I currently own a 503CW and a 50 FLE and a 150, both Cfi. At present, this outfit is being used principally as a wilderness trail kit in the Alaska Panhandle. I am finding that the 150 is rarely used, a 100 mm. would often be more suitable; and the 50 often is not quite wide enough -- moving back often is not an option, the risk being getting too much into the shot and forgetting about a sheer cliff behind me ;-)
I am leaning strongly towards acquiring a 100 mm.; and am also considering acquiring a SWC to handle the wider than 50 mm. field of view I need roughly 20% of the time. Please note that I have considered the 40 mm. FLE, but the SWC has the advantage of being a compact though limited back-up body, and would not require my having to acquire 93 mm. duplicates of the Bay 60 filters I use regularly. I have considered the Mamiya 7II and its 43 mm. lens, but precise framing and standardizing on the A12 film backs are important considerations to me.
I seldom use the 150 in-field because it often fails to provide the compressed angle of view that I need on occasion. In retrospect a 250 mm. would do the trick quite nicely, but to control costs and weight I am instead considering acquiring a 2X Mutar to use with the 100 mm. Besides, all this has to fit in a Billingham rucksack and I doubt a 250 would fit with everything else. In short the teleconverter would be, as they generally are, a compromise solution.
So, does the following make sense as a relatively light-weight and well-rounded field kit that will cover landscape shots that focus on very-close foreground elements:
503CW w/PM45 finder; SWC; 50 mm.; 100 mm.; 2X Mutar; and two film backs?
Although I have largely decided on this combo, I am quite willing to change my mind depending on the feedback received. For instance, (i) I use polarizers quite frequently, and (ii) I will likely start using graduated ND filters to control the wide contrast ranges common to the rainforest and shoreline scenes I shoot regularly. Going with the Lee system would also allow me carry only their wide angle lens hood rather than three rigid hoods. My impression is that the 40 mm. rather than a SWC would be better suited to using filters that need to be adjusted via direct viewing. Can anyone comment from first-hand experience as to whether the SWC w/its focusing screen back is ill-suited to using graduated filters?
I am leaning strongly towards acquiring a 100 mm.; and am also considering acquiring a SWC to handle the wider than 50 mm. field of view I need roughly 20% of the time. Please note that I have considered the 40 mm. FLE, but the SWC has the advantage of being a compact though limited back-up body, and would not require my having to acquire 93 mm. duplicates of the Bay 60 filters I use regularly. I have considered the Mamiya 7II and its 43 mm. lens, but precise framing and standardizing on the A12 film backs are important considerations to me.
I seldom use the 150 in-field because it often fails to provide the compressed angle of view that I need on occasion. In retrospect a 250 mm. would do the trick quite nicely, but to control costs and weight I am instead considering acquiring a 2X Mutar to use with the 100 mm. Besides, all this has to fit in a Billingham rucksack and I doubt a 250 would fit with everything else. In short the teleconverter would be, as they generally are, a compromise solution.
So, does the following make sense as a relatively light-weight and well-rounded field kit that will cover landscape shots that focus on very-close foreground elements:
503CW w/PM45 finder; SWC; 50 mm.; 100 mm.; 2X Mutar; and two film backs?
Although I have largely decided on this combo, I am quite willing to change my mind depending on the feedback received. For instance, (i) I use polarizers quite frequently, and (ii) I will likely start using graduated ND filters to control the wide contrast ranges common to the rainforest and shoreline scenes I shoot regularly. Going with the Lee system would also allow me carry only their wide angle lens hood rather than three rigid hoods. My impression is that the 40 mm. rather than a SWC would be better suited to using filters that need to be adjusted via direct viewing. Can anyone comment from first-hand experience as to whether the SWC w/its focusing screen back is ill-suited to using graduated filters?
