What CXC said. Nice set.
What CXC said. Nice set.
I wouldn't bother splitting that difference. Instead, consider the longest lens that is practical and will work on your camera.
His camera, a Wista DX-II has a maximum extension of 12". So, even with a top hat lens board, the longest non-telephoto he can use is a 300mm - not much longer than his current 240. He could go with a 400mm telephoto, but that's not really a lightweight solution. Given the camera and lenses he already has, a 150mm would seem to make the most sense. One other possible three lens set would be 90mm, 180mm (Fujinon A) and 300mm (either Nikkor M or Fujinon C), but this would require him to sell his 240mm and buy two new lenses.
The middle lens is a compromise that does neither, and usually you can avoid it by taking a few steps closer or further.
It's all a matter of personal preference, shooting style, subject matter, etc., but I personally like lenses in the 135mm - 150mm range for shooting landscapes. They are not my most used focal length, but I use them enough that I would sorely miss them if they were gone. I personally like lenses in the slightly wide to slightly long range better then lenses at the extreme. I do use more extreme focal lengths when necessary, but I make probably 85 - 90% of my images with lenses in the 90 - 240mm range. I generally carry 6 lenses for general purpose landscape photography - 80mm, 110mm, 150mm, 210mm, 300mm and 450mm. It varies with subject and location, but in general, I use the 210mm the most, followed closely by the 110mm, then the 150mm, 300mm, 450mm and finally 80mm. I do have a 55mm and a 600mm, but those reserved for special circumstances. Of course, that's just my personal preference. I know other landscape shooters who consider a 90mm a long lens on 4x5.
Kerry
Yuri,
It is definitely a matter of personal preference, but my backpacking lens kit consists of the SS XL 80mm, 150mm Sironar S and the Fujinon A 240. I am quite happy with the setup. It is a tough call on the 150 vs. 135. Perhaps you can borrow or rent one of each and see which one suits you the best?
Harley
I'd go with the 150. A 90/150/240 kit is more evenly spaced (the ratios of the focal lengths are 1.67 and 1.6 respectively) compared to the 90/135/240 which has focal length ratios of 1.5 and 1.78. Another reason is that a 150 will give larger coverage than the 135 provided both lenses are plasmat designs.
I think if it were me, I'd carry the 65 and the 90 (I would anticipate more wide vistas while backpacking) plus the 240 for the exception to that rule. If you're convinced you don't want to take the 65, then the 150. If you want to take some closeups of flowers and such, the 150 will get you close to 1:1 with most field cameras, more than that with some.
i'd have to echo what christopher punch hole said.
ECHO!
me
p.s. might even go two wider and three longer. never had much use for the 135/150 range.
Do you have a lens that is small enough to fold inside your camera? Sometimes that convienience will help make your decision...
My 3 lenses in that range, are compact and reasonably light weight.
80 Super Symmar XL, 120 Super Symmar HM, and 240 Apo Ronar.
And the best part is that they all have the same image circle.....approx 211mm :-)
But seriously, they are all excellent lenses and I can highly recommend them for any application.
Kerry's point is well taken, with the Wista the 240 is fine as a longest lens. In between 90 and 240, I think anything from 135 to 180 would be about equally useful. Sufficiently equivalent, that is, to allow other features to be decisive, such as cost, availability, and compactness. IMHO, YMMV.
SOT: the best LF photographer that I personally know owns exactly two lenses, a 90 and a 210. He is not in the market for anything more.
I gots da 110XL, 210 APO Sy, 300 Fujinon A
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks