150mm vs 135mm Images for comparison

[xkaes]

Guess you've never run out of coverage by 14.9mm....

Sure, when I use my Fujinon CM-W 105mm which has a 174mm image circle, but not when I have over 50mm (2 inches) to play with -- like the 135mm Fujinons.

[Lachlan 717]

Sure

Then you should understand why 15mm can be "significant".

Just because you've never required the difference in a 135mm doesn't preclude its necessity for others.

[xkaes]

Then you should understand why 15mm can be "significant".

We are talking about 1/4 of an inch versus two inches. There is no 1/4" problem with any of these 135mm lenses. There's more room than I could ever imagine using. But then maybe you do headstands. More power, and image circle to you. But going to a longer lens (i.e., 150mm) means less image of the subject on the film so you have not accomplished anything unless you move back and change the perspective -- that you hoped to achieve. Solve one problem and create another. Makes sense to me.

[Vaughn]

We are talking about 1/4 of an inch versus two inches. There is no 1/4" problem with any of these 135mm lenses. There's more room than I could ever imagine using. But then maybe you do headstands. More power, and image circle to you. But going to a longer lens (i.e., 150mm) means less image of the subject on the film so you have not accomplished anything unless you move back and change the perspective -- that you hoped to achieve. Solve one problem and create another. Makes sense to me.

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.

[mdm]

I like 135, that is because I first tried out a cheap 150 and then decided 135 would work for me, and it does. No one can answer your question except you.

[Doremus Scudder]

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.

Vaughn,

Some of us work more abstractly than you. I find a subject, determine camera position and framing and then see what lens I need to get as close to my ideal framing as I can without cropping it. I don't look for a scene that fits any particular angle of view or focal length; some things I want to photograph with a wide angle of view, some with a very narrow angle of view. I choose my lens based on that. The conflict arises when I want a wider angle of view that my widest lens will deliver. Then it's compromise or forget the shot. That is primarily why I carry several lenses and why I'd rather have a slightly wider lens with me than vice-versa.

That said, I don't find myself wishing for much wider than a 75mm lens on 4x5; that's about the limit of my desires. Mostly, the 90mm focal length is the shortest lens in my kit. When I hit the trail, I'll always take the 90mm. The next choice up is always the 135mm instead of the 150mm; I figure I can crop a bit with the 135mm and get the same image as a 150mm, but not the other way around. I can live with going to the 90mm if the 135mm is too tight for a particular scene, but, if the same thing happens with a 150mm, it seems that the amount of cropping needed is more that I like to do.

This is a very different approach to finding subjects than having one focal length and learning to see like the lens you have.

Best,

Doremus

[Doremus Scudder]

We are talking about 1/4 of an inch versus two inches. There is no 1/4" problem with any of these 135mm lenses. There's more room than I could ever imagine using. But then maybe you do headstands. More power, and image circle to you. But going to a longer lens (i.e., 150mm) means less image of the subject on the film so you have not accomplished anything unless you move back and change the perspective -- that you hoped to achieve. Solve one problem and create another. Makes sense to me.

I don't know about you, but I run out of coverage with 135mm Plasmat design lenses all the time; heck, I vignette my 90mm f/8 Nikkor lens more than I like, and it has a 235mm image circle. That's why I like my WF Ektar 135mm and its 229mm image circle. I'm at its extremes often when doing architectural work and cityscapes. How much coverage one needs really depends on the kind of work one does, especially, how much rise/fall or shift gets used, since these movements are the ones that really place demands on the coverage.

I agree 100% with you about how going longer doesn't solve the original problem. I find that if a particular focal length I want just doesn't cover, that going shorter and cropping the final image is the better choice; going longer requires recomposing and often ruining the original composition.

Best,

Doremus

EDIT: It was pointed out to me by PM that xkaes is likely referring to the older Fujinon W "inside-lettering" 135mm lens, which has an image circle of 228mm, roughly equivalent to the WF Ektar. My comments about running out of coverage with 135mm Plasmats refer to the more modern lenses from most manufacturers that have image circles around 200-210mm. I consistently run out of coverage with only 200mm of image circle when shooting in the city... I use my WF Ektar's 229mm of coverage right out to the edge (and beyond sometimes ) a whole lot.

[nlambrecht]

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 hole 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.

[ericantonio]

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.

Wow, this is old school!!! Learned this working at a still life commerical studio when I was in HS/College in NYC.

[Pfsor]

Wow, this is old school!!! Learned this working at a still life commerical studio when I was in HS/College in NYC.

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