150mm vs. 180mm as a normal lens

[Yef]

Hello

Probably i'm gonna be 10000001 person that asking himself and u guy's this question, but i wanna get a "normal" lens and confused .
So I can't choose between the 2 lens Schneider 150mm f/5.6 L and the Schneider macro 180 f/5.6, I have couple a questions about these lenses.
I thought of getting the macro lens because it's gonna be sharper then a regular lens, I'm not shooting macro images, mostly i work on landscapes and portraits I use the 210 f/5.6 XL lens and the Schneider angular 90mm and i need something in between these 2. Would i gain more sharpness with the macro lens? would i be able to get closer to the subject with the macro lens or it's only the function of extensional bellows? ( I use TOYO 45A) . how well the macro lens works in infinity ? Is the macro lenses are deferent in anyway from all other lenses? and maybe if i wanna get something tighter then 150 so i should get the symmar 180 L ?


thank you all .

[IanG]

Macro lenses are optimised for close distances they aren't as good at distances so why waste extra money, 150mm Symmars or Sironars are inexpensive second hand so take your pick of FL, but a 150mm will fit better between a 90mm & 210mm and they are much more common.

Ian

[Yef]

and another probably dumb question but is it posible to fit copal 0 lens on a copal 1 lens board?

[Mark Stahlke]

and another probably dumb question but is it posible to fit copal 0 lens on a copal 1 lens board?

No. The hole for the Copal 1 shutter is larger than hole for the Copal 0 shutter. It might be possible to jury-rig something but lens boards are cheap.

[BrianShaw]

I thought of getting the macro lens because it's gonna be sharper then a regular lens...

What makes you think that?

[E. von Hoegh]

Hello

Probably i'm gonna be 10000001 person that asking himself and u guy's this question, but i wanna get a "normal" lens and confused .
So I can't choose between the 2 lens Schneider 150mm f/5.6 L and the Schneider macro 180 f/5.6, I have couple a questions about these lenses.
I thought of getting the macro lens because it's gonna be sharper then a regular lens, I'm not shooting macro images, mostly i work on landscapes and portraits I use the 210 f/5.6 XL lens and the Schneider angular 90mm and i need something in between these 2. Would i gain more sharpness with the macro lens? would i be able to get closer to the subject with the macro lens or it's only the function of extensional bellows? ( I use TOYO 45A) . how well the macro lens works in infinity ? Is the macro lenses are deferent in anyway from all other lenses? and maybe if i wanna get something tighter then 150 so i should get the symmar 180 L ?


thank you all .

If you're not making macro images, your macro 180 will not only not be sharper than a "regular" lens, it may not be as sharp as a "regular" lens.

Instead of asking a lot of questions, then spending your time trying to distinguish between fact and opinion, I humbly suggest you do your own homework and decide for yourself. Then, you will be able to ask better questions! The homepage here is a wonderful resource.

[dave_whatever]

One thing to consider is 180/5.6 lenses generally weigh about double what a 150/5.6 does.

[E. von Hoegh]

90 - 150 - 210 is a very nice spread, and will do just about anything the photographer is capable of.

[Brian Ellis]

180 and 210 would be too close for me. Think of it like this - when you used 35mm gear (assuming you did) would you have bought both a 60mm and a 70mm lens for general usage? Probably not but that's the rough equivalent of 180 and 210 in 4x5.

I didn't think I needed a 150 when I had a 90, 210, and 300. I used the 210 for probably 80% of my photography. John Sexton's only lens for many years was a 210. But if you think you need something in between 90 and 210 I'd get the 150, especially since the 180 is a macro and you don't do macro work.

[Two23]

I currently us 90--180--300mm, but have come to think a 150mm would have been a better choice. I tend to "see" wide though.


Kent in SD