PDA

View Full Version : 135mm or 150mm (4x5) for a first time LF shooter?



m00dawg
7-Aug-2017, 20:04
I've been scouring eBay for 4x5 lenses to mate with my Intrepid and have been wondering if there is a significant difference between 135mm and 150mm? If I did my math right (I probably didn't) in 35mm that would be around 45mm vs 50mm?

Part of the reason I'm wondering is for weight. I noticed the Nikon 135mm 5.6 is only 200g whereas most of the 150mm seem to be around 250g (I'm using this (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html) chart for reference). Since I want to at least eventually take some gear with me hiking I figured if all things were mostly equal (including price) I might pick the lens which weighs less.

David Karp
7-Aug-2017, 21:32
A standard 150mm is pretty small. I prefer the 150mm for the larger image circle. I never warmed up to 135mm, but do very much like 120-125mm. Other than the image circle issue, it is just a matter of personal preference.

Mick Fagan
8-Aug-2017, 03:32
If weight is a priority, then you could consider the Fujinon W f/6.3 150. I have two of these. They have a Seiko #O shutter and take 40.5mm filters. I have a 40.5 to 52mm step up ring, works a treat.

One of those lenses is permanently attached to my folded down Shen Hao 4x5" camera. I simply reverse the lens board, then fold the camera; quite tiny lens.

I looked at that chart, this lens is not mentioned; or at least I couldn't find it.

The other 150 Fujinon lens I have, is mounted into a converted Polaroid rangefinder camera with a 4x5" film back.

Both are excellent for their size, weight and the quality of the image is certainly good enough.

The image circle at f22 is 198mm while weight is about 180g

Mick.

j.e.simmons
8-Aug-2017, 03:45
It doesn't matter. Pick one and go. Shoot for six months to a year and you'll know if you need a longer or wider lens. I never found comparison between formats to work out for me. I shoot differently with each size.

Pfsor
8-Aug-2017, 03:57
I've been scouring eBay for 4x5 lenses to mate with my Intrepid and have been wondering if there is a significant difference between 135mm and 150mm? If I did my math right (I probably didn't) in 35mm that would be around 45mm vs 50mm?

Part of the reason I'm wondering is for weight. I noticed the Nikon 135mm 5.6 is only 200g whereas most of the 150mm seem to be around 250g (I'm using this (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html) chart for reference). Since I want to at least eventually take some gear with me hiking I figured if all things were mostly equal (including price) I might pick the lens which weighs less.

Make yourself a viewing frame and you will see immediately what the difference of view is and how significant it is to you, no need to ask a third person. How about that?

BrianShaw
8-Aug-2017, 07:41
Get both or you'll spend a lot of time in the future wondering if you made the right choice!

I remember going through that thought process in the early 1980's. I chose a 135 because that's what I used on my Press camera, plus I intended to get a 90 rather than the more popular 120 for a wider lens. Having only academic knowledge of backpacking... if 50 grams will make a noticeable difference then use that as your primary criteria.

m00dawg
8-Aug-2017, 08:35
Thanks for the info folks! Gave me a lot to think about.

The 150/6.3 peaked my interested. I managed to find some info about it on BH (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800870192-USE/Fujifilm_Wide_Angle_35mm_f_2_8.html) and according to that spec sheet it's only 135g. Also seems to be a bit cheaper on eBay compared to other 150mm's. Image circle is only 180mm as well but seems otherwise like a pretty good valued lens to start and looks to be much lighter than other 150mms (lens list shows most are around 230g or so).

David Karp
8-Aug-2017, 09:07
Think about how much you might want to use front rise when using your camera. 198mm is a nice image circle, but not a lot. It is the same as the image circle on my 125mm Fujinon NW, and I run out of image circle fairly frequently when using mine. Compare that to the 224mm image circle of the 150mm f/5.6 Fujinon NW. If you are going to point your camera up like you would a medium format or 35mm camera when taking a photo of something tall, then the image circle is not going to matter. The Tessar design of the 6.3 lens will make beautiful photos.

The image circle is important to me. Perhaps not to you. The 150mm f/6.3 Fujinon W is single coated, which may or may not matter to you. The 150mm NW is multicoated. The 150mm f/6.3 is tiny. The NW is not really that much bigger (52mm filters). A Caltar II-N or Rodenstock Sironar-N (same lens) falls in between in size. It has a smaller image circle than the Fujinon NW (214mm vs. 224mm) and uses 49mm filters. Looks like the weight is 220g.

You can get reliable information on older Fujinon lenses at this site: http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byseries.htm

m00dawg
8-Aug-2017, 09:19
Ah all good points, thanks David! In truth I dunno how much I'll be using rises. This will be my first forray into LF. Tilts made me rather excited so I see myself giving that a go. Another point mentioned on /r/analog's IRC channel was that 6.3 will be darker on an already dark stock screen of the Intrepid. I plan on getting a fresnel or maybe even a Maxwell screen but not initially.

Makes me think, to the points mentioned here, I should buy multiple lenses. I think when I don't need to care about 85g the 5.6 lenses seem to be a better option. And in truth I dunno how much 85g will matter relative to trying to take this thing backpacking (I just know in general every gram starts to matter when travelling a good ways).

Doremus Scudder
8-Aug-2017, 10:51
I'll go against the consensus here a bit.

My most-used focal length is 135mm. I have a 150mm lens that sits on the shelf or in the car most of the time. I've used it once or twice (for a keeper print too, but...).

135mm is so close to 150 that when I'm deciding which lenses to take with me, I'll grab the slightly wider lens simply because I can always crop the final image a bit to get the same image as a 150mm lens would deliver, but I can't make that 150mm lens wider by a bit if I find I need it. When I'm working out of the car, I'll have my full complement of lenses along, but when hiking or traveling (which is most of the time for me), I can only carry 4-5 lenses. If I have to decide between two close focal lengths, I'll always go with the wider one just for this reason.

The down side to this is working with a smaller image circle. If you are planning on, or find yourself, doing a lot of architectural work or work that requires lots of rise or sideways shift, then maybe 150mm would be a better choice than 135mm to start with. For work that just requires tilts, you can usually work within the image circle by adding back tilt when lens tilt alone vignettes.

For the best of both worlds when doing architectural work, I carry a 135mm Wide-Field Ektar. These are a bit bigger, but have a much larger image circle than the Plasmat designs. Unfortunately, finding a clean specimen is getting more difficult and expensive. However, they still turn up reasonably from time-to-time if you find that would be a good solution for you.

Best,

Doremus

David Karp
8-Aug-2017, 12:24
Doremus makes very good points. You can't make a 150mm wider.

I love my 125mm. I like it more than my 150mm. I often run out of rise on my 125mm, so when that happens I don't like it as much as I did up to that point. I have more than a few photos that I ruined by exceeding the 125s image circle. The corners in those shots are nicely vignetted. So, I could have walked back farther (sometimes) and cropped, or walked back a bit with a 150mm and used the more generous image circle to get what I wanted. Sometimes, however, there is no room to back up. That is where the wider lens makes a difference.

So much depends on what you photograph. My focus on the image circle is based on the things I photograph. I like to photograph buildings. I live in California, so I go to places like Kings Canyon and Yosemite where the trees and geologic features are tall and I don't always want them pointed in or out as they reach for the sky. If I lived in the midwest, and was not photographing buildings, the image circle would probably not be as important for me.

