PDA

View Full Version : Curious, why choose 135mm over 150mm?



Vick Ko
25-Oct-2013, 05:11
I'm curious, why do you choose 135mm over 150mm for 4x5 shooting?

The focal lengths are so close, I don't think there is a significant delta in perspective.

Is it because most 135mm lenses are smaller? Cheaper? Lighter?

Aren't 150mm lenses still optically better than those in 135mm?

regards
Vick

Larry Gebhardt
25-Oct-2013, 05:27
I like the 135mm as my normal lens, just as I like a 35mm as normal on a 35mm camera.

It also fits well into a lens lineup based on the 1.5 multiplier (90, 135, 200, 300).

I don't know if 150mm are better optically. The Rodenstock APO Sironar I use is excellent. The 150mm would have more coverage, but I don't recall having run out of coverage with the 135mm.

Ken Lee
25-Oct-2013, 06:02
Wasn't it a popular length with Speed Graphic cameras ? A bit wider, a bit more depth of field, smaller, lighter, less bellows draw required: good for photojournalism ? Isn't it about as wide as you can go before the image gets conspicuous foreshortening ?

DannL
25-Oct-2013, 06:19
135mm seemed to be on all the German 9x12 plate cameras I've owned. Some have been sharp and contrasty, while others not so.

IanG
25-Oct-2013, 06:27
I use both, a 150mm has better coverage and room for movements than a comparable 135mm. Ken's comments are right and I tend to use my 135mm along with a 90mm Angulon and a 203mm f7.7 Ektar as a light weight kit in a small backpack.

Where I know I'm going to use quite a bit of movements I use the 150mm in preference, it's easy to clip the corners with the 135.

Ian

Steve Goldstein
25-Oct-2013, 06:38
If you don't mind single-coated, both the 135mm Wide-Field Ektar and the original Fujinon-W with the so-called "inside lettering" cover 80 degrees stopped down, giving at least 20mm larger image circle than pretty much any other 135.

I like the 135 as well for being slightly wider but still "normal" looking. But in truth there's not a lot of difference and I could use the 150 just as easily.

BrianShaw
25-Oct-2013, 07:09
I've been shooting a 135 versus a 150 since my first day of shooting LF. By now it has just become habit. Originally I started because that was the lens on the SuperGraphic I obtained. When I bought a "real" viewcamera I bought 135 instead of 150 mostly because it is what I had and the difference is small enough to not be singificant to me and my shooting needs. Since then, meaning in the last 30 years, I have just been too frugal to buy a 150 because I already have the 135 and don't need two that are that close in focal length. If I were to do it all over again I think I might toss a coin to decide.

Vaughn
25-Oct-2013, 07:10
Wasn't it a popular length with Speed Graphic cameras ? A bit wider, a bit more depth of field, smaller, lighter, less bellows draw required: good for photojournalism ? Isn't it about as wide as you can go before the image gets conspicuous foreshortening ?

And the Speeds and Crowns were typically not used with much movements, and I suppose for newspaper work (especially in tight places) it is better to get more on the film and crop later than to miss something.

Michael Graves
25-Oct-2013, 07:41
I actually went with a 125mm Fujinon and a 150 Fujinon for my backpacking kit. A better delta and both are very lightweight and small.

Eric Rose
25-Oct-2013, 15:37
If you can't see the difference then nothing anyone else says really counts. Those of us that do prefer a 135mm as a standard lens do see a difference. I like my 150mm as well when the composition benefits from it, but my go to lens is the 135mm.

Drew Wiley
25-Oct-2013, 15:51
Guess it's just whatever you're used to, as long as you get enough coverage. I skip from 125 right up to 180, but even that seems wide to me. I really favor longer
focal lengths. We all visualize things somewhat differently, and at a certain point, certain focal lengths just seem to fit like a comfortable shoe, while others don't.
I don't think anyone can devise some kind of academic formula for all this. It's pretty subjective. But I personally tend to gravitate toward the same angle of view regardless of format. My "normal" for 35mm is an 85 lens, for 6x7 a 165, for 4x5 a 240, and for 8x10 a 450. That's my photographic shoe size, or my most frequently used angle of perspective. Yours might be something completely different. The more flavors of ice cream available, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

Doremus Scudder
25-Oct-2013, 16:17
When focal lengths are that close and I have to choose, I always choose the slightly shorter lens. 135mm cropped a bit is 150mm, but you can't do the reverse. It's maddening when a shot requires just a smidge shorter lens than you have. Similarly, I'll carry my 180mm instead of a 200/210 if weight is a factor.

