Super small, yet sharp 150mm?

[Lightbender]

Hi everyone! I usually carry a 65mm and 300mm with me when shooting 4x5. But on my last outing there were some shots that really needed a 150mm.
But I really dont have any room in my kit for another plasmat. What really small lenses are there that are still nice and sharp?
Thanks!

[karl french]

Computar 150mm f9, or the Schneider G Claron 150/9.

[B.S.Kumar]

Perhaps a tad less sharp, but the Fujinon 150mm with the inside lettering would be a good alternative.

Kumar

[Roger Thoms]

Big fan of the 150mm G-Claron, a favorite of mine for 4x5. Definitely small, light and sharp. Also plenty of room for movements.

Roger

[Tim Meisburger]

G-Claron. Small and super sharp!

[Lightbender]

Ah that sounds like its exactly what I need!

[Jim Andrada]

+1 for the 150 G-Claron

[dave_whatever]

Can't go wrong with a 150/9 g-claron.

[Pete Oakley]

The 150/9 G-Claron also covers 5x7 if you ever go there.
Pete.

[Willie]

Below, from Kerry Thallman. http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/mid-rang.htm

150 mm: Of all the focal lengths, 150mm offers the most options in lightweight lenses for 4x5 field photographers. Like the 135mm lenses mentioned above, most modern 150mm lenses are reasonably lightweight and compact. Since I have standardized around the 52mm filter size for my lightweight lenses, I would personally avoid the 150mm APO Symmar (58mm filters) and the 150mm Fujinon CM-W (67mm filters) when considering lenses specifically for backpacking (both make wonderful general purpose lenses, where the filter size becomes a non-issue). Also, like the 135mm lenses above, it might not make sense to have a dedicated lightweight lens in this focal length. Many of the current models are small enough and light enough to serve double duty for both backpacking and General Purpose use. The 150mm Rodenstock APO Sironar-S, for example is light enough (230g) and small enough (49mm filters) for backpacking, but has the very generous coverage (231mm image circle) and excellent performance desirable in a general purpose 150mm lens. If, however, you are seeking the lightest possible 150mm lens for backpacking, there are some choices that are even lighter (See Figure 2.). Here are some 150mm lenses I recommend when lightweight and compact size are the highest priorities:

150.jpg (81375 bytes)

Figure 2. Lightweight 150mm Lenses
From Left to Right (weight, filter size)
150mm f6.3 Fujinon W (140g, 40.5mm)
150mm f5.6 Schneider Xenar (170g, 34mm)
150mm f9 Schneider G Claron (130g, 35.5mm)
150mm f5.6 Rodenstock APO Sironar-S (230g, 49mm - for size comparison)

[Ari]

The Schneider APO-Symmar is a more modern alternative to the Fuji, with a larger maximum aperture (f5.6) than the G-Claron.

[chris_4622]

http://www.reallybigcameras.com/Docter_Optics/150mm_Germinar_W.html

Check out the size and weight. I have one, in a copal shutter if interested.

[Noah A]

A 150 plasmat isn't nearly as big as a 210 or 300 plasmat. You did't mention a budget, but the 150 Apo-Sironar-S is pretty tiny, super sharp and has great coverage. Even the 150 Apo-Symmmar is small and it'll probably be much cheaper.

I understand the desire to save space and weight, but honestly by the time you add a shutter and lens board, there's not really all that much difference between the plasmats and the smaller, slower alternatives.

[Michael Clark]

150mm Nikkor W f/5.6 and Symmar-S are both small, inexpensive , faster (easier to focus) and just as sharp as the slower lens all ready mentioned.

[rich815]

Perhaps a tad less sharp, but the Fujinon 150mm with the inside lettering would be a good alternative.

Kumar

And plenty sharp!

[Peter De Smidt]

I have the 150mm g-claron. It's a very good lens, and I don't have any trouble focusing it.

