So you've bought a 4x5 camera. What's the very next question that everyone asks at this point? What lens should I buy. Over the years I've handed out a lot of advice on the subject, and I've learned a few things about the dangers of giving advice and the pitfalls of the pedantic approach taken by some. Photographers, like people, differ, and it is important to have an approach which accommodates these differences.

Almost everyone entering the world of large format is coming from somewhere else in photography. Of course, this is usually from some smaller format. As the vision of the photographer has evolved (I purposefully have not used the word "developed", as I have learned that many of these small format photographers have highly refined esthetic vision) he or she has invariably acquired certain tastes, points of view, styles of interpretation and so forth which they obtain by using certain lenses.

It makes sense to use this information to help the photographer translate his practices from the smaller format to the larger format and preserve the focal length - format relationships which have evolved with his esthetic.

I ask questions like: what lens do you use the most; what kind of subjects do you shoot and so forth. I can then triple the focal length if he is using 35mm to make it equivalent to 4x5, or multiply by six if a move to 8x10 is contemplated.

It must be recognized, of course, that subject matter and shooting style may change when the format changes. I don't photograph the same things with my 8x10 that I do with my 6x9. However, many times I've listened to photographers who are treating a Nikon or Leica like a view camera, by always using a tripod and usually shooting static subjects. For cases like these in which they are already using a view camera type of approach, the conversion to large format is usually quite smooth and successful. For those photographers who have typical small format extemporaneous shooting styles, the chances are fairly great that their choices of lens-format relationships will change as they become acclimated to large format. In these cases, their current practices are a point of departure, but still provide the only guide.

It has been said by some that "normal" 150mm focal length is not as desirable as a 210, and the next lens usually recommended is the 120. I reject such canned advice as meaningless in the context of the natural uniqueness of every photographer. Furthermore, in many cases the one giving advice intends the advice to be taken as a suggestion to explore other possibilities, not to be taken as the eleventh commandment. A good example is Ansel Adams, who stated that the normal lens is not always the best choice. Note how many of his masterpieces are indeed taken with a 300mm (12") lens, the so-called normal lens for 8x10. Again, I believe that he was only suggesting other alternatives be considered.

If you are converting from a medium format size, such as 6x6, multiply by two. Therefore, 80mm becomes 160, very close to the "normal" 4x5 lens, and 6x9 is increased by one third, from 100mm to 150mm. By using the correct factor, you can convert any focal length of any format to 4x5. For example, we saw that the relationship of 35mm to 4x5 is 3:1. If you want to convert a 28mm to the 4x5 equivalent, multiply by three and you get 84mm, or close to the standard 90mm wide angle lens.

Now a little advice about picking a brand name. The truth is, virtually all lenses made by the big four (Nikon, Fugi, Rodenstock and Schnieder) are superb lenses with virtually no measurable differences of any consequence. Furthermore, in most cases the lens is either sharper than the film's ability to record resolution, or the lens has been stopped down so much (above f:22, at which point all lenses are created equal) that they are equally degraded by diffraction. Choose a modern lens by who will give you the best value, service, etc.

Sticking my neck out a little further, except for the issue of contrast, which is dependent upon modern coatings, many of the old classic lenses are also equal in sharpness to modern lenses above f:22. I personally use a set of original Ziess Protars which were made before 1910. Consider such name brands as Ziess, Bausch and Lomb, Kodak and Goerz as top quality and eminently serviceable classic lenses.

One last bit of advice is this: try to separate the witchcraft from real wisdom. Anecdotal information is very pleasant to trade at photographer-bonding, "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" sessions, but the information which is gleaned from these tech-fests should be treated as highly suspect.