An average lens for still life photography?

"Fred Leif" wrote in message
...
If you are trying to 'make do' on a tight budget, the 135 could be used
with
your flash equipment. Reduce ambient light, use the B setting, then trip
the shutter, fire the flash manually, then release the shutter. It is
called 'open flash' ... and works fine under many conditions.


I was doing that just this afternoon - architectural shots inside a church
and I found that my sync. cable had failed and the spare wasn't in the case
where it should have been. No problem working this way, so long as the
ambient light is dim enough relative to the flash.


Peter

"LR Kalajainen" wrote in message
news
I'd go with at least a 150. Better a 180 or 210, depending on how you
prefer the spatial relationships of the objects in your still life.
There are some pretty reasonable 180's out there used. I didn't pay
more than $300 for my 180 Schneider Symmar with shutter in excellent
condition.


Given the OP is using a camera with about 33cm of extension, a 210 might be
a bit limited in terms of the magnification available. For the colour work
he is doing with a 6x7 RFB then I'd say a 150 is fine. For 4x5 though it
might feel a bit short.

In addition to the G Clarons, the Apo Ronars are very nice in this role - I
have a 150mm f9 Apo Ronar that is my main lens for mid-scale reproduction on
6x7 - 6x9. Before that I used the 150mm f5.6 Symmar-S that I use for
landscape, and that was pretty good - but the Ronar is better.

The Tominon and Ysaron lenses for the Polaroid repro cameras are pretty good
in these magnifications, and are very cheap used. The 127mm and 135mm would
both be worth a look as low cost intro.s to this sort of work. I use these
lenses in several FLs for higher magnifications, on both 6x7 and 4x5.



Peter

"LR Kalajainen" wrote in message
news
I'd go with at least a 150. Better a 180 or 210, depending on how you
prefer the spatial relationships of the objects in your still life.
There are some pretty reasonable 180's out there used. I didn't pay
more than $300 for my 180 Schneider Symmar with shutter in excellent
condition.


Given the OP is using a camera with about 33cm of extension, a 210 might be
a bit limited in terms of the magnification available. For the colour work
he is doing with a 6x7 RFB then I'd say a 150 is fine. For 4x5 though it
might feel a bit short.

In addition to the G Clarons, the Apo Ronars are very nice in this role - I
have a 150mm f9 Apo Ronar that is my main lens for mid-scale reproduction on
6x7 - 6x9. Before that I used the 150mm f5.6 Symmar-S that I use for
landscape, and that was pretty good - but the Ronar is better.

The Tominon and Ysaron lenses for the Polaroid repro cameras are pretty good
in these magnifications, and are very cheap used. The 127mm and 135mm would
both be worth a look as low cost intro.s to this sort of work. I use these
lenses in several FLs for higher magnifications, on both 6x7 and 4x5.



Peter

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
. ..

I was doing that just this afternoon - architectural shots inside a church
and I found that my sync. cable had failed and the spare wasn't in the
case
where it should have been. No problem working this way, so long as the
ambient light is dim enough relative to the flash.

Now there's a good job open flashBULBs.

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
. ..

I was doing that just this afternoon - architectural shots inside a church
and I found that my sync. cable had failed and the spare wasn't in the
case
where it should have been. No problem working this way, so long as the
ambient light is dim enough relative to the flash.

Now there's a good job open flashBULBs.

jjs wrote:

"Fred Leif" wrote in message
...
If you are trying to 'make do' on a tight budget, the 135 could be used
with
your flash equipment. Reduce ambient light, use the B setting, then trip
the shutter, fire the flash manually, then release the shutter. It is
called 'open flash' ... and works fine under many conditions.

I second Fred's work-around. Besides, if you use a handheld flash (without a
built-in auto exposure control) you can do several versions using multiple
flashes in different placements quite easily. Take meticulous notes and you
will have some very good information to work from on the next try. Soon you
will probably have an excellent feel for multiple lights, and dive into the
discipline with more confidence.