And he is right about the 135mm Wide Field Ektar. Plenty of image circle on that lens, a bit more than the image circle for the 150mm Fujinon NW that I mentioned above.

Jac@stafford.net
8-Aug-2017, 12:52
About 14 years ago I got a Linhof Super Technika V with 3 lenses and matching cams. I still have it, probably for life.

The nominal 'normal' lens that came with it was the Zeiss Planar 135mm f/3.5. I've come to think of it as a press-camera lens due to its small circle of coverage, although what it can do it does very well, and I appreciate the brilliant image on the ground-glass and no apparent focus-shift upon stopping down.

I am still on the fence for a 150mm with compatible cam. I really do use the rangefinder for first-focus before adjustments. I'm too old to change habits. I think.

--
Old Jac with bad eyesight :)

morecfm
8-Aug-2017, 13:05
Part of the reason I'm wondering is for weight. I noticed the Nikon 135mm 5.6 is only 200g whereas most of the 150mm seem to be around 250g (I'm using this (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html) chart for reference). Since I want to at least eventually take some gear with me hiking I figured if all things were mostly equal (including price) I might pick the lens which weighs less.

50 grams is less than two ounces, perhaps about the weight of a snack bar or two. Not significant in my mind. However, I'd also be thinking like the previous replies to go with the wider option for the reasons given. A graflex optar or similar press camera lens can be found for a fraction of the cost of your camera to get you started.

Vaughn
8-Aug-2017, 13:55
I bought a 150mm/5.6 with my second 4x5 (~1983). I had used the university's equipment to begin with...135s, 150s and 180s. My first 4x5, in 1980, came with a 210/6.3 (Computar) and a major light leak. I set them aside, but that camera/lens set became a fine 5x7 eventually.

The 4x5 with the 150mm lens (together weighs 2.5 pounds) became my only LF camera, for a decade until I moved up to 5x7. it was great for bicycle-touring, backpacking, traveling over-seas, etc. I used the 210mm on the 5x7, then eventually moved up to the 300mm on the 8x10 in the mid-90s. So I am biased towards 'normal' focal lengths, though over the past decade I have added a few more lenses for the 8x10 (210, 250, 360, 19", 24")...the 300 still gets the most use.

I have always been inclined to use 100% of the usable image on a negative. First with enlarging 120 and 4x5 negatives, then contacting in alt processes. If I cannot fit all I want on the negative, or have to include what I do not want, I do not take the photograph. Keeps thing simple and my sight keen. It also means I spend a lot of time under the darkcloth. Somehow tied to this is the use of the 'normal' focal length lens for the format. I have no good reason why.

And for no reason : Silliness!

One can't make a 150mm 'wider' and you can't make a 135mm 'wider'...you can't even do it to a 90mm. So what? And you can crop negatives made with any of those lenses. I say, learn to see with the lens you have on the format you are using, and think less about adding and subtracting!

m00dawg
8-Aug-2017, 15:11
Thanks again folks! I agree the wider option sounds has some pros, and yeah I might be splitting hairs on weight. I didn't think about the press lenses so I'll take a look at those as well. Again lots of options to think about so thanks so much for all the help me, a newbie LF photographer!

Bob Salomon
8-Aug-2017, 15:23
We were the Linhof distributor in the USA from the late 70s till early in 2015. We were the USA Rodenstock distributor from 1986 till 2015. Far and away, during all those years, the three most popular lenses for 45 in our experience were the 90mm the 150mm and the 210mm. No other focal lengths were even close to these in sales.

m00dawg
8-Aug-2017, 15:44
I'm about to derail my own thread but I hope with things like Intrepid that LF might be making a comeback along with the rest of film? Would have to rise pretty high to make Fuji and Nikon start doing even small lens runs I think but I'm super excited to give it a go. It blew my mind the flexibility of LF when I finally learned about movements. I had no idea you could do that until very recently. Really it's the catalyst that got me to put in an order for the Intrepid 4x5. That and the thought of being able to look at large slides.

xkaes
8-Aug-2017, 15:45
The only possible advantage of using a 135mm lens vs a 150mm lens is that it takes in a little more of "the scene". That allows you to do a little cropping in the darkroom, should that be needed. With a 150mm lens, you can't ADD anything. ToMAYto -- ToMATo.

Pere Casals
8-Aug-2017, 15:47
I've been scouring eBay for 4x5 lenses to mate with my Intrepid and have been wondering if there is a significant difference between 135mm and 150mm? If I did my math right (I probably didn't) in 35mm that would be around 45mm vs 50mm?

Part of the reason I'm wondering is for weight. I noticed the Nikon 135mm 5.6 is only 200g whereas most of the 150mm seem to be around 250g (I'm using this (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html) chart for reference). Since I want to at least eventually take some gear with me hiking I figured if all things were mostly equal (including price) I might pick the lens which weighs less.

50 grs is nothing in a 4x5 backpack. Just consider weight of a film holder.

If you are to use it more for landscape the 135mm is more useful, and you always can crop. If you are to do a lot of portraiture you may prefer the 150mm.


But the question has an important aftermath, as you may desire a lens kit with aprox 30% steps.

If you buy a 135mm the other lenses in your kit may be 180, 240...

If you buy the 150 next glasses may be 210 and 300.


For a first lens I find the 135 is more versatile, but once you plan a kit, I prefer having the 150 as a center point.

Bob Salomon points 90-150-210... as best selling focal lengths, this is not by chance...


Regards

Jac@stafford.net
8-Aug-2017, 16:04
We were the Linhof distributor in the USA from the late 70s till early in 2015. We were the USA Rodenstock distributor from 1986 till 2015. Far and away, during all those years, the three most popular lenses for 45 in our experience were the 90mm the 150mm and the 210mm. No other focal lengths were even close to these in sales.

That is very helpful information and should be FAQ.

I might be missing something due lack of experience, but the only lens I have that will fold into a Super Technika V is the 135mm Planar without lens cap. Am I missing something with, say, the right 150mm? Thank you for considering my question, Bob.

Sal Santamaura
8-Aug-2017, 16:16
...LF might be making a comeback along with the rest of film? Would have to rise pretty high to make Fuji and Nikon start doing even small lens runs...Not only would LF film sales have to rise pretty high (extraordinarily unlikely), but Fuji and Nikon would have to find a source for shutters. Copal quit making them. Standard mechanical shutters, that is.

Bob Salomon
8-Aug-2017, 16:20
That is very helpful information and should be FAQ.

I might be missing something due lack of experience, but the only lens I have that will fold into a Super Technika V is the 135mm Planar without lens cap. Am I missing something with, say, the right 150mm? Thank you for considering my question, Bob.

A 150 Apo Sironar S easily closes on the camera as long as it is mounted in the correct 001015 recessed lensboard.

Jac@stafford.net
8-Aug-2017, 16:29
A 150 Apo Sironar S easily closes on the camera as long as it is mounted in the correct 001015 recessed lensboard.

Oh, great! A $605.00 lens board. Who prices these things, Martians? Government contractors?
The description says the board is for wide-angle lenses. Since when was a 150mm for 4x5" wide?

Maybe one of my boards for 135mm will work. Hey, am I sitting on a gold mine?

$605.00 is insane.

Bob Salomon
8-Aug-2017, 16:33
Oh, great! a $605.00 lens board. Nuff said. Who prices these things, martians?
.

If you don't want the convenience of being able to set all shutter controls and aperture settings on the face of the recessed Comfort board you can always buy an older version used without the advantages and ease of the current version.

Jac@stafford.net
8-Aug-2017, 16:50
If you don't want the convenience of being able to set all shutter controls and aperture settings on the face of the recessed Comfort board you can always buy an older version used without the advantages and ease of the current version.

Comfort and ease at $605.00 I can do without. I have a bucket full of Linhof brand recessed boards. WTF is with Linhof prices? Desperation of a dying brand, I think. Insane.

Be glad you are retired.

My question remains: What 150mm lens will allow me to close a Super Technika V? And is there is a cam to be made to work with it?

consummate_fritterer
8-Aug-2017, 17:47
Maybe a Fujinar-W in #0 Seiko shutter?

Corran
8-Aug-2017, 23:32
Jac,

I was curious so I checked and was surprised to find that my APO Symmar did not close inside of my Technika. I assumed it would've, but I had not tried. 150mm lenses I have that do fit inside would be my G-Claron, Zeiss Tessar and APO Lanthar. I think the restriction is the size of the front element. The APO Symmar has a 58mm filter thread and seems to just be a tad too big to fit in between the rails - so anything with a smaller front filter thread may fit.

Bob Salomon
9-Aug-2017, 02:18
Jac,

I was curious so I checked and was surprised to find that my APO Symmar did not close inside of my Technika. I assumed it would've, but I had not tried. 150mm lenses I have that do fit inside would be my G-Claron, Zeiss Tessar and APO Lanthar. I think the restriction is the size of the front element. The APO Symmar has a 58mm filter thread and seems to just be a tad too big to fit in between the rails - so anything with a smaller front filter thread may fit.
Is it on the recessed board?

Pere Casals
9-Aug-2017, 02:22
Oh, great! A $605.00 lens board. Who prices these things, Martians? Government contractors?
The description says the board is for wide-angle lenses. Since when was a 150mm for 4x5" wide?

Maybe one of my boards for 135mm will work. Hey, am I sitting on a gold mine?

$605.00 is insane.

Goverment contractors might be involved... no martian can compete with Goverment contractors. :)


Anyway this is not a bare board, but a refined kit, so price not that rare for a top quality brand:

168061

German material is usually intended to last for ever, price is usually excessive, but they didn't invent the "Planned obsolescence".

LabRat
9-Aug-2017, 04:45
Comfort and ease at $605.00 I can do without. I have a bucket full of Linhof brand recessed boards. WTF is with Linhof prices? Desperation of a dying brand, I think. Insane.

Be glad you are retired.

My question remains: What 150mm lens will allow me to close a Super Technika V? And is there is a cam to be made to work with it?

Cheer up, Jac,

Think of how much some minor replacement parts are for cars??? (I have replaced parts that I could have paid for a Biogon or Summicron, but with the grease and grime on them...)

Like the old saying/ If you have to ask how much, you probably can't afford it... But for most of us, cost IS an object, an obstacle as high as a great wall!!!

But don't worry, there are workarounds... We just have to get smarter/better, and ain't no stopping us from getting our shots!!! ;-)

Steve K

Jac@stafford.net
9-Aug-2017, 07:23
[quote]German material is usually intended to last for ever

Someone should remind Leica of that.

David Lindquist
9-Aug-2017, 07:34
B&H's price of $605 for the 001015 is probably due to Omega-Brandess's (The U.S. Linhof distributor) price of $677. Linhof Studio's price is 249 GBP or $323. They get these from Linhof in Germany. Linhof's September 2016 price list shows 286 Euros or $336 for the 001015. Linhof's website shows a new price list is coming and invites price inquiries in the mean time. Caveats: I've rounded off the prices. Dollar equivalents based on an online currency converter yesterday for GBP to USD and today for Euros to USD. None of this is intended to be nor should be taken as financial advice...
David

Pere Casals
9-Aug-2017, 08:22
[QUOTE=Pere Casals;1401999]

Someone should remind Leica of that.

I've never used a true Leica... but FED "temperamental" :) copies...

Anyway 1925 Leica-I series are still riding. The Barnak prototype was from 1913... a landmark, as he invented the 135 format...

I like the mechanical motor "Mooly" , no battery, just a crank :)

168067


But I don't realy know anything about M9 and the like...

But speaking about LF german gear, no doubt that Linhofs are a piece of gear, refined, sturdy and life lasting.

xkaes
9-Aug-2017, 09:05
Anyway 1925 Leica-I series are still riding. The Barnak prototype was from 1913... a landmark, as he invented the 135 format...

You need to be more careful with your wording. Dickson created the 135 format decades before:

W.K.L. Dickson, in an article that he wrote for the SMPTE Journal in 1933, described his central role in the development of Edison's Kinetoscope and Kinetograph. It gives us a look at how 35mm film and still cameras evolved. Dickson was a researcher for Edison, and was put onto the Motion Picture project in 1887. By 1888, he was able to make some sort of motion pictures using multipe rows of tiny shots on Carbutt's stiff sensitized celluloid.

Coincidentally, in late 1888, George Eastman's company gave a private demonstration of a new product at the New York Camera Club, which Dickson happened to attend. He immediately opened discussions with the Eastman company, and was soon dealing directly with George, who supplied them with many samples of short lengths of Eastman's new flexible film. As Dickson worked with the stuff, he came back to Eastman requesting finer grain, greater sensitivity of emulsion, and greater flexibility of the base. He worked very closely with Eastman to refine the product right from the beginning. Dickson's account gives the impression that the flexible film we know today was developed with a lot of input from the Edison experimenters to meet motion picture needs. He states that he received his first 50-foot rolls of film from Eastman in the spring of 1889, and that:

"All these samples and experiments were made exclusively for us by Mr. Eastman, who took an ever-increasing interest in what we were doing."

The Edison people had to cut and sprocket the stuff themselves, and it is unclear what the exact width these first 50 foot rolls were. Dickson goes on:

"At the end of the year 1889, I increased the width of the picture from 1/2 inch to 3/4. The actual width of the film was 1 3/8 inches to allow for perforations now punched on both edges, 4 holes to the phase or picture, which perforations were a shade smaller than those now in use. This standardized film size of 1889 has remained, with only minor variation, unaltered to date."

This was true in 1889, and it's still true today. It's interesting that he gives the dimensions in inches, not millimeters. If you measure a piece of 35mm film, you'll see that it's exactly 1 3/8 inches across (only 34.8mm). So when people ask me what type of film I shoot, I tell the "one and three eigths"!

So in sum, Eastman's flexible base film was developed for motion picture use from its earliest stages, even before it was publicly announced, by a close collaboration between Eastman and the Edison company, and the 35mm format was standardized as early as 1889. The first still cameras that used 35mm film (approximately 1914) used the same style and format as the movie picture cameras of the time. The film ran vertically in these still cameras and produced an image of about 18mm x 24mm. Later, when the first horizontally-styled cameras using 35mm film were designed, they were called double frame to separate them from the original format -- which was dubbed single-frame. These later evolved into the terms -- full-frame and half-frame. What a history!