As for size and coverage: you can pry my 135mm WF Ektars from my cold, dead hands :)

Seriously, I have and use 150mm lenses, but if I have to choose between the 135mm and the 150mm, I'll always take the 135mm.

FWIW, in the field backpacking or hiking I carry a 90mm SA, 135mm WF Ektar, 180mm Fujinon A, 240mm Fujinon A. Sometimes the 203mm Ektar comes along, as does the 300mm Nikkor M and a 100mm Ektar (instead of the 90mm SA if I'm really traveling light).

However, by far my most used focal length ends up being 135mm.

Best,

Doremus

Leigh
25-Oct-2013, 16:57
I have Apo Sironar-S lenses in several focal lengths, including both 135mm and 150mm.

There's about a 5° difference in landscape coverage width between those two.

All of my lens focal lengths are separated by about 5°, slightly more in wide-angle, less in long FLs.

I use whatever focal length is appropriate for framing the subject as I want.

- Leigh

Joseph O'Neil
26-Oct-2013, 06:56
As others have pointed out, even on 35mm film cameras, i always myself preferred a 35mm lens over a 50mm lens. On my FX digital D700, my 35mm F2 Zeiss just sits there most of the time. I find it is just a a handy range to use "in the real world", regardless of which lens is better, sharper, etc, etc.

On that point, I bought the Rodenstock 135mm F5.6 Sironar - N lens brand new years ago. Every single "talking head" out the internet will tell you how much better the "S" version is. They are probally correct. But you know something, I love my "N" version, it is perhaps my most used LF lens, and I am at the point in my life if I find a lens, it works me me, the results are good, and I like using it, my attitude is anymore the "experts" can all go jump in a lake. Life is too short to fuss about what other people think is a "best lens". Once you find what works for you, grab it with both hands, and run. Just get out there and do it.

Once you get that mindset in your head, *any* photography do you, digital, film, hell maybe even holograms some day in the far future - anything - you will find you enjoy yourself more and your work improves.
good luck & enjoy

David A. Goldfarb
26-Oct-2013, 09:04
I have a fast 135mm/3.5 Planar and a compact 150mm/4.5 Xenar, so I usually choose on the basis of whether I need speed or a smaller package.

Ivan J. Eberle
30-Oct-2013, 14:40
Like Joseph O'Neill, my Caltar IIN (Rodenstock APO Sironar N) 135mm f/5.6 is a favorite. It's also a tiny lens that fits inside a great many folding cameras folded up, whereas longer focal lengths may not. Consider too that in the days of press cameras when the 135mm standard was set, DOF and hand-holdable speeds would have been slightly improved with the shorter focal length. That said, my Meridian bed struts happen to catch a 135 for the shifts and make the rise knobs a bit less accessible so I'd happily give a 150mm Sironar S a whirl next time.

Lachlan 717
30-Oct-2013, 15:07
As others have pointed out, even on 35mm film cameras, i always myself preferred a 35mm lens over a 50mm lens.

135mm - 150mm = 10% difference.

35mm - 50mm = 30% difference.

Not comparing the same ratios…. To do so would require either 105mm/150mm or 135mm/190mm split. Or 45mm/50mm or 35mm/39mm if you want to compare in 35mm parlance.

al olson
30-Oct-2013, 16:51
And the Speeds and Crowns were typically not used with much movements, and I suppose for newspaper work (especially in tight places) it is better to get more on the film and crop later than to miss something.

