Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41

Thread: 150mm vs 135mm Images for comparison

  1. #11

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo.
    Posts
    2,644

    Re: 150mm vs 135mm Images for comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachlan 717 View Post
    Generally, the 150mm lenses offer significantly larger image circles. Might be something to consider.
    +1

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tucson AZ
    Posts
    1,249

    Re: 150mm vs 135mm Images for comparison

    I have both FL's and there really isn't that much difference between them. Lately I think that even 210 is too wide but that's just me I guess.

  3. #13
    Lachlan 717
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,278

    Re: 150mm vs 135mm Images for comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by xkaes View Post
    Fujinon image circles 135mm vs 150mm:

    W f5.6 -- 228mm vs 245mm
    NW f5.6 -- 206mm vs 224mm
    CM-W f5.6 -- 214mm vs 223mm

    Mean difference = 15mm or 7.5mm (~0.25") in each direction.

    Significant for 4x5" work, where you have AT LEAST an inch of play in any direction with the SMALLEST image circle?
    Guess you've never run out of coverage by 14.9mm....
    Lachlan.

    You miss 100% of the shots you never take. -- Wayne Gretzky

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    35

    Re: 150mm vs 135mm Images for comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Graves View Post
    I'm not sure what seeing images from both focal lengths would accomplish, unless they were of the same subject. How many people ever shot the same scene using two lenses of such similar FL? I know I haven't. Just seeing an image taken with a 135 is only meaningful if you know the subject matter, can visualize the position from where the image was made and several other variables.
    Hello Michael !

    Sorry, maybe I wasn't precise enough when I was writing what I would have liked to accomplish with this post. I didn't mean to see the same image shot with two different lenses. And I am not interested in image circle or resolution either.
    For me the sense of my post was to be able to see images (landscapes/portraits) shot with both focal lengths, to see what kind of feel they have. If there is no difference between 135 and 150, as someone suggests, then there is no difference between a 150 and a 180, and then there's no difference either between a 180 and a 210 either !

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    35

    Re: 150mm vs 135mm Images for comparison

    Dear Vaughn, thank you for your reply. I will scan the negatives and print them too. I am interested in seeing images shot with a 150 and a 135, both landscapes and portraits, to form an opinion on which focal I prefer. It's about feel and perception, not movements or image circle. Thanks !

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    35

    Re: 150mm vs 135mm Images for comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by xkaes View Post
    If you are familiar with smaller formats, it might give you a clue. For example, with 35mm, would you find a 40mm, 45mm, 50mm, 55mm, or 58mm best for your needs/interests/subjects?
    Dear Xkaes ! thank you for your reply. In 35mm format, I find 35mm is nice for a portrait with at least 3 people (like a small group), and certainly not full figure portraits. Instead, when you are closer to 40-45, that works great for environmental portraits. I find 50 too narrow for an environmental portrait, and too wide for a close portrait where there is more intimacy. I love the 50 focal length in 35mm photography but that is because I use a 1.2 with lots of bokeh, for lifestyle photography (that's another story altogether). Thank you Pietro

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Oregon and Austria
    Posts
    1,869

    Re: 150mm vs 135mm Images for comparison

    Here's my very personal opinion based on what I prefer and nothing else.

    I use the 135mm focal length for more of my work than any other. I have a 150mm lens that's perfectly good, but when heading out into the field or packing my kit for a hike, I always grab the 135mm instead of the 150mm. My reasoning is simple: I can always crop an image from the 135mm just a bit to get the same perspective as the 150mm, but not vice-versa.

    That said, I have a couple 135mm Wide Field Ektars, with more generous image circles (229mm) than 135mm Plasmats (~200mm). If I were planning on doing work that required a lot of front rise or shift (e.g., cityscapes and architecturals) and didn't have these, I'd reach for the 150mm.

