[LargeFormat] Large Format Lenses

[Verna Knapp]

The landscape objects out here with straight parallel lines include
fir trees, long hanging lichens, columnar basalt, and waterfalls.
"Falling" forests don't appeal to me.  When lichens converge, it
should be obvious that they are blowing in the wind, which means
curved ends. 

Replacing inadequate lenses can be expensive. Better to start with
good ones and not have to replace them, if you can. Or start with
fewer. For me, the short focal length is a less used lens, and I 
would omit it and get the normal lens and a longer focal length 
lens first, but that is a function of the individual photographer's 
personal vision as well as subject matter. I've known photographers 
who rarely used anything but short focal length. That said, I 
recently found that my 75mm Grandagon did not have the coverage
I need. I had moved to 5x7 from 4x5, and it would not cover. I
then got lucky and found a used 90mm Super Angulon for a good
price for the 5x7. 

Your advice to seek out used lenses was excellent. I started getting
new ones, but eventually discovered that very good used ones are
available, and saved a bundle on some of the more extreme lenses.

As to being a beginner, I tried to cut corners on cost of equipment
when I first tried large format, and ended up so frustrated with
the equipment that I put it away as unusable. I had everything
from light leaks to short bellows draw to poor coverage and 
difficult to secure movements. Add that to the usual beginner's 
pilot errors, and about all I could shoot was an occasional 
distant view in bright sunlight. It was 15 years before I tried
again.

Eventually I tried again with good equipment and went through the 
usual frustrating learning curve. However, it was obvious to me 
that my problems were pilot error and not the equipment, so I stuck 
it out and learned. I had a few decent shots in each session, and
that was enough to keep me going. Now I can use the original 
equipment for the limited uses it can handle. However, I don't
bother, as I have easier to use equipment. 

For a beginner on a tight budget, I'd  advise just one lens, 
used, selected with the help of somebody who knows what he 
is doing. This should be a good lens that won't need
to be replaced later. Most likely a normal focal length rather 
than a long or a short one, both due to cost and due to general
usability. The idea is to avoid discouragement so far as is 
possible by maximizing the likelihood of good shots early on.
 
Also, multiple lenses are not as necessary for large format
as they are for 35mm. To some extent bellows draw can 
compensate. So can cropping, if you can't get close enough.
When I was a beginner, I didn't understand this, and bought
a "macro" lens that I didn't need. I do plenty of macro
work, but I don't need a specialized lens for it. 

Also, the issue of "what is enough coverage?" depends on the 
likelihood of moving to larger formats. I recently made the
move from 4x5 to 5x7, and only had to replace the one lens.
However, if I were to move to 8x10, I'd have to get a complete
set of new lenses. I'd like to do it, but it isn't going to
happen any time soon, if ever. 

Verna

 

Karl Wolz wrote:
> 
> Agreed, however, my feelings are that convergence and the use of rear tilt,
> etc. are not nearly as critical if you are not shooting subjects with
> straight, vertical lines, such as buildings or soda pop cans, as in
> architectural or product photography.  When shooting natural subjects, there
> is much more leeway in how to "skin you cat".
> 
> I, too, will commonly max out the movements of my lenses when shooting into
> canyons, Scheimplugging (betcha you didn't know that could be used as a
> verb!), etc., but especially for someone just getting his feet wet in
> large-format, a two or three lens selection would seem to be more advisable
> than one lens with awesome coverage.
> 
> Just my opinion, others have at least equal merit.
> 
> Karl Wolz