This is exactly true. I bought my Super Graphic in 1958 to do news photography. At the time I ordered it, I hadn't given any thought as to the lens. If I recall correctly, it came with a 127 Optar. The 127 and 135 lenses were popular for press work. The editors would then crop my photo down to where it took less than a quarter of the negative.

catalinajack
30-Oct-2013, 17:12
I use a 90mm Grandagon, 120mm APO Simmer S, 135mm Symmar S, 150mm Linhof APO Symmar S, 210mm Symmar, and a 250mm Fujinon. I suppose if I got a 180mm Something I might be done with lens acquisition. Overkill some would say. I'm having fun. Just took pics at the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania of old steam locomotives.

jk0592
30-Oct-2013, 18:10
I use a 150mm Nikon lens because that was the lens that came with the 4x5 camera that I bought some time ago. Before getting a 135mm, so close to the 150, I will prefer to get a 210mm and then (maybe) a 90mm. The 150mm is ok for me, mostly landscapes and portraits.

John Kasaian
30-Oct-2013, 18:31
Why not?
If that's what came with your camera, or if that's the best you could afford, or if you just got great deal on one, or if it just suits your vision, why not?
It's only numbers. It's what you do with 'em that counts!

Nigel Smith
30-Oct-2013, 22:27
My camera came as a kit with 90/135/210, so that's what I have. Would like to add a 300-360 one day.

Joseph O'Neil
31-Oct-2013, 05:43
Why not?
If that's what came with your camera, or if that's the best you could afford, or if you just got great deal on one, or if it just suits your vision, why not?
It's only numbers. It's what you do with 'em that counts!

Mostly I would agree with you, but I did compare a good 150mm next to my 135mm. I really love those F9 g-clarons. I have them in 270, 240, 210 and 150mm. The ground glass is darker to focus on that using a f5.6 lens, but I am used to it and do not mind.

When I bought the 150mm g-claron, I already owned the other 3, I used them all, and I was looking forward to this new lens. I think it is a very nice lens. But actually using it, I find I just prefer the 135mm. Maybe it is just me, or the way I shoot or the things i shoot, but I just found for me, my style, that extra 15mm makes all the difference in the world.

So in my case it is a purely subjective choice, but my point is I did compare and make my choice based on that first hand experience.

Also, while we are at it, i don't care much for the 210mm focal length of lens. I have two very good ones - g-claron and nice Schneider Symmar-S, but you know what I use most of the time? 180mm. got two good ones, one Schneider and one Rodenstock, love both of them.

To finish off this perversion of lens choices and to scandalize you all, my 240mm g-claron sits on my 8x10, but I simply love using my 270mm g-claron on my 4x5. Yeah, I know, overkill, but it works for me. :)

Larry Gebhardt
31-Oct-2013, 06:38
135mm - 150mm = 10% difference.

35mm - 50mm = 30% difference.

Not comparing the same ratios…. To do so would require either 105mm/150mm or 135mm/190mm split. Or 45mm/50mm or 35mm/39mm if you want to compare in 35mm parlance.

Good point. If you crop your 35mm shots to 8x10 you get an almost perfect 4X multiplier between 35mm lenses and 4x5 lenses, assuming a 24x30mm frame size for 35mm vs a 96x120mm for 4x5. So the closest lens to a 35mm in 35mm is a 140mm lens in 4x5. The 50mm lens is actually closest to 200mm in 4x5, which is why many use a 200 or 210 as their normal for 4x5. So really either a 135 or a 150mm can be thought of as very close to a 35mm in 35mm. But the 135mm is closer, and like Doremus I would pick slightly wider over longer to allow room to crop.

Alan Gales
31-Oct-2013, 06:43
Buy both. Use them for a while and then sell the one that you like the least.

If you buy used at a fair price you won't be out much money when you sell. Just figure it as a cheap rental fee. :)

smithdoor
31-Oct-2013, 06:54
I have found this statement on book for press camera. I use what came with my camera a 135 lens I also have a 215 mm lens that I do not use. When you go in to the darkroom you can fix it with a 135 lens to the same as a 150 lens. If had to do over again I would buy a 300mm lens over the 215 lens. But some time takes just getting to find this out the hard way. But it very little differences in the lens on a 4x5 camera it is only 11% in change.

Dave


This is exactly true. I bought my Super Graphic in 1958 to do news photography. At the time I ordered it, I hadn't given any thought as to the lens. If I recall correctly, it came with a 127 Optar. The 127 and 135 lenses were popular for press work. The editors would then crop my photo down to where it took less than a quarter of the negative.