135mm or 150mm (4x5) for a first time LF shooter?

[m00dawg]

I've been scouring eBay for 4x5 lenses to mate with my Intrepid and have been wondering if there is a significant difference between 135mm and 150mm? If I did my math right (I probably didn't) in 35mm that would be around 45mm vs 50mm?

Part of the reason I'm wondering is for weight. I noticed the Nikon 135mm 5.6 is only 200g whereas most of the 150mm seem to be around 250g (I'm using this chart for reference). Since I want to at least eventually take some gear with me hiking I figured if all things were mostly equal (including price) I might pick the lens which weighs less.

[David Karp]

A standard 150mm is pretty small. I prefer the 150mm for the larger image circle. I never warmed up to 135mm, but do very much like 120-125mm. Other than the image circle issue, it is just a matter of personal preference.

[Mick Fagan]

If weight is a priority, then you could consider the Fujinon W f/6.3 150. I have two of these. They have a Seiko #O shutter and take 40.5mm filters. I have a 40.5 to 52mm step up ring, works a treat.

One of those lenses is permanently attached to my folded down Shen Hao 4x5" camera. I simply reverse the lens board, then fold the camera; quite tiny lens.

I looked at that chart, this lens is not mentioned; or at least I couldn't find it.

The other 150 Fujinon lens I have, is mounted into a converted Polaroid rangefinder camera with a 4x5" film back.

Both are excellent for their size, weight and the quality of the image is certainly good enough.

The image circle at f22 is 198mm while weight is about 180g

Mick.

[xkaes]

I'm not arguing. I'm simply giving credit where credit is due. I did not say:

>>"The Barnak prototype was from 1913... a landmark, as he invented the 135 format..."<<

All I was attempting to do was correct this misconception -- and it is a long-standing misconception in photography, in many ways. Most shutterbugs could not care less what happened in the 19th century. But a few are interested in the history of our wonderful film, cameras, and lenses. What "35mm" camera users have in their cameras is 1 3/8" movie film -- no matter what format they are using, or what they call it.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I'm not arguing. I'm simply giving credit where credit is due. I did not say:

>>"The Barnak prototype was from 1913... a landmark, as he invented the 135 format..."<<

All I was attempting to do was correct this misconception -- and it is a long-standing misconception in photography, in many ways. Most shutterbugs could not care less what happened in the 19th century. But a few are interested in the history of our wonderful film, cameras, and lenses. What "35mm" camera users have in their cameras is 1 3/8" movie film -- no matter what format they are using, or what they call it.

With different sprocket holes.

[xkaes]

With different sprocket holes.

And different film speeds, and different thicknesses, and different ....

The issue is the original film size and format -- NOT what came later.

[consummate_fritterer]

I'm not arguing. I'm simply giving credit where credit is due. I did not say:

>>"The Barnak prototype was from 1913... a landmark, as he invented the 135 format..."<<

All I was attempting to do was correct this misconception -- and it is a long-standing misconception in photography, in many ways. Most shutterbugs could not care less what happened in the 19th century. But a few are interested in the history of our wonderful film, cameras, and lenses. What "35mm" camera users have in their cameras is 1 3/8" movie film -- no matter what format they are using, or what they call it.

Yes, but it seems you made a big deal of the actual measurement (1-3/8" vs. 35mm). I only argue that the difference is minuscule. I AGREE that 35mm is a misnomer for the EK 135 film format. I never refer to 135 format as "35mm".

[j.e.simmons]

It doesn't matter. Pick one and go. Shoot for six months to a year and you'll know if you need a longer or wider lens. I never found comparison between formats to work out for me. I shoot differently with each size.

[Pfsor]

I've been scouring eBay for 4x5 lenses to mate with my Intrepid and have been wondering if there is a significant difference between 135mm and 150mm? If I did my math right (I probably didn't) in 35mm that would be around 45mm vs 50mm?

Part of the reason I'm wondering is for weight. I noticed the Nikon 135mm 5.6 is only 200g whereas most of the 150mm seem to be around 250g (I'm using this chart for reference). Since I want to at least eventually take some gear with me hiking I figured if all things were mostly equal (including price) I might pick the lens which weighs less.

Make yourself a viewing frame and you will see immediately what the difference of view is and how significant it is to you, no need to ask a third person. How about that?

[BrianShaw]

Get both or you'll spend a lot of time in the future wondering if you made the right choice!

I remember going through that thought process in the early 1980's. I chose a 135 because that's what I used on my Press camera, plus I intended to get a 90 rather than the more popular 120 for a wider lens. Having only academic knowledge of backpacking... if 50 grams will make a noticeable difference then use that as your primary criteria.