Do I really need a 150mm lens? Opinions please

[Steve Feldman]

Hi y'all,

I know "Opinions are like bellybuttons . . . Everyone has one". So I humbly request your opinions.

The question is 'Do I really need a 150mm (so called normal length lens)'. I currently have, and use, a 90mm, 135mm, 203mm and a 254mm. My lens for the 4x5 enlarger is 135mm. So far it's all worked well for me for the past 10 +- years, but thought I might be missing something without the 150mm.

So? Waddya think?

Thanks.

~Steve

[Richard Wasserman]

No.

[Ben Syverson]

I think between the 135 and 203, you're covered! It's hard to imagine a scenario where the 135 would be too short but the 203 would be too long.

[James E Galvin]

Well I have 65, 90, 120, 135, 150, 203, 210, 250, 300, 360, 485, 760. I only use the 120 and 760 on 8X10. I have had the 150 for a few years, haven't used it yet. Do you find that sometimes the 135 is too wide, and the 203 too narrow? If so, get a 150 or 180. You can have too many lenses!

[Richard K.]

Hi y'all,

I know "Opinions are like bellybuttons . . . Everyone has one".

~Steve

I'm sorry Steve but you got the quote (anatomically) wrong so we can't help you! :D

OK, depending on how good the 203 is (is it an Ektar?), I might consider swapping it out for a 180 lens to give you nice spacing...that will be perfect....:rolleyes: :)

[Gem Singer]

I agree with Richard K.

A 90,135, 180, 254, and the possible addition of a compact 300, would give you more even spacing and a greater range of focal lengths.

I find the combination of a 135 and a 180 to be much more useful than a 150 for 4x5.

[Ron Marshall]

I had a 150 and sold it after trying a 135. Though they are close I much prefer a 135.

You may prefer a 150 to a 135.

Used 150s are cheap now. Buy one and give it a try!

[Shen45]

Everyone is wrong and of course my vision is correct for you [And yes if you haven't caught on this is a "tounge in cheek" statement]

First off, sell everything except the 90mm and even that might be the wrong type and get a new 90 then a 127mm, a 161mm a 215mm and a 300mm. To round everything out buy a 19" red Dot Artar.

Now in a second bag in the boot of the car have a --------------- "

The other alternative is to leave all of the lenses you have at home one day and take a 4x5 viewing card with an unmarked piece of string attached plus a mm tape measure and view a series of scenes. Write in a pad the measurements that best fit your vision of a scene.

Eg. Frame the scene within the card, hold the string to the corner of your eye then measure from the card to where your fingers are on the string. You may very well be surprise what your vision really is.

Just a thought.

[Vaughn]

Get rid of all the others and get a 150mm. ;) Actually, just about all I ever had for 4x5 was a 150mm

I like Steve N's suggestion.

Vaughn

[Peter De Smidt]

I've never had a 150 in 20 years of shooting 4x5. I go from 125mm right up to 210. But this is a highly personal matter. 150mm lenses are cheap, relatively speaking. If you do your research and pay a good price, you can try out the focal length and sell it at no loss if you don't like it.

[cjbroadbent]

135 is better than enough. Get a 150 only if you do pack-shots (the knocked-out product on the right of the body-copy, to answer another thread)

[tgtaylor]

I have a wide 150mm - a Rodenstock apo Sirona S - which has a field of view almost as wide as the Nikkor 120mm f8. If I had to buy it over again, I'd probablt go with the 135mm Rodenstock apo Sirona S.

[Rayt]

Lenses longer than 150mm tend to be bigger; shorter than 150mm tend to have less coverage. And there are more choices in 150mm.

[Alan Davenport]

You don't need a 150mm lens unless you want one.

[Bruce Watson]

So far it's all worked well for me for the past 10 +- years...

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Seriously, you'll know if you need a particular size lens. You'll need it when you find that you can't capture some images that attract you because you don't have the lens you need to capture them. If that's not happening to you, then you don't need another lens.

[Andre Noble]

Only if the 150 has significantly large image circle than your 135, and you need the extra coverAge.

[Jim Galli]

The 203 f7.7 had a little brother. 170mm f7.7 and in UK they used to come coated and in size 0 shutter. Killer. No, you don't need a 150. Too ordinary. Think magic bullets man.

[Brian Ellis]

I had a 135, 150, and 210. I used them all.

[Two23]

My own plan has been to have only a few lenses spread apart by 2x, and to make them the best quality I can afford. If you really need a lens, you wouldn't be asking us here. You would know it.


Kent in SD

[Frank Petronio]

Personally I think most people would do better photos with one slightly wide lens and one slightly long lens. Like a 90/210 or 120/180 combo.

The reasons people think they need the extremes is some sort of phobia. How many really good, memorable 4x5 photos have ever been done with 58s and 400s? two or three?

You really just need something that renders wide and something that renders long, and camera position (walking) does the rest. And if the freaking client wants more, then stitch or crop!

[Peter Gomena]

I like my 150. I would not buy one if I already had a 135.
My focal length spread is 90, 120, 150, 210, 305, 360. On 4x5, my most used focal lengths are 150 and 210. I use the 210, 305 and 120 on my whole plate camera as well, so they are very versatile. The 120 is crazy wide on that format and I like it!

