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

[David Karp]

Doremus makes very good points. You can't make a 150mm wider.

I love my 125mm. I like it more than my 150mm. I often run out of rise on my 125mm, so when that happens I don't like it as much as I did up to that point. I have more than a few photos that I ruined by exceeding the 125s image circle. The corners in those shots are nicely vignetted. So, I could have walked back farther (sometimes) and cropped, or walked back a bit with a 150mm and used the more generous image circle to get what I wanted. Sometimes, however, there is no room to back up. That is where the wider lens makes a difference.

So much depends on what you photograph. My focus on the image circle is based on the things I photograph. I like to photograph buildings. I live in California, so I go to places like Kings Canyon and Yosemite where the trees and geologic features are tall and I don't always want them pointed in or out as they reach for the sky. If I lived in the midwest, and was not photographing buildings, the image circle would probably not be as important for me.

And he is right about the 135mm Wide Field Ektar. Plenty of image circle on that lens, a bit more than the image circle for the 150mm Fujinon NW that I mentioned above.

[Jac@stafford.net]

About 14 years ago I got a Linhof Super Technika V with 3 lenses and matching cams. I still have it, probably for life.

The nominal 'normal' lens that came with it was the Zeiss Planar 135mm f/3.5. I've come to think of it as a press-camera lens due to its small circle of coverage, although what it can do it does very well, and I appreciate the brilliant image on the ground-glass and no apparent focus-shift upon stopping down.

I am still on the fence for a 150mm with compatible cam. I really do use the rangefinder for first-focus before adjustments. I'm too old to change habits. I think.

--
Old Jac with bad eyesight

[morecfm]

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.

50 grams is less than two ounces, perhaps about the weight of a snack bar or two. Not significant in my mind. However, I'd also be thinking like the previous replies to go with the wider option for the reasons given. A graflex optar or similar press camera lens can be found for a fraction of the cost of your camera to get you started.

[Vaughn]

I bought a 150mm/5.6 with my second 4x5 (~1983). I had used the university's equipment to begin with...135s, 150s and 180s. My first 4x5, in 1980, came with a 210/6.3 (Computar) and a major light leak. I set them aside, but that camera/lens set became a fine 5x7 eventually.

The 4x5 with the 150mm lens (together weighs 2.5 pounds) became my only LF camera, for a decade until I moved up to 5x7. it was great for bicycle-touring, backpacking, traveling over-seas, etc. I used the 210mm on the 5x7, then eventually moved up to the 300mm on the 8x10 in the mid-90s. So I am biased towards 'normal' focal lengths, though over the past decade I have added a few more lenses for the 8x10 (210, 250, 360, 19", 24")...the 300 still gets the most use.

I have always been inclined to use 100% of the usable image on a negative. First with enlarging 120 and 4x5 negatives, then contacting in alt processes. If I cannot fit all I want on the negative, or have to include what I do not want, I do not take the photograph. Keeps thing simple and my sight keen. It also means I spend a lot of time under the darkcloth. Somehow tied to this is the use of the 'normal' focal length lens for the format. I have no good reason why.

And for no reason : Silliness!

One can't make a 150mm 'wider' and you can't make a 135mm 'wider'...you can't even do it to a 90mm. So what? And you can crop negatives made with any of those lenses. I say, learn to see with the lens you have on the format you are using, and think less about adding and subtracting!

[m00dawg]

Thanks again folks! I agree the wider option sounds has some pros, and yeah I might be splitting hairs on weight. I didn't think about the press lenses so I'll take a look at those as well. Again lots of options to think about so thanks so much for all the help me, a newbie LF photographer!

[Bob Salomon]

We were the Linhof distributor in the USA from the late 70s till early in 2015. We were the USA Rodenstock distributor from 1986 till 2015. Far and away, during all those years, the three most popular lenses for 45 in our experience were the 90mm the 150mm and the 210mm. No other focal lengths were even close to these in sales.

[m00dawg]

I'm about to derail my own thread but I hope with things like Intrepid that LF might be making a comeback along with the rest of film? Would have to rise pretty high to make Fuji and Nikon start doing even small lens runs I think but I'm super excited to give it a go. It blew my mind the flexibility of LF when I finally learned about movements. I had no idea you could do that until very recently. Really it's the catalyst that got me to put in an order for the Intrepid 4x5. That and the thought of being able to look at large slides.

[xkaes]

The only possible advantage of using a 135mm lens vs a 150mm lens is that it takes in a little more of "the scene". That allows you to do a little cropping in the darkroom, should that be needed. With a 150mm lens, you can't ADD anything. ToMAYto -- ToMATo.

[Pere Casals]

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.

50 grs is nothing in a 4x5 backpack. Just consider weight of a film holder.

If you are to use it more for landscape the 135mm is more useful, and you always can crop. If you are to do a lot of portraiture you may prefer the 150mm.


But the question has an important aftermath, as you may desire a lens kit with aprox 30% steps.

If you buy a 135mm the other lenses in your kit may be 180, 240...

If you buy the 150 next glasses may be 210 and 300.


For a first lens I find the 135 is more versatile, but once you plan a kit, I prefer having the 150 as a center point.

Bob Salomon points 90-150-210... as best selling focal lengths, this is not by chance...


Regards

[Jac@stafford.net]

We were the Linhof distributor in the USA from the late 70s till early in 2015. We were the USA Rodenstock distributor from 1986 till 2015. Far and away, during all those years, the three most popular lenses for 45 in our experience were the 90mm the 150mm and the 210mm. No other focal lengths were even close to these in sales.

That is very helpful information and should be FAQ.

I might be missing something due lack of experience, but the only lens I have that will fold into a Super Technika V is the 135mm Planar without lens cap. Am I missing something with, say, the right 150mm? Thank you for considering my question, Bob.