Why is the 135mm lens popular now? There are lots of them out there- it's been a popular F.L. for 75 years. A 135 was standard equipment on the 4x5 Speed Graphic, a preferred tool of the industry for 30 years. It's a versatile lens and complements, in the field, the equally popular 210mm (studio) lens. The only 110mm lens I know about is the very recent Schneider XL, which has a price to match its reputation. So most of us haven't used that focal length, and recommend something we know.
A low-cost lightweight lens with lots of coverage? I'd get a 120mm f:6.8 Angulon or similar. Older (=cheaper) 135mm lenses don't have the coverage, newer ones aren't as cheap. Not to mention the 110mm - if I owned one, that would have cost the same as the rest of my lenses all together, from 65mm to 620mm...
Richard, I think the 135 has been mentioned by many as a one lens kit because that focal length is versatile for landscape; it is wide, but not too wide.
My favourite focal length for landscape is 150 followed by 110. So naturally if I could choose only one to replace them it would be a 135.
Re: Why the 135 mm lens 4 x 5 landscapes
This is a great discussion so far and is giving me great food for though.
As you can see I have a good selection of normal lens. I feel at times that I am bouncing back and forth between all these normal lens. as I stated the 135 mm has not been pressed into service much. so this is very helpful.
After reading my post I found a typo - the camera is a 4x5 tachihara not a
{ tackie-our ]. Viva voice dose not always pick up on such things.
The 135 mm lens is a Nikon 5.6
Richard
Lens selection is very subjective, but my two lens kit would be 120 and 180.
But, I think that a two lens kit would be limiting for many people, and a three lens kit much more versatile: such as 90-135-210.
The 135 is the most used lens in my kit. Why? Because it includes enough, but not too much. Visually a 135mm gives that sense of slight expansiveness without the space becoming too much of a dominant element. In tight quarters its handy enough, and in places that are spacious enough, it allows re-arranging visual elements with a minimum of fuss and physical movements of the tripod. Composition, as a formal exercise, becomes more manageable. There's also that qualitative feel of a lens fitting the way you see the world. I see the world in a slightly "wide" way, and so a 135 fits my visual sensibilities quite well. I have shot side-by-side images of the same scene with a 90, 125, 135, and a 150 as part of an instructional manual. Either as prints or trannies, I always favored the image made with the 135.
I had a 150 and sold it to get my 135. The 150 was too narrow. The 135 includes the right amount. I found it was easier to compose with since I generally compose closer to things than farther away. When I want really wide, I go to a 75mm. When I want longer I go to a 240 or a 400T. If I were to pick out only two lenses to use, I'd use just the 135 and 240mm lenses. But, that's just the way I see in large format, I guess.
My 135mm Symmar-S came with the used Wista DX. From my experience, squarer formats seem to mitigate the shorter focal length. The 135mm on 5x4, or 75/80mm on 6x6 do not seem as wide in use as the simple numbers might suggest.
These types of discussions are inane. Lens of choice? Any photographer, especially in LF, who knows what he's doing will frame a scene from a chosen distance, and then select the lens that provides the angle of view that captures what he wants in the image. Get it? A 150 is too narrow? Huh?
I think the short answer to your question is its the shortest focal length for which the excellent and extremely practical plasmat design covers 4x5 with movements. My favorite lens for 6x12 is a 100mm plasmat, for the same reason.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks