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.
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 !
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 !
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
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
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 magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
http://www.searing.photography
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.
Bookmarks