150mm vs 135mm Images for comparison

[nicemate1]

Hello !

I am in the process of getting a slightly longer than my 90mm lens for my 4x5 system and am very undecided between 135 and 150 focal lengths. I know that these are very close in terms of numbers, but would love to see some images taken from both focal lengths to have a better perception of what type of feel these have. It would also be extremely useful to see various type of images, like landscapes but also closer portraits and environmental portraits.

If someone has the possibility, it would be nice to see some images produced with the Rodenstock Apo Sironar S "versions" of the above mentioned focal lengths, which is one of the options I am currently considering buying. About these Rodenstocks, does anyone know if one of the above is a better performer than the other, or more recommended so to speak, at wider apertures than the other - let's sat if one intends to shoot more at around f11 than around f22?

Thank you to all who can take some time to respond and can help !
Pietro

[Bob Salomon]

The 150 is far more popular

[morecfm]

135 will give you a little more room for environmental portraits in constrained spaces like indoors, but this focal length is only about 10% shorter than 150. Of all other things being equal, 150 will allow for a little more movement (rise, fall, shift, etc) than a similar 135.

[Vaughn]

I highly doubt you will see any significant difference between modern lenses via images on a computer screen.

What will you be doing with the negatives (scan, print, etc)? That also will determine the best lens for you.

[xkaes]

If you are familiar with smaller formats, it might give you a clue. For example, with 35mm, would you find a 40mm, 45mm, 50mm, 55mm, or 58mm best for your needs/interests/subjects?

[Pere Casals]

Hello !
undecided between 135 and 150 focal lengths.

If you plan to gather a kit, from 90mm to 135mm you have a +50% long step. A bit, think for the future. I'd suggest to plan what progression you want in your future kit, with +30% steps or with +50% steps, then acquire first the lenses you are to use the more.

For portraits I'd prefer the 150mm, for landscape I'd prefer the 135.

The Sironar S has slightly larger circle, in theory it is also a bit more contrasty, and with slightly less flare. I use the N versions, IMHO it is very difficult to say if the shot was made with an S or N, even with a side by side comparisons, in some cases (sun in the framming perhaps you may see an slight difference.

A Pro would prefer an S if it is intesively used, if you are building a kit you may perfer investing in having more focals in your kit. The N is also a superb lens, probably there will be a lot of other limiting factors in most shots that are tio hide any N vs S difference, like camera vibration, alignment, DOF, diffraction...

S version was more expensive because it has some 2 ED glass elements of the 6, allowing for good correction of lateral chromatic aberration in the corners of the larger larger image circle.

The quality of your work won't be related at all, I reiterate at all, to having the N or S version, but if you want something slightly better and you want to pay it, then the S is the choice.better

[Michael Graves]

I'm not sure what seeing images from both focal lengths would accomplish, unless they were of the same subject. How many people ever shot the same scene using two lenses of such similar FL? I know I haven't. Just seeing an image taken with a 135 is only meaningful if you know the subject matter, can visualize the position from where the image was made and several other variables.

[Lachlan 717]

Generally, the 150mm lenses offer significantly larger image circles. Might be something to consider.

[John Kasaian]

Roman Loranc does pretty good with a 210mm
https://www.romanloranc.com/

[xkaes]

Fujinon image circles 135mm vs 150mm:

W f5.6 -- 228mm vs 245mm
NW f5.6 -- 206mm vs 224mm
CM-W f5.6 -- 214mm vs 223mm

Mean difference = 15mm or 7.5mm (~0.25") in each direction.

Significant for 4x5" work, where you have AT LEAST an inch of play in any direction with the SMALLEST image circle?

[Alan Gales]

Generally, the 150mm lenses offer significantly larger image circles. Might be something to consider.

+1

[Jim Andrada]

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.

[Lachlan 717]

Fujinon image circles 135mm vs 150mm:

W f5.6 -- 228mm vs 245mm
NW f5.6 -- 206mm vs 224mm
CM-W f5.6 -- 214mm vs 223mm

Mean difference = 15mm or 7.5mm (~0.25") in each direction.

Significant for 4x5" work, where you have AT LEAST an inch of play in any direction with the SMALLEST image circle?

Guess you've never run out of coverage by 14.9mm....

[nicemate1]

I'm not sure what seeing images from both focal lengths would accomplish, unless they were of the same subject. How many people ever shot the same scene using two lenses of such similar FL? I know I haven't. Just seeing an image taken with a 135 is only meaningful if you know the subject matter, can visualize the position from where the image was made and several other variables.

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 !

[nicemate1]

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 !

