Large Format Focal Lengths

[dazedgonebye]

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).

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[venchka]

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]

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]

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

 

[chippy]

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

 

[venchka]

Samples from the 200mm in a close focus enviornment.......

Voigtlander Collinear II

 

[dazedgonebye]

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?

 

[chippy]

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]

"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.

 

[chippy]

"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

 

[mbisc]

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]

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.

 

[drewbarb]

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]

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.

 

[chippy]

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.