150mm vs 135mm Images for comparison

[ericantonio]

It may be the old school but also the only answer you really needed to know. Don't dismiss it easily.

Not dismissing! You just jogged my memory and I remember doing this. I actually remember walking around with some guys looking through a cut out matt.

Gonna have to try this again. This reminds me of the movies where the cameraman makes a square with his hands and zooms in and out.

[Bob Salomon]

nicemate1,

I would like to suggest a different option. Cut out a piece of mat board, cardboard, or whatever you have with a 4x5 inch square out of it. Attach a string to the bottom with knots at 135mm and 150mm. Hold the end of the knots up to your cheek bone with one eye closed and you will see just about what a 135 and a 150 covers. This will not be exact, since the useable image of film is less than exactly 4x5 and the optics may state 150 but actual focal length is 147, but it will be close enough for what sounds to be your comparison. Just carry the square around and line up prospective photos yourself.

P.S. This is exactly what I carry and do before I set up any LF photo, so I know my camera angle and lens selection is right before I get the camera out. 9/10 times I do not even have to move the tripod.
Attachment 170273

How did you make a 4x5 square?

[xkaes]

Why would anyone look for a "135mm" scene when all one has is a 150mm lens? That is what does not make sense to me. As silly as looking for a "110mm scene" with a 135mm lens.

The original question was which one to get. The original poster have NEITHER, and is merely trying to decide which is better for his/her unstated purposes.

[xkaes]

nicemate1,

I would like to suggest a different option. Cut out a piece of mat board, cardboard, or whatever you have with a 4x5 inch square out of it. Attach a string to the bottom with knots at 135mm and 150mm. Hold the end of the knots up to your cheek bone with one eye closed and you will see just about what a 135 and a 150 covers. This will not be exact, since the useable image of film is less than exactly 4x5 and the optics may state 150 but actual focal length is 147, but it will be close enough for what sounds to be your comparison. Just carry the square around and line up prospective photos yourself.

P.S. This is exactly what I carry and do before I set up any LF photo, so I know my camera angle and lens selection is right before I get the camera out. 9/10 times I do not even have to move the tripod.
Attachment 170273

I've done the same thing -- but created a DELUX version. First, I started with one of those tiny, roll-up 5 foot tape measures -- about the size of a silver dollar. It has inches on one side and millimeters on the other. I use it for a few reasons. One is to determine the bellows extension in close-up work for exposure correction. But I also use it for lens selection. First, I took a Kodak Gray Card and cut a "4x5" hole in the middle -- the size can vary. For lens selection, I put the end of the ruler in my mouth and with the "4x5" hole moving back and forth from my eye, I can get a fast way to decide what lens to use. I have placed marks on the ruler for my lenses -- 47mm to 600mm. I can't use it for my 37mm fisheye and macro lenses.

I can also use the gray card for metering purposes. The part I cut out of the middle is attached with a piece of tape, so I can flip it up or down as needed. I also have a Wratten #90 filter taped to the card, so I can filp it up or down if I want to get a B&W preview of the scene to help me determine what filters to use -- in B&W.

I hope this makes sense. I turned a tape measure, gray card, and Wratten filter into a multi-tool device!

What length tape measure you use, what size card to use and what size hole to cut is up to you -- and your lenses. In any case, it is easy to make, very versatile, completely confusing to on-lookers -- and CHEAP!!!

[nicemate1]

Thank you Doremus !

With what focal lengths were these photographed - do you remember ? (this was my intended reason of the post - see images from 135 and 150mm, if anyone photographs with these focals)

“Lumber,” Oregon, 2002

“The Pyramids” Eroded Buttes, Arizona, 2009

"Fox Community Church 1", Oregon, 2009

"Rock Outcropping, Mud Hills, Glancing Light", Death Valley, California, 2010

Outstanding work by the way : )

thank you !!!

[nicemate1]

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

Thank you Doremus !

With what focal lengths were these photographed - do you remember ? (this was my intended reason of the post - see images from 135 and 150mm, if anyone photographs with these focals)

“Lumber,” Oregon, 2002

“The Pyramids” Eroded Buttes, Arizona, 2009

"Fox Community Church 1", Oregon, 2009

"Rock Outcropping, Mud Hills, Glancing Light", Death Valley, California, 2010

Outstanding work by the way : )

thank you !!!

[nicemate1]

How did you make a 4x5 square?

Lol !

Bob that was too funny

a 4x5 inch square .....

[nicemate1]

The original question was which one to get. The original poster have NEITHER, and is merely trying to decide which is better for his/her unstated purposes.

Xkaes .... Almost.

That was my foreword, that I am about to get a new lens and need to decide which one, but the real and original question, actually, was to be able to see with my own eyes images that other photographers have taken with these two focal lengths (135 and 150), possibly all types of images (not just landscapes, for instance, but portraits or environmental portraits too).
Out of 20 replies no one has shown me a single image taken with these two focals ! (maybe my post was poorly written !)

[Bill_1856]

Roman Loranc does pretty good with a 210mm
https://www.romanloranc.com/

Indeed he does. John Blakemore seems to have settled on a 180mm.
Personally, I prefer the 135. It offers a slightly wider field of view, and is so close to the 150 that a little cropping is always available, if needed.

[Doremus Scudder]

Thank you Doremus !

With what focal lengths were these photographed - do you remember ? (this was my intended reason of the post - see images from 135 and 150mm, if anyone photographs with these focal lengths)

“Lumber,” Oregon, 2002

“The Pyramids” Eroded Buttes, Arizona, 2009

"Fox Community Church 1", Oregon, 2009

"Rock Outcropping, Mud Hills, Glancing Light", Death Valley, California, 2010

Outstanding work by the way : )

thank you !!!

nicemate,

Thanks for the kind words. The photos you mentioned were (I think) all made with a 135mm lens. I'm not exactly sure, because my negative files and exposure records are in another country than I am at the moment and I'm relying on memory.

As for 150mm; I think the only image I have on my website that was made with a 150mm lens is "Just Stuff" (in the American West gallery). As I said, I don't use the 150mm focal length that much.

But, If you've been following what I've been posting here, you'll be aware that my images don't represent the focal length lens I shot them with. I routinely crop a bit from my images when printing and mounting for a couple of reasons. First, I rarely exactly use the 4:5 aspect ratio; my compositions are dictated by the proportions and lines in the image. Second, I find my camera position and framing first (using a viewing frame, BTW) and then choose a lens that includes all of what I want. Since I rarely end up with a camera position and framing that is exactly right for any focal length lens, I opt to use the nearest shorter focal length and crop to achieve the composition I want. So, any image made with a 135mm lens for me would likely be cropped to somewhere between a 135mm and 180mm angle of view (or 203mm, depending on which lenses I'm carrying that day).

Best,

Doremus