[nicemate1]

If you are familiar with smaller formats, it might give you a clue. For example, with 35mm, would you find a 40mm, 45mm, 50mm, 55mm, or 58mm best for your needs/interests/subjects?

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

[Doremus Scudder]

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

[esearing]

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.

[xkaes]

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

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.

[xkaes]

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.

Filter size is definitely something to consider. My standard is 77mm. But with 90mm there are plenty of great lenses that are smaller, lighter, and less expensive than the f5.6 versions -- with filter sizes under 82mm.

[xkaes]

Guess you've never run out of coverage by 14.9mm....

Sure, when I use my Fujinon CM-W 105mm which has a 174mm image circle, but not when I have over 50mm (2 inches) to play with -- like the 135mm Fujinons.

[Lachlan 717]

Sure

Then you should understand why 15mm can be "significant".

Just because you've never required the difference in a 135mm doesn't preclude its necessity for others.

[xkaes]

Then you should understand why 15mm can be "significant".

We are talking about 1/4 of an inch versus two inches. There is no 1/4" problem with any of these 135mm lenses. There's more room than I could ever imagine using. But then maybe you do headstands. More power, and image circle to you. But going to a longer lens (i.e., 150mm) means less image of the subject on the film so you have not accomplished anything unless you move back and change the perspective -- that you hoped to achieve. Solve one problem and create another. Makes sense to me.

[Vaughn]

We are talking about 1/4 of an inch versus two inches. There is no 1/4" problem with any of these 135mm lenses. There's more room than I could ever imagine using. But then maybe you do headstands. More power, and image circle to you. But going to a longer lens (i.e., 150mm) means less image of the subject on the film so you have not accomplished anything unless you move back and change the perspective -- that you hoped to achieve. Solve one problem and create another. Makes sense to me.
Why would anyone look for a "135mm" scene when all one has is a 150mm lens? That is what does not make sense to me. As silly as looking for a "110mm scene" with a 135mm lens.

[mdm]

I like 135, that is because I first tried out a cheap 150 and then decided 135 would work for me, and it does. No one can answer your question except you.

[Doremus Scudder]

Why would anyone look for a "135mm" scene when all one has is a 150mm lens? That is what does not make sense to me. As silly as looking for a "110mm scene" with a 135mm lens.

Vaughn,

Some of us work more abstractly than you. I find a subject, determine camera position and framing and then see what lens I need to get as close to my ideal framing as I can without cropping it. I don't look for a scene that fits any particular angle of view or focal length; some things I want to photograph with a wide angle of view, some with a very narrow angle of view. I choose my lens based on that. The conflict arises when I want a wider angle of view that my widest lens will deliver. Then it's compromise or forget the shot. That is primarily why I carry several lenses and why I'd rather have a slightly wider lens with me than vice-versa.

That said, I don't find myself wishing for much wider than a 75mm lens on 4x5; that's about the limit of my desires. Mostly, the 90mm focal length is the shortest lens in my kit. When I hit the trail, I'll always take the 90mm. The next choice up is always the 135mm instead of the 150mm; I figure I can crop a bit with the 135mm and get the same image as a 150mm, but not the other way around. I can live with going to the 90mm if the 135mm is too tight for a particular scene, but, if the same thing happens with a 150mm, it seems that the amount of cropping needed is more that I like to do.

This is a very different approach to finding subjects than having one focal length and learning to see like the lens you have.

Best,

Doremus

[Doremus Scudder]

We are talking about 1/4 of an inch versus two inches. There is no 1/4" problem with any of these 135mm lenses. There's more room than I could ever imagine using. But then maybe you do headstands. More power, and image circle to you. But going to a longer lens (i.e., 150mm) means less image of the subject on the film so you have not accomplished anything unless you move back and change the perspective -- that you hoped to achieve. Solve one problem and create another. Makes sense to me.

I don't know about you, but I run out of coverage with 135mm Plasmat design lenses all the time; heck, I vignette my 90mm f/8 Nikkor lens more than I like, and it has a 235mm image circle. That's why I like my WF Ektar 135mm and its 229mm image circle. I'm at its extremes often when doing architectural work and cityscapes. How much coverage one needs really depends on the kind of work one does, especially, how much rise/fall or shift gets used, since these movements are the ones that really place demands on the coverage.

I agree 100% with you about how going longer doesn't solve the original problem. I find that if a particular focal length I want just doesn't cover, that going shorter and cropping the final image is the better choice; going longer requires recomposing and often ruining the original composition.

