anaanda
Well-known
I will be going to Canada soon and wanted a kit for lanscapes. I am deciding between a Beesa L with a 15/21 or a Fuji gs645 or Bronica 645 Rf.
What do you think?
Thanks
What do you think?
Thanks
Landscapes- Bessa 15/21 or Medium Format?
- Thread starter anaanda
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 14
- Views 1K
jcline
Established
I've got a Bessa R with both the 15/21 lenses and the fuji gs645w. I would suggest both 😛
They're pretty different beasts really. Both very easy to use, very fast and light. The fuji is increatibly light for medium format, the lightest I've handed unless you count a holga. The medium format 60mm is about equivilent to 35mm in 135 so that is something to consider. If you've never shot medium format before, you'll be blow away by the sharpness. I love the meter on the fuji, metering for the R with the 15 is tough at times, I haven't spent enough time with the 21, but I would think its better but still touchy. With the Bessa you could always pick up a 35 and a view finder (or get an R) and have a much more versatile camera. Plus you can pick them up new and reasonable and have tons of lens choices.
I would have a very hard time choicing between these 2, they're my favorites! Which probably doesn't make me much help 😛
They're pretty different beasts really. Both very easy to use, very fast and light. The fuji is increatibly light for medium format, the lightest I've handed unless you count a holga. The medium format 60mm is about equivilent to 35mm in 135 so that is something to consider. If you've never shot medium format before, you'll be blow away by the sharpness. I love the meter on the fuji, metering for the R with the 15 is tough at times, I haven't spent enough time with the 21, but I would think its better but still touchy. With the Bessa you could always pick up a 35 and a view finder (or get an R) and have a much more versatile camera. Plus you can pick them up new and reasonable and have tons of lens choices.
I would have a very hard time choicing between these 2, they're my favorites! Which probably doesn't make me much help 😛
x-ray
Veteran
There's no substitute for square inches of film. 35mm is good but MF is better and LF is even better. If you have the capability to enlarge or scan 4x5 that would be the better solution. I have a couple of studio 4x5's and cameras up to 11x14 but wanted a light field bamera at a moderate cost. My wife gave me a beautiful Shen Hao 4x5 for my birthday. It's a very fine wooden camera with great flexability and the ability to add a wide angle bellows. The camera was only $599 new form Badger and the bag bellows was $99. I had plenty of excellent Schneider glass but there are plenty of excellent lenses available on the bay for very little money. For what you would pay for a MF you can own a 4x5 and a couple of good used lenses.
I don't consider myself a landscape photographer but I did study with Ansel Adams for a few weeks in 1975 at his home in California. Working with Ansel taught me a great deal and one thing I learned was the majority of his images were made with normal to moderate tele lenses. Only a small percentage were taken with wides and almost none with super wides. At the time I studied with him he was using Hasselblads. He had a bad case of rheumatoid arthritus in his hands and working with a MF camera was a task but large format was even a bigger problem.
Take a look at the Shen Hao and check the bay for schneider Symmar or Symmar S lenses or Rodenstock Sironar or Sironar N. Calumet caltar S and SII are either Schneider Symmar S or Sironar. A 135 and 210mm would do the trick. Also if the budget is really tight check out the Schneider Xenar 135 (not much extra coverage on 4x5 but OK) and the 210. Older Zeiss Tessar's in these focal lengths are good too. If you want slightly longer glass the 150 (normal on 4x5) and 240 are excellent. You can also find great deals in Kodak commercial ektars. Look at the 5 inch range to 7 inch. Ilex lenses are also very good and a very good value. If you want a wide look at the Ilex 90mm f8. It's an exact copy of the super angulon and a veru good value.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
I don't consider myself a landscape photographer but I did study with Ansel Adams for a few weeks in 1975 at his home in California. Working with Ansel taught me a great deal and one thing I learned was the majority of his images were made with normal to moderate tele lenses. Only a small percentage were taken with wides and almost none with super wides. At the time I studied with him he was using Hasselblads. He had a bad case of rheumatoid arthritus in his hands and working with a MF camera was a task but large format was even a bigger problem.
Take a look at the Shen Hao and check the bay for schneider Symmar or Symmar S lenses or Rodenstock Sironar or Sironar N. Calumet caltar S and SII are either Schneider Symmar S or Sironar. A 135 and 210mm would do the trick. Also if the budget is really tight check out the Schneider Xenar 135 (not much extra coverage on 4x5 but OK) and the 210. Older Zeiss Tessar's in these focal lengths are good too. If you want slightly longer glass the 150 (normal on 4x5) and 240 are excellent. You can also find great deals in Kodak commercial ektars. Look at the 5 inch range to 7 inch. Ilex lenses are also very good and a very good value. If you want a wide look at the Ilex 90mm f8. It's an exact copy of the super angulon and a veru good value.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
Last edited:
billwheeler
Established
First of all, I am an amateur photographer who makes prints up to 11x14 for myself and friends. While I would not hestitate to use either the VC 15mm or VC 21mm lens for landscape photography, I would prefer to use a medium format camera with wide angle lens, the larger negative of which would produce superior resolution , contrast, and tonality.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Your choice of focal lengths to take might be influenced by where in Canada you intend to go. As has been said before you can't beat a larger film size with a 35mm outfit. I don't regularly use larger than 35mm so I would say that your most used focal lengths for landscape in Canada, as just about everywhere else, would be in the 24/25mm to 80/105mm range. I think a 15 or 21 would get only limited use but I could be wrong. I found that I used a med tele in the Rockies far more that I would have thought.
Nikon Bob
Nikon Bob
principe azul
Ian
Interesting question. I recently sold a VC 21/4 because I wasn't using it much, or not shooting intuitively with it. And the f/4 bugged me a bit, as half my lenses are faster than f/2, and I shoot only 20% of my stuff during the day, and I never use my tripod.
Yet while I had the lens, I was thinking about having an MF rig for extreme wides, given that I tended to use the 21/4 to get an expansive view with lots of things in (cityscapes), rather than to shoot closer (street photography). And these were less likely to be grab shots. So my rationale was about maximising detail. Or maybe about if I had to use a slow lens that needed a tripod at night, might as well go MF. And I've been thinking about hacking an ultrawide MF lens onto a 6x9 back.
Yet while I had the lens, I was thinking about having an MF rig for extreme wides, given that I tended to use the 21/4 to get an expansive view with lots of things in (cityscapes), rather than to shoot closer (street photography). And these were less likely to be grab shots. So my rationale was about maximising detail. Or maybe about if I had to use a slow lens that needed a tripod at night, might as well go MF. And I've been thinking about hacking an ultrawide MF lens onto a 6x9 back.
PlantedTao
Well-known
Go TLR
Go TLR
I just went to Big Sky MT this winter to do some serious snowboarding...while I was there I wanted to do some nice landscape shoots for my dad's new cabin. I went with a MF...a yashica 124g...this has a fixed lens (not wide) and the detail that you can get is amazing. Plus I love the square format...having a TLR aids in having your composition come out just the way you want (most the time 😉 ) because you get to look down on the ground glass and see the photo...a lot easier than looking thru a viewfinder. This is the direction I would recommend...go with a yashica or Rollei TLR.
Also, I think that x-ray makes a great point about Ansel's photos were shoot mostly with normal lenses...and his landscape photos were pretty good. 😉 😀
Cheers.
Go TLR
I just went to Big Sky MT this winter to do some serious snowboarding...while I was there I wanted to do some nice landscape shoots for my dad's new cabin. I went with a MF...a yashica 124g...this has a fixed lens (not wide) and the detail that you can get is amazing. Plus I love the square format...having a TLR aids in having your composition come out just the way you want (most the time 😉 ) because you get to look down on the ground glass and see the photo...a lot easier than looking thru a viewfinder. This is the direction I would recommend...go with a yashica or Rollei TLR.
Also, I think that x-ray makes a great point about Ansel's photos were shoot mostly with normal lenses...and his landscape photos were pretty good. 😉 😀
Cheers.
pvdhaar
Peter
These sure are different options. 21mm on small format equals about 35mm focal length on 645. Decidedly wider than the 45mm you can get for the Bronica RF!