John Kasaian
9-Aug-2017, 10:43
Back to the OP's situation re a first lens---here's my thoughts:
You need a lens to tell you what lens you'll want.
Marginal coverage, broken shutters, wanky cell spacing, or extreme focal lengths are all counter productive to this end.
Just about any un-bubba-fied lens from 120 to 210mm that has a modicum of wiggle room and roosts in a reliable shutter that will fit on your camera's schnozzle is enough to start. Shoot with that for awhile and see before investing big bucks.

My 2-cents, and certainly debatable.

Corran
9-Aug-2017, 12:48
Is it on the recessed board?

I did forget to specify. Everything I tried was on a normal flat board, as Jac was asking about. I have no reason to use any of my 150mm lenses on recessed boards, but I assume from your question that perhaps the APO Symmar works on the "comfort" board. However I don't need to fit it inside the Technika and secondly, as mentioned, the prices on boards from Linhof are exorbitant. It's a piece of metal with some extra bits. And don't get me started about how the Linhof QR socket is utter garbage.

Okay, back to the thread...

Bob Salomon
9-Aug-2017, 13:06
I did forget to specify. Everything I tried was on a normal flat board, as Jac was asking about. I have no reason to use any of my 150mm lenses on recessed boards, but I assume from your question that perhaps the APO Symmar works on the "comfort" board. However I don't need to fit it inside the Technika and secondly, as mentioned, the prices on boards from Linhof are exorbitant. It's a piece of metal with some extra bits. And don't get me started about how the Linhof QR socket is utter garbage.

Okay, back to the thread...

The old QR socket is no longer used and a newer version has been in use for several heats now. It is easy to tell them apart as the old one uses a wire from the socket to the shutter and the new one uses a very short cable release from the socket to the shutter.
As for the 150 mounted and closing into the camera, this requires the recessed board with modern 150 lenses from Rodenstock and Schneider in 0 shutters.

Bob Salomon
9-Aug-2017, 13:11
Jac,

I was curious so I checked and was surprised to find that my APO Symmar did not close inside of my Technika. I assumed it would've, but I had not tried. 150mm lenses I have that do fit inside would be my G-Claron, Zeiss Tessar and APO Lanthar. I think the restriction is the size of the front element. The APO Symmar has a 58mm filter thread and seems to just be a tad too big to fit in between the rails - so anything with a smaller front filter thread may fit.
Actually the lens has to fit into the circular hole between the tracks when the bed is closed. Measure the diameter of that hole and you will know what diameter lens will fit when closed. Then you need to know how far the lens will protrude when it is fully retracted into the body. If it protrudes to far on a flat board then you need the recessed board.

Jac@stafford.net
9-Aug-2017, 13:16
Actually the lens has to fit into the circular hole between the tracks when the bed is closed. Measure the diameter of that hole and you will know what diameter lens will fit when closed. Then you need to know how far the lens will protrude when it is fully retracted into the body. If it protrudes to far on a flat board then you need the recessed board.

Bob is mostly right. :) The 135mm Planar in its supplied recessed board fits when folded, but it so very close that it will not close if you have a lens cap or filter on it.

m00dawg
9-Aug-2017, 16:19
Back to the OP's situation re a first lens---here's my thoughts:
You need a lens to tell you what lens you'll want.
Marginal coverage, broken shutters, wanky cell spacing, or extreme focal lengths are all counter productive to this end.
Just about any un-bubba-fied lens from 120 to 210mm that has a modicum of wiggle room and roosts in a reliable shutter that will fit on your camera's schnozzle is enough to start. Shoot with that for awhile and see before investing big bucks.

My 2-cents, and certainly debatable.

Yeah that's basically the conclusion I'm reaching as well. For the most part, I've been using standard prime focals lengths in my forray back into film photography (so 50mm for 35, 80mm for 645). Not for necessarily any major reason other than only having 1 lens for my Mamiya 1000s currently. I have a few carry-overs on 35mm from my DSLR but even then I still find if I'm shooting on my Nikon N80 I still tend to use the 50mm most (though I'd had a lot of fun with my 17-35). Thus simply getting a 150mm and calling it done would probably less of a change given LF itself is a pretty big change.

135mm was mostly for the idea of saving marginal amounts of weight, but seems like if I really wanna do that, the 150 6.3 is the lens to get there. I _think_ I'm gonna go for a 150/5.6 just because that seems a lot more common (and the Intrepid focus screen is known for being pretty dim stock).

Who knows though, I have lots of time to figure this out until my 4x5 camera gets here :) Also trying to wait for some deals on eBay. There's a lot of lenses from Japan in various states but seems like a lot of auctioneers are using the exact same or similar descriptions which makes me kinda nervous.

xkaes
9-Aug-2017, 18:01
135mm was mostly for the idea of saving marginal amounts of weight, but seems like if I really wanna do that, the 150 6.3 is the lens to get there. I _think_ I'm gonna go for a 150/5.6 just because that seems a lot more common (and the Intrepid focus screen is known for being pretty dim stock).

One thing to consider is that many (most?) 150mm f6.3 lenses are four element designs. Many (most?) of the 150mm f5.6 lenses are six element designs. A little heavier, a little brighter, and from my experience, a little better resolution.

John Kasaian
9-Aug-2017, 19:01
After 30 days you'll be able to access the FS forum here. Until then take a look at www.keh.com which has an excellent reputation.

David Karp
9-Aug-2017, 22:14
I have had good luck buying Fujinon lenses from Japanese sellers with high feedback scored on eBay.

Pere Casals
10-Aug-2017, 05:25
If you want careful wording, here we go:


You need to be more careful with your wording. Dickson created the 135 format decades before:

You are a bit lost: You are mixing 35mm film with 135 format:

"The term 135 (ISO 1007) was introduced by Kodak in 1934 as a designation for the cassette for 35 mm film".

If you require careful wording to others at least you should also do the same. :)


The careful wording of what I was saying is:

"The Leica camera designed by Oskar Barnack proved that a format as small as 24 mm 36 mm ("double frame") was suitable for professional photography.
Although Barnack designed his prototype camera around 1913, the first experimental production run of ur-Leicas (Serial No. 100 to 130) did not take place until 1923. " (wiki)



This relates to Large Format (and MF) as the irruption in the market of a more efficient small format, of course, at the end, LF and MF conserved the well known market niches.


PD: Sorry for the off, just a last clarification.

m00dawg
10-Aug-2017, 05:50
I have had good luck buying Fujinon lenses from Japanese sellers with high feedback scored on eBay.

Actually I did almost buy one yesterday off the bay. I think when I ordered my Intrepid they showed a 6-8 week delivery window and it's been about 2 weeks so was on the fence about waiting for the FS forum here or just giving one of the Japanese eBay stores a go. The goal is to have everything I need to use it by the time it gets here.

consummate_fritterer
10-Aug-2017, 10:48
If you want careful wording, here we go:



You are a bit lost: You are mixing 35mm film with 135 format:

"The term 135 (ISO 1007) was introduced by Kodak in 1934 as a designation for the cassette for 35 mm film".

If you require careful wording to others at least you should also do the same. :)


The careful wording of what I was saying is:

"The Leica camera designed by Oskar Barnack proved that a format as small as 24 mm 36 mm ("double frame") was suitable for professional photography.
Although Barnack designed his prototype camera around 1913, the first experimental production run of ur-Leicas (Serial No. 100 to 130) did not take place until 1923. " (wiki)



This relates to Large Format (and MF) as the irruption in the market of a more efficient small format, of course, at the end, LF and MF conserved the well known market niches.


PD: Sorry for the off, just a last clarification.

I never use the term "35mm" when referring to "135 format" film. I believe 135 format film is 35mm total width but I prefer the "original factory designation".

Why don't we call 120 format film, "60mm"? I've never seen it referred to as 60mm, though there may be factions of the industry which do.

xkaes
10-Aug-2017, 12:52
Whether anyone is talking about "35mm film" or the Eastman Kodak 135 cassette which holds "35mm film" -- it is not 35mm film. Measure it yourself. It is 1 3/8" across. And neither Leitz, Leica, or Oskar Barnack created the first format for it -- as many are mislead to believe. The first format was developed in the late 1880's by Dickson through the collaboration of the Edison and Eastman teams. They created the film -- 1 3/8" wide -- and the original format. Over the years, several others have created different formats using "35mm" film, some using the 135 cassettes, and others not -- such as the Tessina cameras using the Tessina cassette. Some of these have been acclaimed as innovations, but others have been simply ridiculed.

Bob Salomon
10-Aug-2017, 13:19
Whether anyone is talking about "35mm film" or the Eastman Kodak 135 cassette which holds "35mm film" -- it is not 35mm film. Measure it yourself. It is 1 3/8" across. And neither Leitz, Leica, or Oskar Barnack created the first format for it -- as many are mislead to believe. The first format was developed in the late 1880's by Dickson through the collaboration of the Edison and Eastman teams. They created the film -- 1 3/8" wide -- and the original format.

But then there was the first still camera using that film and exhibited at the St Louis World Fair by a Reverend Smith. It never went into production.

AuditorOne
10-Aug-2017, 13:32
There were a lot of people building still cameras using the 35mm movie film before the Leica came along. However, since Leica is the only one still going from that time period I guess the winner gets to write the history, right?

consummate_fritterer
10-Aug-2017, 15:16
Whether anyone is talking about "35mm film" or the Eastman Kodak 135 cassette which holds "35mm film" -- it is not 35mm film. Measure it yourself. It is 1 3/8" across. And neither Leitz, Leica, or Oskar Barnack created the first format for it -- as many are mislead to believe. The first format was developed in the late 1880's by Dickson through the collaboration of the Edison and Eastman teams. They created the film -- 1 3/8" wide -- and the original format. Over the years, several others have created different formats using "35mm" film, some using the 135 cassettes, and others not -- such as the Tessina cameras using the Tessina cassette. Some of these have been acclaimed as innovations, but others have been simply ridiculed.

1 3/8" = 35mm :D

xkaes
10-Aug-2017, 15:57
Sounds like someone needs a calculator. 1 3/8" does not equal 35mm. It is 34.925mm. I've provided proof from the guy who created the film in 1888. But don't believe me -- or him -- just measure the film yourself. It is not 35mm.

Plus, the original incorrectly-named 35mm film was movie camera film. It was not remade or changed to be still camera film -- still cameras were made to use movie film -- which was 1 3/8". Not the other way around.

But since it's been mentioned, perhaps we should call what we use as 1 3/8" movie film -- because movie cameras are still being used that were made to use it. Beats Leica by a wide margin.

consummate_fritterer
10-Aug-2017, 16:18
Good grief... yes, I can calculate as well as you can. You're going to argue over 75 thousandths of 1 millimeter?:) Many machining errors are greater than that. For most practical purposes, 35mm and 1-3/8" are essentially the same.:D

HOWEVER, historically you're right. It's not 35mm width. It's 1-3/8". But so what? Even IF it was factory-designed as 35mm that designation is still a misnomer. The CORRECT Eastman Kodak format is 135.

Argue further if you wish. I'll not comment again on this silliness.;)

xkaes
10-Aug-2017, 16:31
I'm not arguing. I'm simply giving credit where credit is due. I did not say:

>>"The Barnak prototype was from 1913... a landmark, as he invented the 135 format..."<<

All I was attempting to do was correct this misconception -- and it is a long-standing misconception in photography, in many ways. Most shutterbugs could not care less what happened in the 19th century. But a few are interested in the history of our wonderful film, cameras, and lenses. What "35mm" camera users have in their cameras is 1 3/8" movie film -- no matter what format they are using, or what they call it.

Jac@stafford.net
10-Aug-2017, 16:42
I'm not arguing. I'm simply giving credit where credit is due. I did not say:

>>"The Barnak prototype was from 1913... a landmark, as he invented the 135 format..."<<

All I was attempting to do was correct this misconception -- and it is a long-standing misconception in photography, in many ways. Most shutterbugs could not care less what happened in the 19th century. But a few are interested in the history of our wonderful film, cameras, and lenses. What "35mm" camera users have in their cameras is 1 3/8" movie film -- no matter what format they are using, or what they call it.

With different sprocket holes.

consummate_fritterer
10-Aug-2017, 16:43
I'm not arguing. I'm simply giving credit where credit is due. I did not say:

>>"The Barnak prototype was from 1913... a landmark, as he invented the 135 format..."<<

All I was attempting to do was correct this misconception -- and it is a long-standing misconception in photography, in many ways. Most shutterbugs could not care less what happened in the 19th century. But a few are interested in the history of our wonderful film, cameras, and lenses. What "35mm" camera users have in their cameras is 1 3/8" movie film -- no matter what format they are using, or what they call it.

Yes, but it seems you made a big deal of the actual measurement (1-3/8" vs. 35mm). I only argue that the difference is minuscule. I AGREE that 35mm is a misnomer for the EK 135 film format. I never refer to 135 format as "35mm".

Mick Fagan
10-Aug-2017, 17:04
Actually I did almost buy one yesterday off the bay. I think when I ordered my Intrepid they showed a 6-8 week delivery window and it's been about 2 weeks so was on the fence about waiting for the FS forum here or just giving one of the Japanese eBay stores a go. The goal is to have everything I need to use it by the time it gets here.

Fantastic, what did you get?

Mick.

xkaes
11-Aug-2017, 10:04
With different sprocket holes.

And different film speeds, and different thicknesses, and different ....

The issue is the original film size and format -- NOT what came later.

BrianShaw
11-Aug-2017, 10:10
This is all interesting but how does it help m00dawg... or has his question been answered?

Vaughn
11-Aug-2017, 10:13
This is all interesting but how does it help m00dawg... or has his question been answered?

Answered a while back.

John Kasaian
11-Aug-2017, 11:16
What a strange and peculiar departure from the OP's thread this turned out to be, LOL!

Vaughn
11-Aug-2017, 11:27
Pretty much by four pages (esp w/o images) simple questions are fully answered -- then release the Kraken!

m00dawg
11-Aug-2017, 11:57
Haha well now I know a bit more how the LFP forums work hehe. On the note of my original question, I'm thinking about starting out with a 150mm 5.6 at the get-go and going from there. Seems to be the best option for a first lens. The 6.3 has me interested because it's so light but I think I would be better served by the more common 5.6. Then I think next I might get a wide at some point (once I'm more comfortable with the camera).

