165mm Lenses - Why Is It An Uncommon Focal Length?

[Flauvius]

Why are 165mm lenses so uncommon for use with 4x5 cameras? Also, given that the diagonal of 4x5 film is more in keeping with 165mm lenses, why are 150mm lenses so prevalent?

Flauvius

[vinny]

Check your ruler. Exposed film area on my film is 6" or 152mm.

[Vaughn]

Well, there it the 6.25" Wollie, which is 159mm, I believe. And there are the 180mm lenses. I suppose a 165mm would be too narrow of a step between the 150 and the 180 to be of great practical use. The lone Schneider SA 165 is an expensive beast.

[Mark Sampson]

Wollensak made some 162mm Raptars, both enlarging and camera lenses. Who knows why 150s and 180s were/are more popular... but most 'normal' focal length lenses have only a nominal relationship with the format diagonal. Although my first 35mm camera had a 45mm lens on it, close to the format diagonal of 44mm. But I could never tell any real difference between it and a 'normal' 50mm...

[Dan Fromm]

There've been a variety of ~ 160 mm lenses. B&L made 158 mm Tessars, I have a nice coated IIb. The #32 Kodak Anastigmat was a 162/4.5. Wollensak made 162/4.5 Raptars (tessar type) and, towards the end, a 160/5.6 plasmat type. Ilex seems to have preferred 6.5" (165 mm) to 6 3/8 (162). Goerz (NY) made 165/6.8 Dagors and Dogmars.

Look and you will find. In particular, look here: http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/bj_3.html

[ic-racer]

Why are 165mm lenses so uncommon for use with 4x5 cameras?

The same reason 46mm lenses are rare on 35mm cameras?

[searover]

I have & use a 165 dagor from CP Gorez Berlin in a barrel mount on a MP-4 shutter that is awesome. It and a 168mm dagor design were standard on their 9x12 (4x5" metric) Tenax & Manufroc cameras. When exposed correctly, the back ground that is, it can give portraits the nicest out of focus background ever. I also can mount this barrel lens into a Nikon mount I made & really have fun.
Maybe the real reason is manufacturers were really competing with one another and not innovating into holes in an unproven market.

[DuncanD]

While 165mm LF lenses are indeed out of the mainstream, it is a focal length which appeals to me. I've owned and used 135, 150, 165, 180, 210, 240, and 250 for 4x5. Each of these is considered by some to be "normal" on 4x5.

I made what consider one of my best images (http://www.dwelleart.com/p7lsm/p7lsm_img_1/fullsize/Petersen_barn_in_spring_fs.jpg) with a Schnieder Angulon 165mm f/6.8 in Compur 1. The shutter was a pain since it had no stop-down lever and required all preparation in T. The lens was old modern (1950?) of ridiculously simple 6-in-2 construction and without the luxury of multi-coating. But the light it saw was delicious. However the focal length of 165mm was, as far as I know, largely irrelevant to that image quality.

[Vaughn]

There've been a variety of ~ 160 mm lenses...

I was thinking more along the lines of modern lenses such as on this list (with its lone 165mm):

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

I had forgotten about some of the older lenses I have seen around 160mm. Thanks for the reminder.

[DuncanD]

I forgot to mention the tremendous movements with its 300mm image circle.

[IanG]

Before WWII Zeiss made 4 different 165mm Tessar lensesof varying maximum apertures - f2.7, f3.5, f4.5 and f6.3, all covered 5x4 but the slower lenses had far better definition. Meyer,Ross, Dallmeyer and other European companies made 165mm (or 168mm) lenses/

Ilex made a 165mm f6.3 Acutar which was coated.

Ian

[Walter Calahan]

A 165mm is not uncommon in 8x10.

[Mark Stahlke]

I wonder why there are so few 180mm and 270mm lenses that cover 8x10. They are the equivalent of 90mm and 135mm on 4x5, both very popular focal lengths.

[Michael Graves]

I recently purchased a 6.5" Ilex Paragon in an Ilex #3 shutter from a fellow LF member, along with a set of 5.5" cells that fit the shutter. I have had the opportunity to shoot with both of them and have been very impressed. I especially like the 6.5" focal length. Both combinations are quite sharp if stopped down to around f8, and give excellent "portrait" effects wide open at 4.5. I'm still debating the appeal of the 5.5" combination. It's too close to my 150mm Fujinon and doesn't seem to be quite as good a performer as the 6.5" FL. But that is probably more related to being spoiled by the Fujinon. Just for giggles, I used the front element of one and the rear element of the other and got an effective focal length of around 190mm. The circle of illumination was wide enough to cover 5x7 with room to spare. This combination was quite sharp in the center of the image, dropping off in sharpness very rapidly when wide open. The more I stopped down, wider the circle of sharpness became. I haven't shot with that combination yet, but I certainly intend to try!

[drew.saunders]

Before WWII Zeiss made 4 different 165mm Tessar lensesof varying maximum apertures - f2.7, f3.5, f4.5 and f6.3, all covered 5x4 but the slower lenses had far better definition.

Ian

I have a CZ Jena 165/3.5 from about 1950 that's one of my favorite lenses. Even though it's just single coated ("T" which I'd never seen before without the "*"), I don't recall having any flare problems. At about f/8 it's pretty sharp, and more open, it's a "gentle focus" lens, which is nice for portraits and some other subjects. I wish there were modern 165's out there, it's a nice focal length.

Drew

[DrTang]

I recently purchased a 6.5" Ilex Paragon in an Ilex #3 shutter from a fellow LF member...

Those paragons are real sleepers I think... probably best value for the buck of any lens out there.. I have a 240 that is really nice - they seem to render a bit 'grainier' or 'grit-ier' whatever that means.. but not unsharpe or un-contrasty

they have a really nice 'industrial' feel and at 5.6 or 8.. make a pretty nice portrait lens


oh yeah..165.. just picked up a 165 angulon for my 5x7 that needs to be tested..

[IanG]

I have a CZ Jena 165/3.5 from about 1950 that's one of my favorite lenses. Even though it's just single coated ("T" which I'd never seen before without the "*"), I don't recall having any flare problems. At about f/8 it's pretty sharp, and more open, it's a "gentle focus" lens, which is nice for portraits and some other subjects. I wish there were modern 165's out there, it's a nice focal length.

Drew

I've a CZJ "T" coated 150mm 150mm f4.5 from about 1953/4 the coatings are excellent and it's remarkably flare free, however there's a definite blue tinge, it has much heavier coatings than my late (last batch) 150mm f5.6 Xenar.

About 2 years ago there was a similat T coated 150mm Tessar with a 1938 serial number for sale on ebay, one of the first. I've bought a second CZJ 165mm f6.3 Tessar off this forum this month, it should be waiting for me on my return to the UK. These are lovely small lenses and remarkably sharp.

Ian

[Tim Deming]

Older 165mm lenses (for example, 165mm f4.5 Heliar) were commonly found on 10x15cm "postcard" format cameras, which is slightly bigger (longer) than 4x5". the corresponding 150mm lens was common on many 9x12cm format cameras.

cheers

Tim

[premortho]

I have a nice 6 1/2 inch Wollensak Raptar, in a Rapax shutter, coated, of course. It came on my B&J Speed Press 45. The B&J has a lot of front movements possible, so the larger image circle helps. I've got two 4X5's. I use the speed graphic as a handheld camera, and the B&J on the tripod.

[Don Dudenbostel]

Ilex made a 165mm and sold it under the Caumet name as well. It came in a Seko shutter and was a Tessar type lens with limited coverage. I used one where I worked for a couple of years and found it to be sharp but had limited coverage.