As already mentioned, I don't think the best landscape photos are made with ultra wides. The 15/21 in my mind are best suited for reportage and architecture. For landscape, you'd need every shot to be of the near-far type with these focal lengths. And that is not only limiting, it makes for very gimmicky pictures IMO.
An additional problem with ultra wides on small format is that every detail is so small on film, that it gets lost. With MF, and with a moderate wide to normal, you'll be able to see the shape of individual leaves on trees. With small format, they'll just be blurs when you look up close.. Given that, I'd say go for at least a 645..
As already mentioned, I don't think the best landscape photos are made with ultra wides. The 15/21 in my mind are best suited for reportage and architecture. For landscape, you'd need every shot to be of the near-far type with these focal lengths. And that is not only limiting, it makes for very gimmicky pictures IMO.
An additional problem with ultra wides on small format is that every detail is so small on film, that it gets lost. With MF, and with a moderate wide to normal, you'll be able to see the shape of individual leaves on trees. With small format, they'll just be blurs when you look up close.. Given that, I'd say go for at least a 645..
sf
Veteran
Bronica RF645 w/ 45mm lens would be my choice. . . .obviously. Surely I'm getting to be too much for those that encounter my pervasive adoration of that Bronica beauty. I have not owned the Fuji.
The CV 15mm is a beautiful lens, but vignettes heavily, and is not very sharp because of its physics. I mean, it's sharp, but not sharp enough to make strong enlargements from 35mm negs if you're shooting landscapes where detail is important. You'll have to meter for a center filter as well. .. could be a pain.
It is very VERY true that you'll come to feel that wider lenses, especially the superwides, are not the best for landscape photography. As much as they seem a good idea, they tend to push things too far out. You'll end up cropping lots of the frame out when you print. Unless you are shooting a subject that really fills hte frame, like a mountain range close up or a tree.
Here is a landscape with a 75mm lens on a Pentax 645NII :
http://www.shutterflower.com/landscapes gallery/pages/gateway-to-heavenRFF.htm
That image brings the subject, the real power of the image, front and center. It is wide enough, but doesn't push things back. Nice balance with the sky.
Superwides work in instances where you'll be standing in a field of flowers or in the city. You would find use for a superwide where you are standing IN the subject. Field of flowers. . .in a bus. . . . in a waterfall. Here is an example of when a wide lens is nice :
http://www.shutterflower.com/street scenes gallery/pages/private-gardenRFF.htm
There you have need of a wide lens because you have use for the foreground.
Two options, both of which require the Bronica :
I'd bring the Bronica with the 45mm because then you'll have a very wide (like 24mm) lens that is super sharp (biogon) and controls distortion very well. You can then crop 35mm sizes shots from those negs that will have 50mm zoom on the subject if needed. See my website, in the street photography section, for examples of the 45mm. Most all of the images in that gallery are with the 45mm.
OR
I'd just buy the 65mm lens (kit from KEH) because 65mm is wide as well. Big thing with the 45mm is that you can crop panoramics from the frame if you shoot horizontally. 65mm has shallower DOF, which means you'll have to shoot at a smaller aperture. . . could be an issue.
And finally, the Fuji 645 series. They have sharp, simple lenses. They are not as well built - not even close - as the Bronica, and they don't have interchangeable lenses. I have almost never been please with autofocus cameras when shooting landscapes, so stay away from the AF Fujis. You're only real reason to buy the Fuji is that it is about half the cost of the Bronica (and the Bronica is about 1/3 the cost of the Mamiya 7).
The CV 15mm is a beautiful lens, but vignettes heavily, and is not very sharp because of its physics. I mean, it's sharp, but not sharp enough to make strong enlargements from 35mm negs if you're shooting landscapes where detail is important. You'll have to meter for a center filter as well. .. could be a pain.
It is very VERY true that you'll come to feel that wider lenses, especially the superwides, are not the best for landscape photography. As much as they seem a good idea, they tend to push things too far out. You'll end up cropping lots of the frame out when you print. Unless you are shooting a subject that really fills hte frame, like a mountain range close up or a tree.
Here is a landscape with a 75mm lens on a Pentax 645NII :
http://www.shutterflower.com/landscapes gallery/pages/gateway-to-heavenRFF.htm
That image brings the subject, the real power of the image, front and center. It is wide enough, but doesn't push things back. Nice balance with the sky.
Superwides work in instances where you'll be standing in a field of flowers or in the city. You would find use for a superwide where you are standing IN the subject. Field of flowers. . .in a bus. . . . in a waterfall. Here is an example of when a wide lens is nice :
http://www.shutterflower.com/street scenes gallery/pages/private-gardenRFF.htm
There you have need of a wide lens because you have use for the foreground.
Two options, both of which require the Bronica :
I'd bring the Bronica with the 45mm because then you'll have a very wide (like 24mm) lens that is super sharp (biogon) and controls distortion very well. You can then crop 35mm sizes shots from those negs that will have 50mm zoom on the subject if needed. See my website, in the street photography section, for examples of the 45mm. Most all of the images in that gallery are with the 45mm.
OR
I'd just buy the 65mm lens (kit from KEH) because 65mm is wide as well. Big thing with the 45mm is that you can crop panoramics from the frame if you shoot horizontally. 65mm has shallower DOF, which means you'll have to shoot at a smaller aperture. . . could be an issue.
And finally, the Fuji 645 series. They have sharp, simple lenses. They are not as well built - not even close - as the Bronica, and they don't have interchangeable lenses. I have almost never been please with autofocus cameras when shooting landscapes, so stay away from the AF Fujis. You're only real reason to buy the Fuji is that it is about half the cost of the Bronica (and the Bronica is about 1/3 the cost of the Mamiya 7).
jcline
Established
Just a note, since price is always an issue. I found my GS645w for $150 on craigslist, a real bargain, and in great shape.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data//500/medium/gs645w-yosemite1.jpg
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data//500/medium/gs645w-yosemite2.jpg
I must admit, being able to change lenses would be a real plus, and the fuji is like 80%+ plastic. I fear my laziness would probably get the better of me if it wasn't though and it wouldn't go anywhere with me. 😉
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data//500/medium/gs645w-yosemite1.jpg
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data//500/medium/gs645w-yosemite2.jpg
I must admit, being able to change lenses would be a real plus, and the fuji is like 80%+ plastic. I fear my laziness would probably get the better of me if it wasn't though and it wouldn't go anywhere with me. 😉
pvdhaar
Peter
Wow, Doug, that is one really nice picture!
R
rpsawin
Guest
I just returned from a 6 day road trip shooting landscapes in the Palouse and along the Columbia river in Washington state. My primary system was a Bronica SQb. I shot alot of film...alot. I worked out of my vehicle and did very little hiking.
I think you will be very happy with the results you get with a MF system. Depending on how you work, especially on a long trip, you may be a bit frustrated using a MF system. The workflow is slower than with 35mm equipment and since you are dealing with 120 and 220 roll film you will be loading film more often. Of course having multiple backs will help this but at some point you will have all backs needing to be re-loaded and the scene you want to shoot will have to wait. You should also get used to working with a tripod.
I would suggest, if you get a MF system, you take a day or overnight trip as practice and to get familiar with the gear and the workflow. I'm sure you will love the results and really enjoy the experince.
Best of luck,
Bob
I think you will be very happy with the results you get with a MF system. Depending on how you work, especially on a long trip, you may be a bit frustrated using a MF system. The workflow is slower than with 35mm equipment and since you are dealing with 120 and 220 roll film you will be loading film more often. Of course having multiple backs will help this but at some point you will have all backs needing to be re-loaded and the scene you want to shoot will have to wait. You should also get used to working with a tripod.
I would suggest, if you get a MF system, you take a day or overnight trip as practice and to get familiar with the gear and the workflow. I'm sure you will love the results and really enjoy the experince.
Best of luck,
Bob
Thanks, Peter; it's a strange and wonderful place that inspires photographers... 🙂
sf
Veteran
Hey, Doug, when you show up at one of our meets, you're going to have to show me how you get your negs so sharp. It seems that you have great control on the hyperfocus concept.
Similar threads
- Article