Best,

Doremus

EDIT: It was pointed out to me by PM that xkaes is likely referring to the older Fujinon W "inside-lettering" 135mm lens, which has an image circle of 228mm, roughly equivalent to the WF Ektar. My comments about running out of coverage with 135mm Plasmats refer to the more modern lenses from most manufacturers that have image circles around 200-210mm. I consistently run out of coverage with only 200mm of image circle when shooting in the city... I use my WF Ektar's 229mm of coverage right out to the edge (and beyond sometimes :( ) a whole lot.

[nlambrecht]

nicemate1,

I would like to suggest a different option. Cut out a piece of mat board, cardboard, or whatever you have with a 4x5 inch hole out of it. Attach a string to the bottom with knots at 135mm and 150mm. Hold the end of the knots up to your cheek bone with one eye closed and you will see just about what a 135 and a 150 covers. This will not be exact, since the useable image of film is less than exactly 4x5 and the optics may state 150 but actual focal length is 147, but it will be close enough for what sounds to be your comparison. Just carry the square around and line up prospective photos yourself.

P.S. This is exactly what I carry and do before I set up any LF photo, so I know my camera angle and lens selection is right before I get the camera out. 9/10 times I do not even have to move the tripod.
170273

[ericantonio]

nicemate1,

I would like to suggest a different option. Cut out a piece of mat board, cardboard, or whatever you have with a 4x5 inch square out of it. Attach a string to the bottom with knots at 135mm and 150mm. Hold the end of the knots up to your cheek bone with one eye closed and you will see just about what a 135 and a 150 covers. This will not be exact, since the useable image of film is less than exactly 4x5 and the optics may state 150 but actual focal length is 147, but it will be close enough for what sounds to be your comparison. Just carry the square around and line up prospective photos yourself.

P.S. This is exactly what I carry and do before I set up any LF photo, so I know my camera angle and lens selection is right before I get the camera out. 9/10 times I do not even have to move the tripod.
170273

Wow, this is old school!!! Learned this working at a still life commerical studio when I was in HS/College in NYC.

[Pfsor]

Wow, this is old school!!! Learned this working at a still life commerical studio when I was in HS/College in NYC.

It may be the old school but also the only answer you really needed to know. Don't dismiss it easily.

[ericantonio]

It may be the old school but also the only answer you really needed to know. Don't dismiss it easily.

Not dismissing! You just jogged my memory and I remember doing this. I actually remember walking around with some guys looking through a cut out matt.

Gonna have to try this again. This reminds me of the movies where the cameraman makes a square with his hands and zooms in and out.

[Bob Salomon]

nicemate1,

I would like to suggest a different option. Cut out a piece of mat board, cardboard, or whatever you have with a 4x5 inch square out of it. Attach a string to the bottom with knots at 135mm and 150mm. Hold the end of the knots up to your cheek bone with one eye closed and you will see just about what a 135 and a 150 covers. This will not be exact, since the useable image of film is less than exactly 4x5 and the optics may state 150 but actual focal length is 147, but it will be close enough for what sounds to be your comparison. Just carry the square around and line up prospective photos yourself.

P.S. This is exactly what I carry and do before I set up any LF photo, so I know my camera angle and lens selection is right before I get the camera out. 9/10 times I do not even have to move the tripod.
170273

How did you make a 4x5 square?

[xkaes]

Why would anyone look for a "135mm" scene when all one has is a 150mm lens? That is what does not make sense to me. As silly as looking for a "110mm scene" with a 135mm lens.

The original question was which one to get. The original poster have NEITHER, and is merely trying to decide which is better for his/her unstated purposes.

[xkaes]

nicemate1,

I would like to suggest a different option. Cut out a piece of mat board, cardboard, or whatever you have with a 4x5 inch square out of it. Attach a string to the bottom with knots at 135mm and 150mm. Hold the end of the knots up to your cheek bone with one eye closed and you will see just about what a 135 and a 150 covers. This will not be exact, since the useable image of film is less than exactly 4x5 and the optics may state 150 but actual focal length is 147, but it will be close enough for what sounds to be your comparison. Just carry the square around and line up prospective photos yourself.

P.S. This is exactly what I carry and do before I set up any LF photo, so I know my camera angle and lens selection is right before I get the camera out. 9/10 times I do not even have to move the tripod.
170273

I've done the same thing -- but created a DELUX version. First, I started with one of those tiny, roll-up 5 foot tape measures -- about the size of a silver dollar. It has inches on one side and millimeters on the other. I use it for a few reasons. One is to determine the bellows extension in close-up work for exposure correction. But I also use it for lens selection. First, I took a Kodak Gray Card and cut a "4x5" hole in the middle -- the size can vary. For lens selection, I put the end of the ruler in my mouth and with the "4x5" hole moving back and forth from my eye, I can get a fast way to decide what lens to use. I have placed marks on the ruler for my lenses -- 47mm to 600mm. I can't use it for my 37mm fisheye and macro lenses.

