Best damn 150mm?

[hnaa]

Hello, I have just acquired a 4x5 field camera at a very good price, and now I would like to acquire "the best damn 150mm lens" money can buy. Now, I know this will be a very subjective matter, but I would like to hear from you guys. I will be using it for (full body) portraits and still life. If I really get bitten by the LF bug, I will probably acquire a 90mm and a 210-240mm down the road as well.

[Ron Marshall]

Somewhat subjective, but my 150mm APO Sironar-S was a gem. Traded it for an APO Sironar-S 135mm, which suits my way of seeing better.

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm

[Joseph O'Neil]

"the best damn 150mm lens" is a good 135mm lens.

:D

[Jim Galli]

The best damn 150 for your intended purpose is a Voigtlander Heliar and I've got one languishing in a drawer that I've not used in over 2 years that should be working happily on the front of your camera. PM me. Look at Ken Lee's work with the same lens.

[venchka]

The best damn 150 for your intended purpose is a Voigtlander Heliar and I've got one languishing in a drawer that I've not used in over 2 years that should be working happily on the front of your camera. PM me. Look at Ken Lee's work with the same lens.

Start here...

http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/index.html

[Ole Tjugen]

For table-top use, a plain old Symmar convertible is hard to beat. For portraits, a Heliar is hard to beat. For landscapes, a Xenar f:5.6 is hard to beat.

So I use all of the above, and a couple more if I find a good reason for it.

[Walter Calahan]

"Best damn 150 mm?"

No such thing. Schneider, Rodenstock, Fujinon, and Nikkor, take your pick.

All depends on your personal vision. Or buy what Jim is selling. He'll set you straight.

For full length, I prefer my Fujinon 125 mm. But what do I know?

[Bruce Watson]

Hello, I have just acquired a 4x5 field camera at a very good price, and now I would like to acquire "the best damn 150mm lens" money can buy. Now, I know this will be a very subjective matter, but I would like to hear from you guys. I will be using it for (full body) portraits and still life. If I really get bitten by the LF bug, I will probably acquire a 90mm and a 210-240mm down the road as well.

You know, it really shouldn't matter to you what I think. You opinion is the only one that really matters when it's your money buying the lens. And you are the only person who really understands what's important to you.

That said, LFers tend to go in a couple of directions when it comes to lens sets for 5x4 film. One is the 90-135-210 route. The other is the 110-150-240 route. The reason of this is the spacing between the lenses and the way photographers "see" what they are interested in. Angle of view is an often overlooked and IMHO really important part of a lens kit.

For me, it's the 110-150-240 route. And I also like modern lenses -- nice and sharp with good resolution, nice and contrasty. So I'm using a Sironar-S. For what you intend, this may not be the best choice. It renders faces without pity, exactly as they are, every pore, pimple, scar, and wrinkle clearly visible. For portraits I'd be looking for an older well used portrait lens (soft focus), and probably something in the 240mm+ focal length. For those there probably is a best -- that being the Cooke PS945, although every single variant through the vast history of photographic portraiture will have it's partisans.

[Peter De Smidt]

Check out the Schneider 150 Super Symmar HM, which is only available used.

[timparkin]

You know, it really shouldn't matter to you what I think. You opinion is the only one that really matters when it's your money buying the lens. And you are the only person who really understands what's important to you.

That said, LFers tend to go in a couple of directions when it comes to lens sets for 5x4 film. One is the 90-135-210 route. The other is the 110-150-240 route. The reason of this is the spacing between the lenses and the way photographers "see" what they are interested in. Angle of view is an often overlooked and IMHO really important part of a lens kit.

For me, it's the 110-150-240 route. And I also like modern lenses -- nice and sharp with good resolution, nice and contrasty. So I'm using a Sironar-S. For what you intend, this may not be the best choice. It renders faces without pity, exactly as they are, every pore, pimple, scar, and wrinkle clearly visible. For portraits I'd be looking for an older well used portrait lens (soft focus), and probably something in the 240mm+ focal length. For those there probably is a best -- that being the Cooke PS945, although every single variant through the vast history of photographic portraiture will have it's partisans.

I have to agree on the Sironar S.. It's the most contrasty, sharp and clear lens I have.. There is a feeling of depth and clarity in the photos that is stunning.. It even makes crap photos look like sharper, more clear crap...

Tim

[joncapozzi]

My Fujinon 150 W is amazingly sharp.

[Toyon]

The best lens is the one that gives you the performance you want at the minimum cost. That gives you the remainder to invest in film, darkroom, processing, tripod and travel. I'm happy with a 6.5" velostigmat for portraits.

[Toyon]

The best lens is the one that gives you the performance you want at the minimum cost. That gives you the remainder to invest in film, darkroom, processing, tripod and travel. I'm happy with a 6.5" wollensak Velostigmat for full body portraits. Not too contrasty and with wonderful out-of-focus rendering.

[venchka]

...For full length, I prefer my Fujinon 125 mm. But what do I know?

Ditto and ditto!

[Shen45]

Wollensak Raptar 162 mm. f 4.5 tessar design. Amazingly crisp and great contrast without going over the top.

[Aender Brepsom]

I prefer the Apo-Sironar-S, but have been very happy with an Apo-Sironar-N and a Symmar-S before getting the Apo-Sironar-S.
As others have said, any 150mm lens from the last 25 years will be more than excellent.

[QT Luong]

The best damn 150 for your intended purpose is a Voigtlander Heliar

What makes it so great for portraits ?

[Gem Singer]

There is a Rodenstock Apo Sironar W presently listed for sale on this forum.

This lens has been discontinued and is seldom found on the used market. It is more expensive than most other 150's, but probably qualifies as one of the best 150's available.

[Jim Galli]

What makes it so great for portraits ?

It's easy to find a lot of agreement that the Heliar has long been dear to portaitist use. They just have a very lovely out of focus transition and quality when used wide open.

[Ole Tjugen]

That's - about 12 suggestions in 17 posts, not including lenses shorter than 135mm or longer than 180mm.

Which I would think proves once more that there's no such thing as "the best 150mm lens" without considering both application and personal preferences.

At last count (i.e. before I lost count) I had 12 lenses in the 135mm-180mm range. All have their uses and things they are "best" for, except that I have two 150mm f:4.5 Zeiss Tessars and two 135mm f:4.5 Rodenstock Eurynars - but in the latter case one is coated and one is uncoated. ;)

[Ken Lee]

For sharpness, I'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference between my 150 Heliar and my 150 Sironar-S. I presume that the Sironar has better coverage, but if I had to sell one, it would be the Sironar.

The Heliars blur nicely when stopped down a bit too (see below). There really is a reason why Heliars have been, as Jim said, "long dear".


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/f52.jpg

[Frank Petronio]

I'd just look for a good deal and rationalize it with yourself that it is "best" because it is a crapshoot anyways. If $400 Sironar-S comes up, grab it, but don't overlook that $200 Symmar-S in a vintage circular aperture Compur.

In the end, buy and try and see what you prefer in the real world. If you buy right you won't loose any money.

[Jim Galli]

90% of the best damn lens is what you put in front of it. But we'll split hairs over that remaining 10% forever. :cool:

[rob]

Is uncoated (1,5xx,xxx) Zeiss tessar 150mm f:3.5 any good? A friend offered me one in compur shutter. What can it produce at wide open?

[dwhistance]

Given the OP's stated uses I would be very tempted to speak to Jim Galli about the Heliar. In the 150mm focal length I use an Apo Symmar and a Super Symmar HM for landscapes and architectural details. Both are stunningly sharp, although my HM at least is sharper. However in the studio I find I prefer a slightly "softer", more forgiving but still sharp presentation (I'm struggling for the right words here) . The Heliar should fit this role perfectly.

My own favourite studio lens at the moment is a 250mm Rodenstck Imagon which varies from very soft to quite sharp depending on the aperature selected - I don't tend to use the supplied tea strainers. Sadly I don't think they made a 150mm and if they did it wouldn't cover 4x5. There is a 200mm though which is on my shopping list as and when funds allow.

David Whistance

[Michael_4514]

The best damned lens is the one that happens to be on your camera, in focus and set for proper exposure when you need it.

Seriously, you would have to work hard to find a bad 150mm lens in the sense that just about anything will make a decent negative. Since there can't be any one single best lens, do what Frank Petronio suggests and use as many as you can until you find the one or ones you like best. And that or they will be the best.

[Bob Salomon]

Given the OP's stated uses I would be very tempted to speak to Jim Galli about the Heliar. In the 150mm focal length I use an Apo Symmar and a Super Symmar HM for landscapes and architectural details. Both are stunningly sharp, although my HM at least is sharper. However in the studio I find I prefer a slightly "softer", more forgiving but still sharp presentation (I'm struggling for the right words here) . The Heliar should fit this role perfectly.

My own favourite studio lens at the moment is a 250mm Rodenstck Imagon which varies from very soft to quite sharp depending on the aperature selected - I don't tend to use the supplied tea strainers. Sadly I don't think they made a 150mm and if they did it wouldn't cover 4x5. There is a 200mm though which is on my shopping list as and when funds allow.

David Whistance

The 200mm Imagon was for 6x9cm. The 120 and 180mm were for 6x6 and 6x7cm.

You should really learn to use the disks as the lens will not perform correctly using the aperture blades in the shutter.

[dwhistance]

Bob, many thanks for your advice, you've just saved me some money. I have seen a few comments on the web suggesting that the 200mm Imagon can be used on 4x5, hence my interest, however the quality of your information is undoubtedly much better than most so I will stick with my 250mm. I have used the disks with the lens and agree that they do just what they are designed to do - I was no doubt too dismissive of them in my first post. I do like the effects the lens gives just by changing the aperature though. I think its an amazing lens given its simplicity!

David Whistance

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, many thanks for your advice, you've just saved me some money. I have seen a few comments on the web suggesting that the 200mm Imagon can be used on 4x5, hence my interest, however the quality of your information is undoubtedly much better than most so I will stick with my 250mm. I have used the disks with the lens and agree that they do just what they are designed to do - I was no doubt too dismissive of them in my first post. I do like the effects the lens gives just by changing the aperature though. I think its an amazing lens given its simplicity!