And just how does that answer his questions about lenses
for studio work? Doesn't. Probably because you don't know
anything about it. But of course you consistently criticize
Steve Simmons for doing the same thing.

Nothing useful here, troll...

jjs wrote:

"Fred Leif" wrote in message
...
If you are trying to 'make do' on a tight budget, the 135 could be used
with
your flash equipment. Reduce ambient light, use the B setting, then trip
the shutter, fire the flash manually, then release the shutter. It is
called 'open flash' ... and works fine under many conditions.

I second Fred's work-around. Besides, if you use a handheld flash (without a
built-in auto exposure control) you can do several versions using multiple
flashes in different placements quite easily. Take meticulous notes and you
will have some very good information to work from on the next try. Soon you
will probably have an excellent feel for multiple lights, and dive into the
discipline with more confidence.

And just how does that answer his questions about lenses
for studio work? Doesn't. Probably because you don't know
anything about it. But of course you consistently criticize
Steve Simmons for doing the same thing.

Nothing useful here, troll...

jjs wrote:

"Fred Leif" wrote in message
...
If you are trying to 'make do' on a tight budget, the 135 could be used
with
your flash equipment. Reduce ambient light, use the B setting, then trip
the shutter, fire the flash manually, then release the shutter. It is
called 'open flash' ... and works fine under many conditions.

I second Fred's work-around. Besides, if you use a handheld flash (without a
built-in auto exposure control) you can do several versions using multiple
flashes in different placements quite easily. Take meticulous notes and you
will have some very good information to work from on the next try. Soon you
will probably have an excellent feel for multiple lights, and dive into the
discipline with more confidence.

And just how does that answer his questions about lenses
for studio work? Doesn't. Probably because you don't know
anything about it. But of course you consistently criticize
Steve Simmons for doing the same thing.

Nothing useful here, troll...

Ronin wrote:

Hi,

I entered in the world of LF photography since few months. I usually shoot
architecture/landscape. Now I'd wish to start experimenting with some still
life and close up photography. I do not own own lenses shorter than 135mm or
lenses optimized for 1:1 reproductions. For beginning I think I will use a
SA 90/8 MC lens. But for the future I might consider to use a more
specialized lens for studio work.

There really is no "specialized" or specific lens for studio
still life. The biggest issue is depth of field, so you generally
don't use lenses longer than a "normal" focal length. You could
use your 135mm (you just move in a little closer.) For studio
I generally use a 150 to 210mm.

My budget is quite limited. Which lens you
would suggest for 200-350$? (I'd buy it used, of course). Consider that mine
is a Graflex Super Speed Graphic camera (with front shif/tilt/swing
movements avaiable and a bellows extension of approx. 33-34cm). For color, I
shoot mainly 6x9 and 6x7 format; for b&w I use mainly 10x12cm sheets. I can
deal with non MC lenses as long as their resolution is satisfactory also
with 120 format.

thanks in advance

Ronin wrote:

Hi,

I entered in the world of LF photography since few months. I usually shoot
architecture/landscape. Now I'd wish to start experimenting with some still
life and close up photography. I do not own own lenses shorter than 135mm or
lenses optimized for 1:1 reproductions. For beginning I think I will use a
SA 90/8 MC lens. But for the future I might consider to use a more
specialized lens for studio work.

There really is no "specialized" or specific lens for studio
still life. The biggest issue is depth of field, so you generally
don't use lenses longer than a "normal" focal length. You could
use your 135mm (you just move in a little closer.) For studio
I generally use a 150 to 210mm.

My budget is quite limited. Which lens you
would suggest for 200-350$? (I'd buy it used, of course). Consider that mine
is a Graflex Super Speed Graphic camera (with front shif/tilt/swing
movements avaiable and a bellows extension of approx. 33-34cm). For color, I
shoot mainly 6x9 and 6x7 format; for b&w I use mainly 10x12cm sheets. I can
deal with non MC lenses as long as their resolution is satisfactory also
with 120 format.

thanks in advance