I can also use the gray card for metering purposes. The part I cut out of the middle is attached with a piece of tape, so I can flip it up or down as needed. I also have a Wratten #90 filter taped to the card, so I can filp it up or down if I want to get a B&W preview of the scene to help me determine what filters to use -- in B&W.

I hope this makes sense. I turned a tape measure, gray card, and Wratten filter into a multi-tool device!

What length tape measure you use, what size card to use and what size hole to cut is up to you -- and your lenses. In any case, it is easy to make, very versatile, completely confusing to on-lookers -- and CHEAP!!!

[nicemate1]

Thank you Doremus !

With what focal lengths were these photographed - do you remember ? (this was my intended reason of the post - see images from 135 and 150mm, if anyone photographs with these focals)

“Lumber,” Oregon, 2002

“The Pyramids” Eroded Buttes, Arizona, 2009

"Fox Community Church 1", Oregon, 2009

"Rock Outcropping, Mud Hills, Glancing Light", Death Valley, California, 2010

Outstanding work by the way : )

thank you !!!

[nicemate1]

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

Thank you Doremus !

With what focal lengths were these photographed - do you remember ? (this was my intended reason of the post - see images from 135 and 150mm, if anyone photographs with these focals)

“Lumber,” Oregon, 2002

“The Pyramids” Eroded Buttes, Arizona, 2009

"Fox Community Church 1", Oregon, 2009

"Rock Outcropping, Mud Hills, Glancing Light", Death Valley, California, 2010

Outstanding work by the way : )

thank you !!!

[nicemate1]

How did you make a 4x5 square?

Lol !

Bob that was too funny ;)

a 4x5 inch square .....

[nicemate1]

The original question was which one to get. The original poster have NEITHER, and is merely trying to decide which is better for his/her unstated purposes.

Xkaes .... Almost.

That was my foreword, that I am about to get a new lens and need to decide which one, but the real and original question, actually, was to be able to see with my own eyes images that other photographers have taken with these two focal lengths (135 and 150), possibly all types of images (not just landscapes, for instance, but portraits or environmental portraits too).
Out of 20 replies no one has shown me a single image taken with these two focals ! (maybe my post was poorly written !)

[Bill_1856]

Roman Loranc does pretty good with a 210mm
https://www.romanloranc.com/
Indeed he does. John Blakemore seems to have settled on a 180mm.
Personally, I prefer the 135. It offers a slightly wider field of view, and is so close to the 150 that a little cropping is always available, if needed.

[Doremus Scudder]

Thank you Doremus !

With what focal lengths were these photographed - do you remember ? (this was my intended reason of the post - see images from 135 and 150mm, if anyone photographs with these focal lengths)

“Lumber,” Oregon, 2002

“The Pyramids” Eroded Buttes, Arizona, 2009

"Fox Community Church 1", Oregon, 2009

"Rock Outcropping, Mud Hills, Glancing Light", Death Valley, California, 2010

Outstanding work by the way : )

thank you !!!

nicemate,

Thanks for the kind words. The photos you mentioned were (I think) all made with a 135mm lens. I'm not exactly sure, because my negative files and exposure records are in another country than I am at the moment and I'm relying on memory.

As for 150mm; I think the only image I have on my website that was made with a 150mm lens is "Just Stuff" (in the American West gallery). As I said, I don't use the 150mm focal length that much.

But, If you've been following what I've been posting here, you'll be aware that my images don't represent the focal length lens I shot them with. I routinely crop a bit from my images when printing and mounting for a couple of reasons. First, I rarely exactly use the 4:5 aspect ratio; my compositions are dictated by the proportions and lines in the image. Second, I find my camera position and framing first (using a viewing frame, BTW) and then choose a lens that includes all of what I want. Since I rarely end up with a camera position and framing that is exactly right for any focal length lens, I opt to use the nearest shorter focal length and crop to achieve the composition I want. So, any image made with a 135mm lens for me would likely be cropped to somewhere between a 135mm and 180mm angle of view (or 203mm, depending on which lenses I'm carrying that day).

Best,

Doremus

[Alan Gales]

Walk around and look at scenes you would like to photograph. If they usually look good with your eyes then buy a normal focal length like a 150mm. If you feel you would usually want things a little bit wider then buy a 135mm. The difference between a 135 and a 150 isn't great and if you buy one focal length and feel you need the other then just use your feet to get closer or further away.

As dirt cheap as 210mm lenses are I'd pick up both a 150 and 210. They along with your 90 would make a nice evenly spaced lens kit!