have to hump that stuff around. I personally think that limited movements are a fair trade off of smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses.

I will add the qualification that sometimes, especially for pros, you simply need all the coverage you can get. Usually, because you can not back up any farther, which in my mind means you needed something shorter than a 90mm lens anyway.

When Roger weighs in, I find I have to qualify my statements. I have noticed that most of the time when we disagree it is because we are looking at things from a different viewpoint. Unlike a couple of other photographic authors, I have never seen him write something that was simply not true.

Unfortunately, my viewpoint often reflects poverty, therefore it also often reflects making do with what you can get. Ill health and laziness can also be added in there. Also, I guess, what the Chinese call and interesting life. Those do not lead to success, but they do lead to lots of experience in a lot of areas. Funny thing, when I see more successful people I tend to be envious, until I think about it, and realize that I would not willingly trade my life for theirs. Now you can plug this last paragraph into my posts, and I will not have to say it again (GRIN).
Click to expand...

Dear Tom,

Thank'ee for the kind words, but I'd add that just because you've not seen it, doesn't mean I've never done it...

We agree broadly (as is normally the case), especially about the desirability of smaller, lighter and cheaper lenses, and to quote a dear deceased friend on the subject of Angulons and shifts, "How do you tell when a cloud is in focus?" We also agree about (relative) poverty and the value of an interesting life.

All I meant about the lenses was that for the money, I'd rather have an MPP than a (slightly ratty) Super Tech, even if both came with the same 'cooking' lenses, i.e. it's a lot of money for not very much. I just didn't exprtess myself very well.

Cheers,

R.
 
graywolf said:
. . . Focusing on the venetian blinds on the front window I find that I get about 35mm of rise before the corners start going dark. And then they go dark very quickly, a sharp cutoff point in other words. . . .
Click to expand...

Dear Tom,

True, but first, as soon as you focus closer than infinity, the circle of coverage rises surprisingly rapidly, so you can get more movement. This as why my 110 Super Symmar is fine on 8x10 for interiors, but not so much for landscapes.

Second, the circle of illumination and the circle of sharp definition can differ quite widely. With some lenses, there's only a millimetre or two where you get illumination but poor definition, while with others, the circle of good definition gets quite significantly bigger and better as you stop down, within the circle of illumination.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom