PDA

View Full Version : What do you photograph with your 150mm lens?



enrico scotece
4-Jun-2006, 03:12
Is there anything in particular you use your 150mm lens for? portraiture? landscape?

Walter Calahan
4-Jun-2006, 05:52
Anything I like. But since I'm now shooting 10-8, the 5-4 gear is getting less use.

Ralph Barker
4-Jun-2006, 07:13
Depends on the 150. On 4x5, my use of a 150 is varied - just about anything other than portraits, where I prefer a longer lens (300+). On 8x10, the right 150 is nice for wide landscapes.

Walter Calahan
4-Jun-2006, 07:49
Whoops - sorry everyone

editing error

"since I'm now shooting 10-8, the 5-4 gear is getting less use."

Should have read "since I'm now shooting 10-8, the 5-4 gear IT getting less use.

Don't own a 150mm for my 10-8 - I use a Nikkor 120mm and a Fujinon 180mm. Fab for landscapes.

The Schneider 150mm for 5-4 is simply a great all around lens that's SO sharp.

Ron Marshall
4-Jun-2006, 08:17
Mostly near far compositions.

tim atherton
4-Jun-2006, 08:19
jeepers - almost everything. Landscapes, landscape details, architecture +details, artwork, artifacts, people...

Alan Davenport
4-Jun-2006, 09:30
Whatever's in front of the camera, when the middle knot produces the desired composition...

http://home.comcast.net/~w7apd/public/lensframe.jpg

Oh, and stuff that's really close. My camera doesn't have enough bellows to focus real close with the 10 inch lens.

Jerry Fusselman
4-Jun-2006, 11:40
Is there anything in particular you use your 150mm lens for? portraiture? landscape?

Obviously, head-and-shoulders portraits on an Olympus Pen 35mm half-frame camera. Perfect perspective! :)

Gregory Gomez
4-Jun-2006, 12:55
Enrico,

I like your images posted on your web site.

You have a talent for adding mystery to your photographs, which require the viewer, in many cases, to project possible missing elements, either perceived or real, onto the picture in order to derive a complete interpretation. Nice.

Generally, I like to use the 210mm and 120mm focal lengths for the 4x5. However, there are many instances in which using a 210mm lens is not possible. In situations in which I need more depth of field, the 150mm is useful, which is often the case with close-up pictures of reasonably small objects. I also like the 150mm for full-length portraits, not head-and-shoulder shots. The 150mm is also handy in shooting forest sciences in which, once again, greater depth of field is needed over the 210mm lens. In such cases, there may be vertical elements in a largely horizontal plane that require a small lens aperture. The 150mm handles these situations quite well while providing a reasonably normal angle of view without adding any wide-angle distortion. The 120mm lens could be used, but sometimes it does not give me the desired image size for my primary subject (i.e., too much extraneous detail is included in the picture), and I am not able to compensate with camera placement.

It's also important to point out that the 135mm lens is also very popular among many 4x5 shooters, so you may want to consider that lens as well; however, the standard 135mm focal length usually does not provide an image circle as large as the one produced by the 150mm lens.

I hope this helps.

Jerry Fusselman
4-Jun-2006, 13:24
Generally, I like to use the 210mm and 120mm focal lengths for the 4x5. However, there are many instances in which using a 210mm lens is not possible. In situations in which I need more depth of field, the 150mm is useful, which is often the case with close-up pictures of reasonably small objects.

More depth of field with 150mm over 210mm yes, if shooting at infinity. Otherwise, you will not see more depth of field with a 150mm lens if you keep image magnification and f/stop the same---at least not with rectilinear symmetrical prime lenses. Check it out.

One way to see it is that you get less working distance with the 150mm lens. Another way is by similar triangles.

Ole Tjugen
4-Jun-2006, 13:30
I use mine quite a lot. For 9x12cm it's the most used of all since that's what sits on my 9x12cm plate camera, for 4x5" because it's the lens that gives me the results I like in many cases, for 5x7" and 24x30cm as wide-angles.

What was the question again?

Capocheny
4-Jun-2006, 14:04
Even though I have a 150... it's not a lens I use a lot! I prefer something a tad bit on the longer side.

But, I've resolved to shoot more with it in the very near future for subjects such as landscapes and closer-up subjects.

Sad thing is... my 150 won't cover 5x7 and that's fast becoming my preferred format. :)

Cheers

Ralph Barker
4-Jun-2006, 14:13
. . . Sad thing is... my 150 won't cover 5x7 and that's fast becoming my preferred format. :)

Pssssst. 150 SS XL. :D

Ole Tjugen
4-Jun-2006, 14:28
Pssssst. 150 SS XL. :D

Or 150 Germinar-W. Or even any Symmar - they just barely cover. Heliar and Apo-Lanthar too, but softer edges. An ancient 15cm Wide-Angle Aplanat will cover 8x10" with movements. And the Zeiss Doppel-Amatar 150mm f:6.8 I tried last week - stunningly sharp little thing.

Eric Leppanen
4-Jun-2006, 15:02
When shooting 4x5, my 150mm lens has almost (but not quite) enough depth-of-field to bring both a near foreground and infinity into simultaneous focus by merely stopping down. Thus, for near-to-far compositions where camera movements are not feasible, the 150mm lens will provide the maximum possible perspective compression (i.e., bring the background as close as possible), as long as I don't need infinity to be critically sharp.

I also use normal lenses (150mm on 4x5, 300mm on 8x10) when I want to retain a neutral perspective versus what the human eye would perceive. I find myself using normal lenses frequently when shooting external architecture, for example.

Otherwise, lens selection is a function of the angle-of-view I need and the perspective I want, and I am no more drawn to normal lenses than to any other lens in my bag. For general-purpose shooting, I typically have not experienced any correlation between focal length and subject matter.

Capocheny
4-Jun-2006, 15:49
:) Thanks Ralph, Ole...

I'll have to get out there and do some hunting to upgrade my Nikkor 150W.

[BTW, I've just gotten a Dorff 8x10, which throws another monkey wrench into the mix!]

Decisions, decisions, decisions! When will they EVER stop??? :)

Cheers

Ralph Barker
4-Jun-2006, 17:54
:) . . . [BTW, I've just gotten a Dorff 8x10, which throws another monkey wrench into the mix!]

Not really for the 150 SS XL, or a couple of the lenses Ole mentioned. But, the 150 SS XL is fairly large (95mm filters), and no bantam weight, either.

Capocheny
4-Jun-2006, 19:02
Hi Ralph,

Thanks for the info... I was thinking more along the lines of the 150 Nikkor SW, 155 Grandagon, or 165 Super Angulon.

The 150 SS XL, with it's image circle at 386 versus 312.5... The Nikkor SW's circle is 400. So, the difference is approximately 14mm... and the XL looks like it'll need the center filter at $430. So, price wise, it's a wash seeing as how the Nikkor doesn't look like it needs a center filter. Am I correct in this? Does this come down to a personal preference at this point? Or, would you go the XL route? :)

I currently have a 240 and 360 for the 8x10 but something a bit wider would be kind of nice.

The camera arrives on Wednesday afternoon. I'm looking forward to seeing that big image on the groundglass and, of course, an 8x10 chrome! :) YIKES... I promise this will be as big as I go! :>|

Do you remember back a short awhile ago when I first posted that I was contemplating one of these big brutes or go with the 5x7? That's when I ended up with the 5x7/4x5 Dorff but... "something" has kept gnawing at me to go 8x10 since then. I think it might have been John K's enthusiasm for the format! :)

Cheers

Nick_3536
4-Jun-2006, 19:04
Not really for the 150 SS XL, or a couple of the lenses Ole mentioned. But, the 150 SS XL is fairly large (95mm filters), and no bantam weight, either.

Is it threaded for rear filters? The online info seems to imply 62mm on the back.

Oren Grad
4-Jun-2006, 19:34
The 150 SS XL, with it's image circle at 386 versus 312.5... The Nikkor SW's circle is 400. So, the difference is approximately 14mm... and the XL looks like it'll need the center filter at $430. So, price wise, it's a wash seeing as how the Nikkor doesn't look like it needs a center filter. Am I correct in this? Does this come down to a personal preference at this point? Or, would you go the XL route? :)


I have a 155 Grandagon that I use for B&W work in 8x10. It has a rated image circle of 382mm, and with that design I've never felt any need for a center filter. I'm sure it would be the same if I had the 165 SA or the 150 Nikkor SW instead. These older wide angle designs are good values on the used market today if you don't mind lugging the extra weight and have a bit of patience for the right one to come along.

Ralph Barker
4-Jun-2006, 20:39
. . . Does this come down to a personal preference at this point? Or, would you go the XL route? . . .

I think there is a lot of personal choice in the matter. I chose the 150 SS XL to keep my 110 company, but plenty of people have been very happy with the other lenses. I don't use a center filter, but shoot mostly B&W.

Ralph Barker
4-Jun-2006, 20:40
Is it threaded for rear filters? The online info seems to imply 62mm on the back.
I believe so, but I don't like using filters on the rear due to focus shift, convenience, etc.

Capocheny
4-Jun-2006, 21:01
Hi Oren, Ralph,

Thank you... I'll have to save up some sheckles and pass it through my Finance Minister (my wife!) :) She's not up to date on my 8x10 acquisition yet! LOL... so, it might just put me in the doghouse for the next couple of days!

[Actually, she's not one to give me a hard time about these expenditures... I'm taking her to Toronto where she's going to be pampered in one of these high-end spas... so, the doghouse will last, at most, a day or two! :) LOL!]

So, from the sounds of it... it doesn't sound like they require that expensive $500 center filter then. That's a good thing.

Lastly, for the most part, I'm thinking I'll most likely use the 8x10 indoors 95% of the time (we'll see!) as opposed to lugging it around out in the field. In theory, I have the smaller Dorff 5x7 for that...

I'll have to keep an eye out and see which lens comes up first... there are just sooo many other committments these days!

The other thing I'll need first... are some holders! I understnd they come in useful! :) The camera came with ONLY one!

Thanks again Ralph, Oren... for the great advice!:)

Cheers

Ralph Barker
4-Jun-2006, 21:14
To paraphrase a familiar bachelor saying, "So many lenses, so little wallet." ;)

John Kasaian
4-Jun-2006, 22:00
A 159mm f12.5 Wollensak WA is a cheap, light, wide angle that will just cover 8x10 and is quite reasonable compared to other wides that are 8x10-able. I find it a nice lens for B&W and no centerfilters are needed.

Capocheny
4-Jun-2006, 23:15
To paraphrase a familiar bachelor saying, "So many lenses, so little wallet." ;)

:) Appropriate quotation for a bachelor... it's just that "us married folk" come under a vastly different set of constraints! :) Or, is it more appropriate to say, "restraints!" No, no... I'm just kidding! :)

It's interesting that there are so many older lenses being discussed these days. For example, John is speaking of a Wollensak 159 f12.5. I'm not familiar these lenses at all. The Dagors I've heard of... even the Wollensak, but... some of these other guys? No. So, is there a website that provides definitive coverage information on some of these older lenses?

Thank you.

Cheers

Ralph Barker
5-Jun-2006, 06:32
. . . So, is there a website that provides definitive coverage information on some of these older lenses?
Define "definitive". ;)

I've found info on the older lenses to be sparse and fairly subjective. Searching the archives here is often the best alternative. Others may have additional links, however.

Steven Barall
5-Jun-2006, 07:58
The 150 is a cool lens for the 4X5. It gives a sort of plain image, upfront, explanatory, declarative even. It's the kind of focal length that looks back at you when you see the photo. It meets you at your own level, reflective like a mirror. Sometimes you want that and sometimes you don't but it's cool when you do. A great tool.

Amund BLix Aaeng
5-Jun-2006, 09:11
The 150 is a cool lens for the 4X5. It gives a sort of plain image, upfront, explanatory, declarative even. It's the kind of focal length that looks back at you when you see the photo. It meets you at your own level, reflective like a mirror. Sometimes you want that and sometimes you don't but it's cool when you do. A great tool.

That was a nice way to put it. Exactly why a 150mm is all I use on 4x5 :)

Capocheny
5-Jun-2006, 19:12
Define "definitive". ;)

I've found info on the older lenses to be sparse and fairly subjective. Searching the archives here is often the best alternative. Others may have additional links, however.

Hi Ralph,

Fair question! :)

How about a complete listing (or, as close as possible) that is accurate? :) The site I usually turn to... turns out not to be as accurate as I'd thought.

So, it sounds like it'll just be a matter of searching and comparing the different info from the various sources then? :)

Thanks

Cheers

enrico scotece
6-Jun-2006, 05:55
You have all been great, thanks for the input and responses. I predominantly photograph with 5x4, and many see the 150mm as a 'plain' focal length. I guess that why I love it.

And Gregory, Thankyou for taking the time to look at my work and responding with kind words.

ok.. now the 240mm...

Capocheny
6-Jun-2006, 22:21
Enrico,

I use a 240 Nikkor f5.6 for probably 75% of the stuff that I shoot... great focal length!

My next acquisition will most likely be the Fujinon 240A but it's a tad bit slower than what I already have!

So many lenses... so little time! :)

Cheers

Jon Wilson
8-Jun-2006, 06:09
My favorite 150mm for 4x5 is a G-Claron. It seems I am able to use my system more with close up/back yard photographs. Example: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3445998
If I am going to do a landscape, I will many times go up to a 240mm, e.g., Kowa or G-Claron.