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

[Vaughn]

Pretty much by four pages (esp w/o images) simple questions are fully answered -- then release the Kraken!

[m00dawg]

Haha well now I know a bit more how the LFP forums work hehe. On the note of my original question, I'm thinking about starting out with a 150mm 5.6 at the get-go and going from there. Seems to be the best option for a first lens. The 6.3 has me interested because it's so light but I think I would be better served by the more common 5.6. Then I think next I might get a wide at some point (once I'm more comfortable with the camera).

Given costs for things like a scanner, and all the other stuff I need to get, I can only get one lens at the get-go so seems like the 150mm is the best choice.

And back to the Kraken (BTW I learned a lot about the origins of 35mm as part of that conversation so was a good read!)

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...]And back to the Kraken (BTW I learned a lot about the origins of 35mm as part of that conversation so was a good read!)

150mm is good! Regarding film sizes, the actual exposed area of 4x5 sheet film is not 4x5. Just to keep things interesting.

[xkaes]

True, but it's interesting how 4x5" film somehow managed to always remain in inches, while 1 3/8" film somehow turned into metric!

[consummate_fritterer]

This is becoming silly, xkaes. Forgive my impatience but I have a difficult time not replying to personal attacks. As a friendly community, we should all try to be less denigrating to one another.

[BrianShaw]

Haha well now I know a bit more how the LFP forums work hehe. On the note of my original question, I'm thinking about starting out with a 150mm 5.6 at the get-go and going from there. Seems to be the best option for a first lens. The 6.3 has me interested because it's so light but I think I would be better served by the more common 5.6. Then I think next I might get a wide at some point (once I'm more comfortable with the camera).

Given costs for things like a scanner, and all the other stuff I need to get, I can only get one lens at the get-go so seems like the 150mm is the best choice.

And back to the Kraken (BTW I learned a lot about the origins of 35mm as part of that conversation so was a good read!)

Is one allowed to re-address the original topic once the first question has been answered and the thread has taken on a life of its own... or are you required to start a new thread?

But the other discussion sure is interesting... I agree with that!

[Pere Casals]

What a strange and peculiar departure from the OP's thread this turned out to be, LOL!

Yeah !!! from 135mm focal length to 135 format, LOL

[Ivan J. Eberle]

There isn't a focal length equivalence, only angle of view. 135mm ( or 150mm) behaves the same with respect to depth of field no matter what format camera it's mounted to. I'd suggest a 135mn because it's easier to get more of a scene in focus with shorter focal lengths. I can also recommend a Rodenstock Sironar N (I had the Caltar II-N version, same exact lens) as being both excellent and tiny.
Many of the common press camera lenses in 135mm were quite good, too, stopped down to f/16-22, but finding them in working shutters becomes something of an issue now that these are all 50-60 years old

[Pere Casals]

135mm ( or 150mm) behaves the same with respect to depth of field no matter what format camera it's mounted to.

Not at all.

Well... the actual circle of confusion may be very similar, or the same if same lens is used by different formats, but there is a huge difference... as in LF you can tolerate a x4 of 8x larger circle or confusion than with smaller "full format".

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Here you can see that DOF master suggests a DOF of 0.16m for 35mm film, while 1.1m for 8x10". This is for 135mm focal, f/5.6 and 3m far subject (perfect focus plane distance). Note that SW 120 and 150 Nikkors do exist for 8x10.

This is because in one case 0.03mm circle can be tolerated, and 0.2mm in the other.

Those circles may be arbitrary and also all depends on own criterion, but it is true that for picture "same sharpness" 135mm focal behaves way, way different depending on the format size, about DOF.

[xkaes]

If I put my Fujinon 135mm -- set at any f-stop -- on my Toko 4x5 or on my Olympus Pen F Half Frame, I would get the same DOF if a piece of each negative of the same size were enlarged to the same sized print. That's obvious.

If I enlarged the Pen F negative to the size of the 4x5 negative, there would be much less DOF since the 135mm on the Pen F is a long telephoto, but a wide-angle on the 4x5.

To get the same angle of view on the Pen F, I would need to use around a 25mm lens -- which would increase the DOF on the Pen F result tremendously and match the DOF of the 4x5 print IF THE MAGNIFICATION OF THE PRINTS WERE THE SAME, let's say an 8x10" for the Pen F print and 2x3' for the 4x5 print, or something like that.