David Whistance

David,

It isn't hat simple. Think of it as two lenses, one in the center that is the marked focal length and a second lens of another focal length around the outside of the center of the lens. The center lens casts the primary image and the outside lens casts a secondary image on the primary image. The amount of sharpness or softness is controlled by the size of the center opening (hence three disks) and the amount of haloing is controlled by how open or closed the outside holes are.

Assuming you have the proper lighting (no umbrellas) and the proper lighting ratio (5:1) rayou will get the results that the Imagon is known for.

By using the aperture blades rather then the disks you are masking off the outside portion of the lens and losing the proper haloing.

[Ken Lee]

Here's (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/heliarsironarf22.html) a comparison of 2 shots taken on the same 4x5 film, at the same time and place, developed at the same time. (TMY + Pyrocat HD)

One photo was made with a ~1930's uncoated 150mm Braunschweig Heliar, the other a new coated 150mm APO Sironar-S. Focus was on the sheet of paper taped to the car, on the writing which tells us which lens was used.

As you can see, it is rather hard to tell the difference between the two images in the center. Although my scanner at the time, a Microtek 2500 spi scanner, has its limitations, it tested out to scan rather close to 2500 spi.

This isn't a rigorous scientific test: it's more "anecdotal". Perhaps a better scanner would reveal a difference in sharpness. Perhaps the sharpness of the Heliar, fades as we reach the corners of the image. I presume that the Sironar is better corrected for color too, and is less prone to flair and internal reflections.

Let me know if you would like to see how both lenses stack up, when shot wide-open. (The Sironar has noticeable coma, but the Heliar does not). I also made images with a 180 Tessar and a 210 Heliar, to see how they render out-of-focus when used at a distance. I was surprised to see how nicely they performed.

[zoneVIII]

I vote for heliar 150, great lens, tack sharp

[Frank Petronio]

haha thanks Ken, that shut a lot of people up

When you think about it, all those Ansel Adams' photos people rave about were made with those obsolete old-fashioned lenses.

[jnantz]

i have a symmetrigon .. sharp and nice, and lots of coverage

[Dan Fromm]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=5277&highlight=magic+bullet

[LH1H17]

The most collectible 150mm:

Voightlander Apo-Lanthar 150mm f/4.5, preferably Linhof signed

Similar design to the Heliar but features radioactive glass! :)
(and honestly.. I have this lens and while the coverage is not as good as a modern 150mm Plasmat, the wide open characteristics of this lens are well suited for b&w portraits)

[D. Bryant]

"Best damn 150 mm?"

No such thing. Schneider, Rodenstock, Fujinon, and Nikkor, take your pick.



I agree with Walter, modern 150s are all winners.

Don Bryant

[Ole Tjugen]

Voightlander Apo-Lanthar 150mm f/4.5, preferably Linhof signed

Yes, I forgot to mention the APO-Lanthar: Like a Heliar, but sharper, and flatter field wide open.

That's what I use if I think I should have had a coated Heliar and don't quite need the coverage of a Symmar or a Germinar-W.

[Jim Galli]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=5277&highlight=magic+bullet


Ahhh Dan!!!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

It was fun to re-read a great old post. But..........I was around when it was posted and I'm still here having fun. Still chasing the bullets. I've got half a dozen bullets at the house I haven't even sifted photons through (including the 100mm Cooke you sent me). My question is; where are the 22 guys that responded to Kevin's post. Where is Kevin? Did they become so proficient and important in the art world that this forum no longer was relevant? Or did they get so bored they took up wind surfing on dry lake surfaces or some other such?

[Jim Galli]

The most collectible 150mm:

Voightlander Apo-Lanthar 150mm f/4.5, preferably Linhof signed



No, no no no. The most collectable 150mm lens is the Hermagis Eidoscop. The holy grail of 150mm lenses. Nothing else quite like it on earth. BTW there are only about 6 of them on earth and you can't have mine. :cool:

[redrockcoulee]

When I first got a 150 lens I got a Symmar convertible for $84 and thougth I would use it until I get something "better" . Now I think that if I got another 150 it would be something different in addition to not instead of. What I really enjoy about this forum is the quality and quantity of information on lenses and cameras that you never even heard of before and the voices of experinces posting replies.

No advise to the OP other than to listen to these voices but a thank you to the voices from someone on these topics is most ears (eyes):)

[Ken Lee]

I am not an optics expert, but my guess is that "normal" lenses are easiest to design and manufacture at a high level of quality. For that reason, and because a normal length is often the choice of first-time lens buyers, normal lenses are an important product offering for lens manufacturers.

Thus, the major lens providers have been able to meet the challenge successfully, for a long time, and there is no such thing as... "best".

[venchka]

Not unlike folks having several 50mm lenses for 35mm film. Different for sure. Never bad.

[Gem Singer]

It's a similar principle to sex partners. There is no best one, just different ones.