Given costs for things like a scanner, and all the other stuff I need to get, I can only get one lens at the get-go so seems like the 150mm is the best choice.

And back to the Kraken (BTW I learned a lot about the origins of 35mm as part of that conversation so was a good read!)

Jac@stafford.net
11-Aug-2017, 12:14
[...]And back to the Kraken (BTW I learned a lot about the origins of 35mm as part of that conversation so was a good read!)

150mm is good! Regarding film sizes, the actual exposed area of 4x5 sheet film is not 4x5. :) Just to keep things interesting.

xkaes
11-Aug-2017, 13:30
True, but it's interesting how 4x5" film somehow managed to always remain in inches, while 1 3/8" film somehow turned into metric!

consummate_fritterer
11-Aug-2017, 13:54
This is becoming silly, xkaes. Forgive my impatience but I have a difficult time not replying to personal attacks. As a friendly community, we should all try to be less denigrating to one another.

BrianShaw
11-Aug-2017, 14:25
Haha well now I know a bit more how the LFP forums work hehe. On the note of my original question, I'm thinking about starting out with a 150mm 5.6 at the get-go and going from there. Seems to be the best option for a first lens. The 6.3 has me interested because it's so light but I think I would be better served by the more common 5.6. Then I think next I might get a wide at some point (once I'm more comfortable with the camera).

Given costs for things like a scanner, and all the other stuff I need to get, I can only get one lens at the get-go so seems like the 150mm is the best choice.

And back to the Kraken (BTW I learned a lot about the origins of 35mm as part of that conversation so was a good read!)

Is one allowed to re-address the original topic once the first question has been answered and the thread has taken on a life of its own... or are you required to start a new thread?

But the other discussion sure is interesting... I agree with that!

Pere Casals
11-Aug-2017, 14:41
What a strange and peculiar departure from the OP's thread this turned out to be, LOL!

Yeah !!! from 135mm focal length to 135 format, LOL

Ivan J. Eberle
11-Aug-2017, 16:23
There isn't a focal length equivalence, only angle of view. 135mm ( or 150mm) behaves the same with respect to depth of field no matter what format camera it's mounted to. I'd suggest a 135mn because it's easier to get more of a scene in focus with shorter focal lengths. I can also recommend a Rodenstock Sironar N (I had the Caltar II-N version, same exact lens) as being both excellent and tiny.
Many of the common press camera lenses in 135mm were quite good, too, stopped down to f/16-22, but finding them in working shutters becomes something of an issue now that these are all 50-60 years old

Pere Casals
12-Aug-2017, 03:08
135mm ( or 150mm) behaves the same with respect to depth of field no matter what format camera it's mounted to.

Not at all.

Well... the actual circle of confusion may be very similar, or the same if same lens is used by different formats, but there is a huge difference... as in LF you can tolerate a x4 of 8x larger circle or confusion than with smaller "full format".

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Here you can see that DOF master suggests a DOF of 0.16m for 35mm film, while 1.1m for 8x10". This is for 135mm focal, f/5.6 and 3m far subject (perfect focus plane distance). Note that SW 120 and 150 Nikkors do exist for 8x10.

This is because in one case 0.03mm circle can be tolerated, and 0.2mm in the other.

Those circles may be arbitrary and also all depends on own criterion, but it is true that for picture "same sharpness" 135mm focal behaves way, way different depending on the format size, about DOF.


168238

xkaes
12-Aug-2017, 08:22
If I put my Fujinon 135mm -- set at any f-stop -- on my Toko 4x5 or on my Olympus Pen F Half Frame, I would get the same DOF if a piece of each negative of the same size were enlarged to the same sized print. That's obvious.

If I enlarged the Pen F negative to the size of the 4x5 negative, there would be much less DOF since the 135mm on the Pen F is a long telephoto, but a wide-angle on the 4x5.

To get the same angle of view on the Pen F, I would need to use around a 25mm lens -- which would increase the DOF on the Pen F result tremendously and match the DOF of the 4x5 print IF THE MAGNIFICATION OF THE PRINTS WERE THE SAME, let's say an 8x10" for the Pen F print and 2x3' for the 4x5 print, or something like that.

moltogordo
12-Aug-2017, 22:28
I've used 150mm a lot, but for the past two years I've been using a Nikkor-W 180mm f5.6. I prefer the slightly longer focal lengths. As Doramus Scudder points out above, though, the slightly shorter focal lengths (135, 150) allow you leave a little more "air" in the picture to facilitate cropping. After all, when using the large formats and doing darkroom work, the large areas of a 4x5 allow significant cropping with insignificant loss of quality in the final print.

My game plan is usually to frame exactly if I have done the shot before (I like to revisit sites and retake pictures under different conditions) so I use the 180. But if I am shooting something for the first time I'll usually leave air so then go to my 135 Schneider or my 150 Fuj.

So I suggest you start off with the 150, and when you feel your way around, go the direction in which your shooting demands. You'll end up with two lenses, one allowing more air. Not a bad way to do it.

Pere Casals
13-Aug-2017, 04:12
My game plan is usually to frame exactly if I have done the shot before.



Just some personal thoughts about exactly framing...

Framming exactly is a nice practice, I also like it. It is a challenge and it speaks about photographer skills.

Cartier-Bresson wanted prints showing the margin...

Also it is a good practice for cinematographers, that have a target aspect ratio.


But LF photography may need cropping, IMHO it is a very pro practice. Sometimes one may want to shot from a precise point to get a desired perpective, then it happens that no lens in the kit delivers the visualized framming: no zoom so cropping.

It also happens that some images are calling for a particular aspect ratio that it is not 4x5. You may want certain lines pointing a corner, etc and the scene doesn't allow that with 4x5.

While an exact framing is exciting a Pro needs to be effective, a wider shot allows for that.


IMHO the 6x6 hassy is a very pro gear/format, once I was discussing that with a retired photographer that made his 30 years living from two hassy. I arged that the square format was a limitation, he replied that he never sold an square print, pointing that he never needed a revolving back or rotating a 6x7 camera, 6x6 is a vert and hor format by cutting one cm. He was concentrated in the subject eyes (focus and taking shot after a flicker), face expression, all that... and later in post accurate composition (and Hor/vert and format) was solved from a wider shot. This is a Pro way.


At the end both ways are very nice, just sometimes shooting wider and cropping is a need and we have no choice.

xkaes
13-Aug-2017, 05:05
Framing a subject/object exactly is great -- when it happens. I'm sure I've experienced it at some point, in some format. But off the top of my head, I can't remember ANY print that I have made without SOME cropping on the easel -- and usually a couple of other adjustments as well. 4x5 is perfect for an 8x10 or 16x20 print, but 5x7 or 11x14 paper means cropping -- or cutting the paper (which I have done). But since I do a LOT of LARGE prints, I'm constantly cutting the paper to whatever size I want.

