 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Large Format / April 2006If I were shootin LF with just one lens
This is only meant to spark interesting conversation, as did "Legendary lenses) in r.p.e.d/35mm. I like to read and understand people's outlooks on both equipment and shooting. Fortunately, 4x5 lenses of good quality are relatively inexpensive. It's the 8x10 ones that have bit me. So I've limited myself (budget & space) to a 240/9 G-Claron. Just a little wide but long enough to get great detail. And pretty lightweight, too. If you were shooting LF (whatever format) and could have *only* one lens what would that be? Collin detail. And pretty lightweight, too. > If you were shooting LF (whatever format) and could have *only* one > lens what would that be? > > Collin A 65-360mm zoom. Bob G spake thus: > detail. And pretty lightweight, too. > >> If you were shooting LF (whatever format) and could have *only* one >> lens what would that be? > > A 65-360mm zoom. Has anyone actually ever tried that? (jjs, are you listening? how about cobbling something up?)  SignaturePierre, mon ami. Jetez encore un Scientologiste dans le baquet d'acide. - from a posting in alt.religion.scientology titled "France recommends dissolving Scientologists" > Bob G spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Has anyone actually ever tried that? (jjs, are you listening? how about > cobbling something up?) I laughed out loud when I read that. Thanks, Bob! Zoomies aren't my thing, but if I did manage to make one, you can be sure you would need a mule to schlep it. js spake thus: >>Bob G spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Zoomies aren't my thing, but if I did manage to make one, you can be sure > you would need a mule to schlep it. I say the heavier the better. Put the damn thing on industrial ball-bearing casters. SignaturePierre, mon ami. Jetez encore un Scientologiste dans le baquet d'acide. - from a posting in alt.religion.scientology titled "France recommends dissolving Scientologists" : detail. And pretty lightweight, too. : > : > If you were shooting LF (whatever format) and could have *only* one : > lens what would that be? : > : > Collin : A 65-360mm zoom. With auto-focus. Signature------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you > : detail. And pretty lightweight, too. > : > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > With auto-focus. And auto-exposure! > And auto-exposure! And Image Stabilization ...and the Decisive Moment Indicator 2 spake thus: >> And auto-exposure! > > And Image Stabilization > > ...and the Decisive Moment Indicator Ah, sounds like the LF photo version of that ever-elusive computer application, DWIM (Do What I Mean). SignaturePierre, mon ami. Jetez encore un Scientologiste dans le baquet d'acide. - from a posting in alt.religion.scientology titled "France recommends dissolving Scientologists" > 2 spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Ah, sounds like the LF photo version of that ever-elusive computer > application, DWIM (Do What I Mean). Supposedly, the next version of Photoshop is supposed to include an Unsuck Mask filter. > Supposedly, the next version of Photoshop is supposed to include an > Unsuck Mask filter. Unlike MS products. SignatureThe sometimes insomniac. www.gregblankphoto.com > Supposedly, the next version of Photoshop is supposed to include an Unsuck > Mask filter. It has one, not used nearly enough. Hit Alt-File/Delete/Yes. > This is only meant to spark interesting conversation, as did "Legendary > lenses) in r.p.e.d/35mm. I like to read and understand people's [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Collin Well, it would be nice to have a Schneider Super Symmar XL 80 mm f4.5 Aspheric, but at nearly $1500 that is not likely to happen soon. While I wait, I will have to be happiest with with Schneider APO Symmar 135 mm f5.6. I think it would be tough to stick with just one lens, since there are so many situations and scenes. Even people who shoot the same sort of things time after time are likely to feel a need to try different lenses. An easier approach might be a two or three lens kit, which would probably suit a wide variety of needs. Maybe that is the question you should have asked. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> Gordo ; O, I asked about one becuase lots of hobbyists like myself have to start somewhere. And it's my suspicion that I'm not alone out here. For 4x5 & 5x7 there are certainly many good lenses at reasonable prices. So in that arena getting 3 or 4 isn't as significant an issue as it is with 8x10 & up. Collin Cheesehead spake thus: > Gordo ; O, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So in that arena getting 3 or 4 isn't as significant an issue as it is > with 8x10 & up. Request: learn how to use Google Group's quoting function. It's a pain in the a.s to follow a discussion when you make posts with no context. Look at other people's messages (or this one). Unless you don't care if people read your posts or not, in which case forget it. SignaturePierre, mon ami. Jetez encore un Scientologiste dans le baquet d'acide. - from a posting in alt.religion.scientology titled "France recommends dissolving Scientologists" I don't know of one seriously great image made with a SuperApoSiroSyMinarMCMXXXIV. Am I missing something? > I don't know of one seriously great image made with a > SuperApoSiroSyMinarMCMXXXIV. > > Am I missing something? A cog. SignatureThe sometimes insomniac. www.gregblankphoto.com > I don't know of one seriously great image made with a > SuperApoSiroSyMinarMCMXXXIV. > > Am I missing something? It is very new, and mostly aimed at commercial architecture photographers. Not to state that it would be bad for landscape, but I don't know of anyone using a Super Symmar XL for that. Any lens for 4x5 in the 70 mm to 80 mm range will not be as easy to use as something in the 120 mm to 180 mm range. However, in the shorter focal lengths, it does seem that the newest Schneider 80 mm is one of the better choices. I am judging that on a few images I have seen made with that lens. It should be noted none of the shots I viewed were landscapes. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> P.S. - I would probably be just as happy with a good used 75 mm at around 1/3 the price. : This is only meant to spark interesting conversation, as did "Legendary : lenses) in r.p.e.d/35mm. I like to read and understand people's : outlooks on both equipment and shooting. : Fortunately, 4x5 lenses of good quality are relatively inexpensive. : It's the 8x10 ones that have bit me. So I've limited myself (budget & : space) to a 240/9 G-Claron. Just a little wide but long enough to get : great detail. And pretty lightweight, too. : If you were shooting LF (whatever format) and could have *only* one : lens what would that be? What length lens do you most use with 35mm? The lens you want is the one that gives you about the same coverage (not the right word I know) as that focal length in 4x5. I mostly used 50mm when shooting 35mm and mostly use 150mm when shooting 4x5. Signature------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you Cheesehead wrote (in part): > Fortunately, 4x5 lenses of good quality are relatively inexpensive. It's > the 8x10 ones that have bit me. So I've limited myself (budget & space) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you were shooting LF (whatever format) and could have *only* one lens > what would that be? I almost do that. Sort of. I use a Wisner Convertable Plasmat Set. Call that one lens, since it comes in one relatively small box. It has 5 cells that you can mix and match to get many focal lengths from 152mm to 450mm (it is intended for use on 4"x5"). 152mm is not wide enough for everything, so I also have a 90mm f/8 SuperAngulon. The individual cells of the Plasmat set are f/13 that, surprisingly enough, are bright enough for focusing, and the combinations give greater apertures. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 07:45:01 up 11 days, 21:11, 3 users, load average: 4.04, 4.20, 4.17 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.