    Building a lens kit with consistent intervals, as mentioned above, is a good idea too. That way you don't have a big gap between focal lengths. I've got a lot of lenses, but my "standard" kit consists of focal lengths spaced approx. 50% apart: 90mm, 135mm, 203mm (or 210mm) and 300mm. I'll modify this by filling one or more of the 50% gaps or adding to one end depending on need. For example, when working in cities, where camera position is limited by streets and traffic and I really don't have any need for the longest focal length, I'll add the 180mm length and replace the 300mm with a 240mm. This makes just enough difference for a variety of framing for "across the street" shots that I find myself using all those lenses a lot. For close work in canyons or interiors, I'll add a 75mm lens... you get the idea.

    What I'm trying to say is that your choice of lens should also be dependent on what kind of kit you're eventually going to need.

    Bottom line (opinion only): get a 150mm or WF Ektar 135mm if you anticipate needing more image circle for movements, otherwise, get a good 135mm Plasmat. Then plan on a longer focal length, 180mm or 210mm or somewhere down the line. That will give you a good three-lens kit that you can add to as you find need for another focal length.

    Best,

    Doremus

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Suwanee, GA
    Posts
    150

    Re: 150mm vs 135mm Images for comparison

    Another reason to think about a future line up of lenses is which filters you are going to need and any step up rings. If you standardize on a 67mm filter size that may rule out a 90mm F5.6 which may require an 82mm filter. My personal kit for landscapes is 65, 90, 135, 180, and 250 all which are <= 67mm filter size. I use the 135 the most , likely because of the subjects I like to shoot and the limitations of where I can stand. I also have 150 and 210 lenses but rarely use them. Weight is also another consideration.

    The Schneider 135mm Xenar f4.7 only has 161mm image circle so almost no movements, but mine is fairly sharp in the corners when stopped down to f22. It has a nice soft characteristic when shot at f5.6-f8. I like this lens especially for focusing in low light plus it is really light weight for hiking.

    135mm focal length reminds me most of shooting a 40mm on a rangefinder which has a different feel than taking a step or two back than with a 50mm and different than a wide close up with 28mm-35mm. I started photography with a 45mm Minolta lens so that may influence how I see.
    The mountain waters of North Georgia call out to me, I visit and leave only tripod holes behind. The Appalachian Trail is my treadmill and gym.
    http://www.esearing.com

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Sheridan, Colorado
    Posts
    725

    Re: 150mm vs 135mm Images for comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by nicemate1 View Post
    Dear Xkaes ! thank you for your reply. In 35mm format, I find 35mm is nice for a portrait with at least 3 people (like a small group), and certainly not full figure portraits. Instead, when you are closer to 40-45, that works great for environmental portraits. I find 50 too narrow for an environmental portrait, and too wide for a close portrait where there is more intimacy. I love the 50 focal length in 35mm photography but that is because I use a 1.2 with lots of bokeh, for lifestyle photography (that's another story altogether). Thank you Pietro
    The 4x5 format is different than the 35mm, so people have different opinions about comparing lenses for different formats. In 35mm, I prefer a slightly wide "normal" lens, such as a 40-45mm. For 4x5, I use a 150mm -- the closest in my opinion. My next wide is a 125mm -- somewhere between a 28mm and 35mm in 35mm format.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Sheridan, Colorado
    Posts
    725

    Re: 150mm vs 135mm Images for comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by esearing View Post
    Another reason to think about a future line up of lenses is which filters you are going to need and any step up rings. If you standardize on a 67mm filter size that may rule out a 90mm F5.6 which may require an 82mm filter.
    Filter size is definitely something to consider. My standard is 77mm. But with 90mm there are plenty of great lenses that are smaller, lighter, and less expensive than the f5.6 versions -- with filter sizes under 82mm.

Similar Threads

  1. T-Max 400, HP-5, Tri-X comparison?
    By artflic in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 25-Sep-2010, 18:25
  2. Comparison
    By Donald Miller in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-Oct-2009, 09:41
  3. Lens Comparison
    By Bob Phipps in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 4-Nov-2005, 17:11
  4. Comparison between the 19" Dagor and 450 M for ULF
    By John Kasaian in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 9-Nov-2003, 10:14

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •