Curious, why choose 135mm over 150mm?

[John Kasaian]

Why not?
If that's what came with your camera, or if that's the best you could afford, or if you just got great deal on one, or if it just suits your vision, why not?
It's only numbers. It's what you do with 'em that counts!

[Nigel Smith]

My camera came as a kit with 90/135/210, so that's what I have. Would like to add a 300-360 one day.

[Joseph O'Neil]

Why not?
If that's what came with your camera, or if that's the best you could afford, or if you just got great deal on one, or if it just suits your vision, why not?
It's only numbers. It's what you do with 'em that counts!

Mostly I would agree with you, but I did compare a good 150mm next to my 135mm. I really love those F9 g-clarons. I have them in 270, 240, 210 and 150mm. The ground glass is darker to focus on that using a f5.6 lens, but I am used to it and do not mind.

When I bought the 150mm g-claron, I already owned the other 3, I used them all, and I was looking forward to this new lens. I think it is a very nice lens. But actually using it, I find I just prefer the 135mm. Maybe it is just me, or the way I shoot or the things i shoot, but I just found for me, my style, that extra 15mm makes all the difference in the world.

So in my case it is a purely subjective choice, but my point is I did compare and make my choice based on that first hand experience.

Also, while we are at it, i don't care much for the 210mm focal length of lens. I have two very good ones - g-claron and nice Schneider Symmar-S, but you know what I use most of the time? 180mm. got two good ones, one Schneider and one Rodenstock, love both of them.

To finish off this perversion of lens choices and to scandalize you all, my 240mm g-claron sits on my 8x10, but I simply love using my 270mm g-claron on my 4x5. Yeah, I know, overkill, but it works for me.

[Larry Gebhardt]

135mm - 150mm = 10% difference.

35mm - 50mm = 30% difference.

Not comparing the same ratios…. To do so would require either 105mm/150mm or 135mm/190mm split. Or 45mm/50mm or 35mm/39mm if you want to compare in 35mm parlance.

Good point. If you crop your 35mm shots to 8x10 you get an almost perfect 4X multiplier between 35mm lenses and 4x5 lenses, assuming a 24x30mm frame size for 35mm vs a 96x120mm for 4x5. So the closest lens to a 35mm in 35mm is a 140mm lens in 4x5. The 50mm lens is actually closest to 200mm in 4x5, which is why many use a 200 or 210 as their normal for 4x5. So really either a 135 or a 150mm can be thought of as very close to a 35mm in 35mm. But the 135mm is closer, and like Doremus I would pick slightly wider over longer to allow room to crop.

[Alan Gales]

Buy both. Use them for a while and then sell the one that you like the least.

If you buy used at a fair price you won't be out much money when you sell. Just figure it as a cheap rental fee.

[smithdoor]

I have found this statement on book for press camera. I use what came with my camera a 135 lens I also have a 215 mm lens that I do not use. When you go in to the darkroom you can fix it with a 135 lens to the same as a 150 lens. If had to do over again I would buy a 300mm lens over the 215 lens. But some time takes just getting to find this out the hard way. But it very little differences in the lens on a 4x5 camera it is only 11% in change.

Dave

This is exactly true. I bought my Super Graphic in 1958 to do news photography. At the time I ordered it, I hadn't given any thought as to the lens. If I recall correctly, it came with a 127 Optar. The 127 and 135 lenses were popular for press work. The editors would then crop my photo down to where it took less than a quarter of the negative.