Curious, why choose 135mm over 150mm?

[Drew Wiley]

Guess it's just whatever you're used to, as long as you get enough coverage. I skip from 125 right up to 180, but even that seems wide to me. I really favor longer
focal lengths. We all visualize things somewhat differently, and at a certain point, certain focal lengths just seem to fit like a comfortable shoe, while others don't.
I don't think anyone can devise some kind of academic formula for all this. It's pretty subjective. But I personally tend to gravitate toward the same angle of view regardless of format. My "normal" for 35mm is an 85 lens, for 6x7 a 165, for 4x5 a 240, and for 8x10 a 450. That's my photographic shoe size, or my most frequently used angle of perspective. Yours might be something completely different. The more flavors of ice cream available, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

[Doremus Scudder]

When focal lengths are that close and I have to choose, I always choose the slightly shorter lens. 135mm cropped a bit is 150mm, but you can't do the reverse. It's maddening when a shot requires just a smidge shorter lens than you have. Similarly, I'll carry my 180mm instead of a 200/210 if weight is a factor.

As for size and coverage: you can pry my 135mm WF Ektars from my cold, dead hands

Seriously, I have and use 150mm lenses, but if I have to choose between the 135mm and the 150mm, I'll always take the 135mm.

FWIW, in the field backpacking or hiking I carry a 90mm SA, 135mm WF Ektar, 180mm Fujinon A, 240mm Fujinon A. Sometimes the 203mm Ektar comes along, as does the 300mm Nikkor M and a 100mm Ektar (instead of the 90mm SA if I'm really traveling light).

However, by far my most used focal length ends up being 135mm.

Best,

Doremus

[Leigh]

I have Apo Sironar-S lenses in several focal lengths, including both 135mm and 150mm.

There's about a 5° difference in landscape coverage width between those two.

All of my lens focal lengths are separated by about 5°, slightly more in wide-angle, less in long FLs.

I use whatever focal length is appropriate for framing the subject as I want.

- Leigh

[Joseph O'Neil]

As others have pointed out, even on 35mm film cameras, i always myself preferred a 35mm lens over a 50mm lens. On my FX digital D700, my 35mm F2 Zeiss just sits there most of the time. I find it is just a a handy range to use "in the real world", regardless of which lens is better, sharper, etc, etc.

On that point, I bought the Rodenstock 135mm F5.6 Sironar - N lens brand new years ago. Every single "talking head" out the internet will tell you how much better the "S" version is. They are probally correct. But you know something, I love my "N" version, it is perhaps my most used LF lens, and I am at the point in my life if I find a lens, it works me me, the results are good, and I like using it, my attitude is anymore the "experts" can all go jump in a lake. Life is too short to fuss about what other people think is a "best lens". Once you find what works for you, grab it with both hands, and run. Just get out there and do it.

Once you get that mindset in your head, *any* photography do you, digital, film, hell maybe even holograms some day in the far future - anything - you will find you enjoy yourself more and your work improves.
good luck & enjoy

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have a fast 135mm/3.5 Planar and a compact 150mm/4.5 Xenar, so I usually choose on the basis of whether I need speed or a smaller package.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Like Joseph O'Neill, my Caltar IIN (Rodenstock APO Sironar N) 135mm f/5.6 is a favorite. It's also a tiny lens that fits inside a great many folding cameras folded up, whereas longer focal lengths may not. Consider too that in the days of press cameras when the 135mm standard was set, DOF and hand-holdable speeds would have been slightly improved with the shorter focal length. That said, my Meridian bed struts happen to catch a 135 for the shifts and make the rise knobs a bit less accessible so I'd happily give a 150mm Sironar S a whirl next time.

[Lachlan 717]

As others have pointed out, even on 35mm film cameras, i always myself preferred a 35mm lens over a 50mm lens.

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.

[al olson]

And the Speeds and Crowns were typically not used with much movements, and I suppose for newspaper work (especially in tight places) it is better to get more on the film and crop later than to miss something.

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.

[catalinajack]

I use a 90mm Grandagon, 120mm APO Simmer S, 135mm Symmar S, 150mm Linhof APO Symmar S, 210mm Symmar, and a 250mm Fujinon. I suppose if I got a 180mm Something I might be done with lens acquisition. Overkill some would say. I'm having fun. Just took pics at the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania of old steam locomotives.

[jk0592]

I use a 150mm Nikon lens because that was the lens that came with the 4x5 camera that I bought some time ago. Before getting a 135mm, so close to the 150, I will prefer to get a 210mm and then (maybe) a 90mm. The 150mm is ok for me, mostly landscapes and portraits.