View Full Version : Next lens

11-Dec-2008, 08:29
I started out with a 203 ektar which I like and it seems sharp. Now I want something wider.

do I get a 150, 135, 120 or something else.

I am photographing mostly landscape and old buildings.



Pat Hilander
11-Dec-2008, 08:52
I like 135 myself. But if you really want a wider view look into a 90mm.

11-Dec-2008, 09:06
I should add that I shoot black and white.


11-Dec-2008, 09:24
I concur that a 135mm, 125mm, or 120mm makes sense for your next lens down (and 135mm in particular if you anticipate buying a 90mm in the future.) I would be wary of the 127mm tessar/ektar/ysarex lenses if you intend to use any camera movements.

11-Dec-2008, 11:45
I have a 135mm and a 150mm,180mm & 210mm but a have a few 5x4 cameras, but only 2 with me here in Turkey.

If taking two lenses I'd take a 135mm and the 200mm (given your choices), you could add a 90mm later as said earlier if you wanted to.

My Crown Graphic is set up for a 135 and it's really nice lens for hand-held or tripod work. As you say you shoot old buildings the 135 being a touch wider than a 150 gives you a little more flexibility.

The jump from 200mm to 90mm is quite substantial, and a 120 is tending that way. Ideally you need to choose between a 135mm or a 150m, and newer Symmmar's, Sironar's etc are very reasonable prices (usually) here in the For Sale/Wanted section or over on APUG


Aender Brepsom
11-Dec-2008, 13:09
You could crop an image taken with a 90mm lens, but you can't widen one taken with a 135mm lens. For landscapes, I very often use the 90mm. But I have to agree that going from 203mm to 90mm will leave quite a gap in between. A set of 3 lenses (203mm-135mm-90mm) would be very useful.

Peter De Smidt
11-Dec-2008, 17:47
A 120 SW lens is a good choice.

Michael Graves
11-Dec-2008, 18:10
A 120 is nice if you don't like the "wide angle" look, but want a wider angle. Some of those lenses also have incredibly wide coverage. I have a Fujinon 120 SW and on an 8x10 negative straight on, it barely nicks off the corners of the image. I use it with full movements on 5x7 and can't get enough movements out of my 4x5 without ripping the bellows apart. However, once in a while, the 90mm is simply the only thing that works.

12-Dec-2008, 05:33
Thanks for the advice


Joseph O'Neil
12-Dec-2008, 06:29
I have lenses from 90mm to 270mm for my 4x5, but I find I use my 135mm very frequently. It just fits "right" for many shots


12-Dec-2008, 08:53
90mm f8! it is awesome and relatively cheap

after using only a 165mm for 4x5 for years (only had one lens). i fell straight in love with my 90mm!

Mark Sampson
12-Dec-2008, 11:59
Kodak 135/6.3 Wide Field Ektar.

17-Dec-2008, 05:50
Kodak 135/6.3 Wide Field Ektar.

Are these coated and does it matter for black and white?


Don Hutton
17-Dec-2008, 06:09

You're the only fool buying your little act - after your particularly foolish post yesterday, I'm pretty sure that no-one has any doubt about who you are. Why you continue to try and play after the game has long finished, only you know, but it's a pretty pathetic scene for the spectators....

Alan Davenport
17-Dec-2008, 08:42
Eddie is a very perceptive fellow! A 90mm f/8 lens is such a cool tool. Best of all, there are lots of 90/8 Super Angulons still being unloaded by photographers who just couldn't stand the thought of not having something a stop faster (even though they'll still stop down to f/11 or smaller to shoot.) Meaning you can find a 90mm f/8 Super Angulon for a good price.

If you're really lucky, you might find a Caltar W-II 90mm f/8. That's just a Super Angulon that's been rebadged as a Caltar; the exact same lens but usually much cheaper because you're not paying for the Schneider name.

20-Dec-2008, 13:17
Kodak 135/6.3 Wide Field Ektar.

Are these coated and does it matter for black and white?

Steve Simmons

I believe most WF's are coated. It may be that the coating will range from a single soft coating on only some glass surfaces to a harder coating on all. Look for an 'L' incased in a circle. Coating can lower contrast in the image on any film material.

20-Dec-2008, 15:16
I've got a couple of 90s, both of which have their uses. I like the focal length, though it is a bit wide for a lot of things.

The first is a Rodenstock Grandagon-N f/6.8. Fairly big lens, room for lots of movements. One of the sharpest lenses I've experienced on any format (if not in absolute LPM resolution which I don't check / care about, at least relative to print sizes).

The second is a Raptar 90mm Wide Angle (graflex). Sits on my newly-acquired speed graphic where together they become a very portable landscape camera. This is the tiniest wide angle lens I could imagine; probably the tiniest large format lens period. The optics are about the size of a dime and the shutter maybe silver dollar sized. Barely covers 4x5 though; no movements here.

24-Dec-2008, 06:46
I looked up the specs on the 135 Ektar.

Thanks for the recommendation.


Bob Salomon
24-Dec-2008, 07:12
Depending on where you live the best way is to rent some different focal lengths and see which work best for your style. Some rental lens dealers in the USA are; FotoCare Ltd, Lens & Repro, Midwest, Quality, PRS in Atlanta, Gasser, K&S, Lighttec, Pro Photo Connection, Levine as well as many more.

Mike Putnam
29-Dec-2008, 21:43
Eric, I have a Rodenstock 135 that I love. It's light, sharp, and fulfills a lot of needs for me(I primarily shoot landscapes) If I didn't already have it , I'd buy it first.
Good Luck,

Mike Putnam Photography (http://www.mikeputnamphoto.com/)