LabRat
13-Aug-2017, 06:07
Bernice Abbott used to describe the term "organic borders" where the edges "disappear" and the viewer seems to imagine what expands beyond the borders... I think that means to keep the borders simple, not to make them look too "forced", and allow what elements that start outside the frame to not start until it can start inside the frame and build into the composition, provide space for in-frame elements to come to rest before the borders, and isolate the core forms without starting other forms into motion...

Visualizing objects into it's skeleton form, and overlaying or establishing relationships with them makes for interesting composition...

Steve K

ic-racer
13-Aug-2017, 08:21
Whether anyone is talking about "35mm film" or the Eastman Kodak 135 cassette which holds "35mm film" -- it is not 35mm film. Measure it yourself. It is 1 3/8" across.

My 35mm film measures 35mm across. How are you doing the measurement. I hold the film flat and bring the 'outside' caliper arms to match the outside edge of the film. I don't try to squeeze it with the 'inside' caliper arms.

Pere Casals
13-Aug-2017, 11:21
Measure it yourself. It is 1 3/8" across.

Not exactly, it is 0.002" wider than you say, and with a tolerance of 0.001". In practice not a great difference...


My 35mm film measures 35mm across. How are you doing the measurement. I hold the film flat and bring the 'outside' caliper arms to match the outside edge of the film. I don't try to squeeze it with the 'inside' caliper arms.

The 35mm film originally was specified 1.375" in 1892 this is 1 3/8". Today norm (ISO 1007 ?) specifies 34.98 0.03 mm (1.377 0.001 inches) wide.

xkaes
13-Aug-2017, 12:20
The 35mm film originally was specified 1.375" in 1892 this is 1 3/8".

It was earlier than that -- 1889. Here are some words from the originator:

W.K.L. Dickson, in an article that he wrote for the SMPTE Journal in 1933, described his central role in the development of Edison's Kinetoscope and Kinetograph. It gives us a look at how 35mm film and still cameras evolved. Dickson was a researcher for Edison, and was put onto the Motion Picture project in 1887. By 1888, he was able to make some sort of motion pictures using multipe rows of tiny shots on Carbutt's stiff sensitized celluloid.

Coincidentally, in late 1888, George Eastman's company gave a private demonstration of a new product at the New York Camera Club, which Dickson happened to attend. He immediately opened discussions with the Eastman company, and was soon dealing directly with George, who supplied them with many samples of short lengths of Eastman's new flexible film. As Dickson worked with the stuff, he came back to Eastman requesting finer grain, greater sensitivity of emulsion, and greater flexibility of the base. He worked very closely with Eastman to refine the product right from the beginning. Dickson's account gives the impression that the flexible film we know today was developed with a lot of input from the Edison experimenters to meet motion picture needs. He states that he received his first 50-foot rolls of film from Eastman in the spring of 1889, and that:

"All these samples and experiments were made exclusively for us by Mr. Eastman, who took an ever-increasing interest in what we were doing."

The Edison people had to cut and sprocket the stuff themselves, and it is unclear what the exact width these first 50 foot rolls were. Dickson goes on:

"At the end of the year 1889, I increased the width of the picture from 1/2 inch to 3/4. The actual width of the film was 1 3/8 inches to allow for perforations now punched on both edges, 4 holes to the phase or picture, which perforations were a shade smaller than those now in use. This standardized film size of 1889 has remained, with only minor variation, unaltered to date."

Pere Casals
13-Aug-2017, 13:37
It was earlier than that -- 1889. .... The actual width of the film was 1 3/8 inches to allow for perforations now punched on both edges, 4 holes to the phase or picture, which perforations were a shade smaller than those now in use. This standardized film size of 1889 has remained, with only minor variation, unaltered to date."


Well, 1892 should be the year it was introduced in the market...

Anyway I was not discussing if it was originated in 1889 or 1892, just I was pointing that present 135 film is not 1 3/8", but slightly wider 1.377", as ISO 1007 norm says, regarding your discrepance with ic-racer.

There was a not worth 1/1000" off topic debate, and I just pointed the facts about width.

xkaes
13-Aug-2017, 13:50
Well, 1892 should be the year it was introduced in the market...

Anyway I was not discussing if it was originated in 1889 or 1892, just I was pointig that present 135 film is not 1 3/8", but slightly wider 1.377", as ISO 1007 norm says, regarding your discrepance with ic-racer.

Unfortunately, you are wrong. 135 film, or whatever you call it, is the same width it was in 1889 and 1933 --- 1 3/8" -- as mentioned in Dickson's article. Measure it yourself. Some manufacturers might "fudge" a tiny bit, but the width of the film was establsihed in 1889, NOT 1892.

faberryman
13-Aug-2017, 14:14
Just some personal thoughts about exactly framing...

Framming exactly is a nice practice, I also like it. It is a challenge and it speaks about photographer skills.

Cartier-Bresson wanted prints showing the margin...

Also it is a good practice for cinematographers, that have a target aspect ratio.


But LF photography may need cropping, IMHO it is a very pro practice. Sometimes one may want to shot from a precise point to get a desired perpective, then it happens that no lens in the kit delivers the visualized framming: no zoom so cropping.

It also happens that some images are calling for a particular aspect ratio that it is not 4x5. You may want certain lines pointing a corner, etc and the scene doesn't allow that with 4x5.

While an exact framing is exciting a Pro needs to be effective, a wider shot allows for that.


IMHO the 6x6 hassy is a very pro gear/format, once I was discussing that with a retired photographer that made his 30 years living from two hassy. I arged that the square format was a limitation, he replied that he never sold an square print, pointing that he never needed a revolving back or rotating a 6x7 camera, 6x6 is a vert and hor format by cutting one cm. He was concentrated in the subject eyes (focus and taking shot after a flicker), face expression, all that... and later in post accurate composition (and Hor/vert and format) was solved from a wider shot. This is a Pro way.


At the end both ways are very nice, just sometimes shooting wider and cropping is a need and we have no choice.
What a bunch of silly nonsense. What does whether you are getting paid or not have to do with aesthetic cropping choices?

Jac@stafford.net
13-Aug-2017, 14:28
What a bunch of silly nonsense. What does whether you are getting paid or not have to do with aesthetic cropping choices?

We can crop the square anywhere. Art directors like that.

faberryman
13-Aug-2017, 14:47
We can crop the square anywhere. Art directors like that.
It's an aesthetic choice. Non-professionals can crop the square anywhere too.

Jac@stafford.net
13-Aug-2017, 15:25
It's an aesthetic choice. Non-professionals can crop the square anywhere too.

Of course. That's the point. Aesthetics transcend social appointment.
.

Pere Casals
13-Aug-2017, 15:36
Unfortunately, you are wrong. 135 film, or whatever you call it, is the same width it was in 1889 and 1933 --- 1 3/8" -- as mentioned in Dickson's article. Measure it yourself. Some manufacturers might "fudge" a tiny bit, but the width of the film was establsihed in 1889, NOT 1892.

Read ISO 1007 norm that specifies present manufacturing standard for 135: 1.377" (with 0.001" tolerance), not 1.375". This is a fact. It is not about manufacturers fudging, it is about an industrial standard that's in force now: 1.377"

Then you will know if you are wrong or not about these two 1/1000".

faberryman
13-Aug-2017, 15:54
I wonder why the 1889 standard changed from 1.375" to 1.377"? And why would ISO be specifying anything in inches anyway? I would have expected the standard to be expressed using the metric system.

Pere Casals
13-Aug-2017, 15:54
What a bunch of silly nonsense. What does whether you are getting paid or not have to do with aesthetic cropping choices?

It has sense. What I was pointing is that while Pros and Amateurs both can crop or not (of course), it happens that (IMHO) Amateurs and Artists are more prone shot exact frammings than Pros, because a Pro needs to be more practical to earn his living, while an Amateur may challenge himself to make exact frammings for fun, and if a limitation arises from that there is no problem, while Pro has to sell images.

It happens the same with film usage, today it is more difficult that a Pro uses film because practical and economic reasons, while an Amateur just searches fun.

Pere Casals
13-Aug-2017, 16:03
I wonder why the 1889 standard changed from 1.375" to 1.377"?

I've no idea, also I don't know when the XIX century specification changed, single fact I know is that ISO 1007:2000-06 specifies in page 3 the film width at 1.377"

faberryman
13-Aug-2017, 16:24
It is particularly odd since we refer to it as 35mm film, which would seem to indicate that the original standard was metric to begin with. And 35mm equals 1.37795" or, rounded to three decimal places as was specified in the ISO standard, 1.378", not 1.377". I have a hard time believing that film manufacturers outside the US have designed their machinery using the imperial system. I didn't want to cough up 158 CHF for the 38 page standard to find out more though. Why should finding out what the standard is be so darn expensive?

Pere Casals
14-Aug-2017, 08:49
It is particularly odd since we refer to it as 35mm film, which would seem to indicate that the original standard was metric to begin with. And 35mm equals 1.37795" or, rounded to three decimal places as was specified in the ISO standard, 1.378", not 1.377". I have a hard time believing that film manufacturers outside the US have designed their machinery using the imperial system. I didn't want to cough up 158 CHF for the 38 page standard to find out more though. Why should finding out what the standard is be so darn expensive?

Perhaps a bit like ammunition, .38 ACP and .357 Mag are same 9.1mm... :) cameras and firearms all are shooting devices... just joking

35mm is specified 34.98 0.03 mm, so in metic units it is specified to be 34.95 to 35.01mm.

Then 34.98 / 25.4 = 1.377", with the tolerance this is 1.377" 0.001" (in fact 0.00118" ).


Germans are allergic to imperial system, clearly the 35mm film was born as 1 3/8", but it was brought to still photography by germans who perhaps named it 35mm because it is very near to that. As for still photography it was named 35mm then Kodak released the 135 format (in 1934) that includes the cassette specification. This is my guess...

Same film size can have different film format names, as 120 and 220 shows... but both 120 and 220 may be used in 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12 and 6x17 cameras. Some confussion arises about format meaning as format can be referred to a commercial film format or to a camera format. We can say 120 (film) format or 645 (camera) format.

fredfoto
14-Aug-2017, 10:01
Hi m00dawg,
My standard lens for 4x5 is a 210 process lens. G Claron. They are excellent quality, have a huge image circle, and tiny.
I have 3 lenses for 4x5, none of which are a 150. I don't like the focal length- neither here nor there. YMMV.
Look through the metadata on your computer on any work you've done on small format cameras, and you will find out your favourite focal length from the average focal length of all your shots. Go with that as your first lens equivalent on 4x5, bearing in mind things are more square on 4x5 regarding the ratio than most small formats.
With a 150, first you'll want something wider, then something longer, and then you'll never use the 150 again.
Good luck with your choice.

xkaes
14-Aug-2017, 10:57
it was brought to still photography by germans

Yet more perpetuation of the "German" myth. There were several still cameras -- BEFORE WWI -- that used the 1 3/8" movie film developed by Dickson, such as the Tourist Multiple, the Levy-Roth Minnigraph, and the Homeos -- but that was all before my country got into the War.

So there is a "German" first here -- they created the first World War!

Bob Salomon
14-Aug-2017, 11:23
Yet more perpetuation of the "German" myth. There were several still cameras -- BEFORE WWI -- that used the 1 3/8" movie film developed by Dickson, such as the Tourist Multiple, the Levy-Roth Minnigraph, and the Homeos -- but that was all before my country got into the War.

So there is a "German" first here -- they created the first World War!

The assignation of Crown Prince Ferdinand of The Austro Hungarian Empire, and his wife, was the cause of the start of WW I. That is what brought Germany in on their side of the war.

xkaes
14-Aug-2017, 11:29
No offense, but besides learning how to spell assassination, you should read "The Guns of August". There is no need to refight WWI here.

Bob Salomon
14-Aug-2017, 13:35
No offense, but besides learning how to spell assassination, you should read "The Guns of August". There is no need to refight WWI here.

Sorry, that was the spell checker.

faberryman
14-Aug-2017, 13:49
No offense, but besides learning how to spell assassination, you should read "The Guns of August".

Or read Solzhenitsyn's three volume epic The Red Wheel for the Russian perspective.

Tim Meisburger
14-Aug-2017, 16:51
135mm, of course. 150mm is worthless. Its the generic lens, and your pictures will all look generic, like they were shot on digital. Whereas 135mm has much superior bokeh, and a unique signature similar to a petzval, but better.

The Fujinons from Japan are very nice, and a good deal.

Pere Casals
14-Aug-2017, 17:40
Yet more perpetuation of the "German" myth. There were several still cameras -- BEFORE WWI -- that used the 1 3/8" movie film developed by Dickson, such as the Tourist Multiple, the Levy-Roth Minnigraph, and the Homeos -- but that was all before my country got into the War.

So there is a "German" first here -- they created the first World War!

This is true, but Leica refinement/success it was what popularized 35mm film, for this reason it is called 35mm film, and not 1 3/8", the original american designation.


Leicas liberated photographers from studio and tripod.

This compactness allowed Robert Cappa to document the Spanish Civil War; Henri Cartier Bresson to capture the lives of The Europeans; and Walker Evans' documentation of the Great Depression.

Roger Thoms
14-Aug-2017, 20:46
150mm g-claron, very small and light, plenty of coverage. Wouldn't have worry to
much about focusing at f9, heck two of my best images with mine are nights shots. Just my two cents.

Roger

xkaes
15-Aug-2017, 01:40
this is true, but leica refinement/success it was what popularized 35mm film, for this reason it is called 35mm film, and not 1 3/8", the original american designation.


Leicas liberated photographers from studio and tripod.

This compactness allowed robert cappa to document the spanish civil war; henri cartier bresson to capture the lives of the europeans; and walker evans' documentation of the great depression.


Well said, Pere!!!

Degroto
15-Aug-2017, 02:38
Leica was good for standardization. Kodak liberated us from studio and tripod with their small boxcamera with a roll of film that could take 100 photo's.

Pere Casals
15-Aug-2017, 04:03
Leica was good for standardization. Kodak liberated us from studio and tripod with their small boxcamera with a roll of film that could take 100 photo's.

I've also found 35mm cameras from Denmark and Italy as early as 1905.

http://corsopolaris.net/supercameras/early/early_135.html

Sure, the kodak boxcamera liberated from tripod, but IMHO Leica impact for professional photographers cannot be overlooked as the main drive for new trend.