Peter Gomena

[Jack Dahlgren]

Personally I think most people would do better photos with one slightly wide lens and one slightly long lens. Like a 90/210 or 120/180 combo.

The reasons people think they need the extremes is some sort of phobia. How many really good, memorable 4x5 photos have ever been done with 58s and 400s? two or three?

You really just need something that renders wide and something that renders long, and camera position (walking) does the rest. And if the freaking client wants more, then stitch or crop!

Are you serious? The man needs a 145mm, 150mm and 155mm or he is going to end up missing the shot.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Even holy AA did not like the normals in this case the 150mm he stated he prefers a bit shorter and longer then normal!
So the magic bullet has never been a 150mm;--)))
180/210mm this are the MBs!
My 135mm was my first 2-3 years my only lens!

Cheers Armin

[neil poulsen]

I guess is the 135mm is working for you, a 150mm wouldn't add that much value.

But if you swapped the 135mm for a 120 or 121 super wide, you'd have much better coverage, and the 150mm would fit in quite well.

[Acheron Photography]

I tend to agree with the general drift: you don't need a 150. I have 90, 110, 150, 180, 210 and 300, and the 150 gets the least use of all. If it weren't a decent wide on my 5x7 I'd probably sell it...

[Ole Tjugen]

Just to add that 150mm is my most used focal length - as long as we're talking about 4x5". And I have 47, 65, 75, 90, 105, 120, 135, 150, 165, 180, 210, 240, 270, 300, 305, 355, 360, 420 and 500mm lenses - all of which can be used on my 4x5" camera.

[rdenney]

Jeez, in ten years you don't know if you are always complaining that "this lens is too short" and "that lens is too long"?

Rick "who sometimes wonders what motivates these questions" Denney

[Jim Galli]

Just to add that 150mm is my most used focal length - as long as we're talking about 4x5". And I have 47, 65, 75, 90, 105, 120, 135, 150, 165, 180, 210, 240, 270, 300, 305, 355, 360, 420 and 500mm lenses - all of which can be used on my 4x5" camera.

Oops! I think I see a serious gap here Ole. A 325mm Cooke is almost a necessity, or perhaps a 330mm Wollensak Series 1a if the Cooke is out of the budget. 375 - 385mm is nice too. Always room for a few more lenses.

[Two23]

And I have 47, 65, 75, 90, 105, 120, 135, 150, 165, 180, 210, 240, 270, 300, 305, 355, 360, 420 and 500mm lenses - all of which can be used on my 4x5" camera.


Geepers! Why don't you just buy a Tamron 28-300mm lens? ;)


Kent in SD

[Steve Feldman]

Many thanks to all. Guess I'll keep my lens assortment as is for now. If only I was a better photographer. Hmmmm.

~S.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Ole you have to many glasses, thats make you confuse about the right one for use;--))))

[Ole Tjugen]

Geepers! Why don't you just buy a Tamron 28-300mm lens? ;)

Many of the lenses I have are convertibles, and I'm not adverse to convert them if I need an intermediate focal length.

I also neglected to mention my casket sets - I have a nice one with seven cells at 100mm intervals from 150 to 750mm, all of which screw into the same shutter. That's 18 focal lengths you don't find very often. In short, I don't need a zoom lens!

[Ivan J. Eberle]

A reason I might buy a 150mm for my Meridians is that the design of the folding bed struts obstructs the shift at 135mm, but not 150mm-- which also makes using the geared rise knob a bit fiddly.

I much prefer the slightly wider lens as a "normal", however. And the 135mm Caltar IIN (AKA APO Sironar-N) that I've got is bitingly sharp.

A 150mm will have a modestly larger image circle, all other design criteria being equal.

[mentalcrisis00]

Personally I think most people would do better photos with one slightly wide lens and one slightly long lens. Like a 90/210 or 120/180 combo.


Hah I guess I hit the money shot than, when I bought my Wista DX I also bought a 90mm and 210mm :) I agree with Frank, for my particular style of shooting I like to pack light. I'm generally going up mountains, across rivers, walking 20 miles a day to get my shots (by choice really). I used to roll with a light field camera and a Schneider 135mm Xenar and that was it, seriously. And that was a very lean setup but obviously limited in capability. Now as I stated above I have the Wista DX, 90mm, 210mm and I still pack the tiny 135mm Xenar.

Even if you're not scaling the tallest mountains you still want to keep it light if you're doing work in the city. Of course if you're only walking a few blocks from your apartment or a 100 yards from your car you can have more gear and just take it out as the need arises, I'm not one of these people.

As others have said if a 150mm lens will make you happy and it will enable you to make the shots you want, go for it. No photographer really needs more than 1 camera and 1 lens to make great shots. It's having the versatility and the convenience that makes photography more enjoyable and productive.

[John NYC]

I had a 90 and 150 on 4x5. That was my idea of wide and normal. Now on 8x10 I have 150 and 240, and it still feels to me to be wide and normal. (In 4x5 terms that would be 75 and 120.) I am thinking about getting a 350, but that would be the final lens, and I haven't done it yet because I am really not sure.

I agree with the earlier poster that the only reason you'd need to replace your 135 with a 150 is if you are finding your movements are making you run out of coverage on the 135.

I think you only need two or three lenses. After that, you are dorking out unless you are a commercial photographer and need to brag to your clients that you have 25 different lenses.