[SergeiR]

for 150mm some time ago - I had tested S-K(Xenar) and Rodenstok on 4x5 with digital MF back. S-K was pixel sharp around center even wide open.R had to be closed to 16 to get there. Both were (and still are) tiny. S-K a bit more so.

I kept Xenar around, Rodenstok is dust-gathering in Russia at the moment, but it still is a good lens.

[Drew Wiley]

Gosh, any modern multicoated 150 plasmat should be excellent. Most are a relative bargain at the moment, except perhaps the Apo Sironar S-series. I'd personally opt for a Fuji W, but not the CMW due to the unnecessarily large filter mount (67mm). G-Clarons are superb. Unless you shoot it caves, I wouldn't worry too much
about the f/9 aperture.

[Bob Salomon]

for 150mm some time ago - I had tested S-K(Xenar) and Rodenstok on 4x5 with digital MF back. S-K was pixel sharp around center even wide open.R had to be closed to 16 to get there. Both were (and still are) tiny. S-K a bit more so.

I kept Xenar around, Rodenstok is dust-gathering in Russia at the moment, but it still is a good lens.

So you specify which Schneider you tested. What about the Rodenstock? Sironar? Sironar-N? Sironar-N MC? Apo Sironar-S? Apo Sironar-N? Apo Sironar? Apo Sironar W? Geronar? Apo Ronar? Imagon? Apo Sironar Digital?

Why not specify?

[Vaughn]

I have shot in caves -- and in the redwoods on an overcast day, it might as well be a cave! On the 8x10, I have come to appreciate the FujiW 300/5.6, but I have used a couple RD Artars (f/11) and while I can get the job done, it can be a PITA. No great difference between the f5.6 and my 250/6.7 or 210/6.3 under the redwoods.

For my 4x5, the Caltar II-N 150/5.6 has proven to be an excellent tiny lens in all lighting conditions and it is nice having a view that is about 3x as bright as an f9 lens. However, a higher quality/brighter GG would not hurt...:) My Gowland PocketView with the 150/5.6 lens weighs 2.5 pounds, so weight of the lens is not much of an issue. Unless one has a camera that can have a smaller lens folded up in it, by the time one puts a lens on a lens board and in a lens wrap, the package will be about the same size whether it is a Caltar 150/5.6 or the G-Clarion 150/9.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Nikkor 150-W. That's the smallest lens I own.

[SergeiR]

So you specify which Schneider you tested. What about the Rodenstock? Sironar? Sironar-N? Sironar-N MC? Apo Sironar-S? Apo Sironar-N? Apo Sironar? Apo Sironar W? Geronar? Apo Ronar? Imagon? Apo Sironar Digital?

Why not specify?

Actually I did say which S-K it was - Xenar. Another one was sironar n , or mc, can't remember - haven't had it in front of me for 2 years.

[Kodachrome25]

Looking at your spread of lenses, a great fit might be the lens I have, a 135mm 5.6 Apo Sironar S, a tad wider than a 150 and bit deeper inherent depth of field.

It's smaller than the 150 S and not a lot bigger than the 150 G Claron...but it is 5.6 and it is microscope sharp with amazing acutance and edge effect. At 208mm the 135 5.6 Apo S has a good bit more coverage than the Claron's 189mm, though not quite as generous as the 231mm of the 150 5.6 Apo S.

For an ultra light setup, I pair the 135mm 5.6 S with either a Nikkor M 200mm F8 or Fujinon A 240mm F9 and love the combo.

Just as sharp as the 150mm 5.6 Apo Sironar S, the 135 usually comes in a bit cheaper too.

[Lightbender]

Hi everyone! Just wanted to follow up.
I ended up with a Fujinon W 150mm f6.3. I picked it up for a song id say. Thanks for pointing that lens out for me.
Some people suggested a Nikkor 150, but that is the lens I already have. And it does not quite fit in the space i have allowed.
The Fujinon is almost half the size of the Nikkor.150301150302150303150304