PDA

View Full Version : 135 or 150, will i notice a difference?



Tim Meisburger
21-Apr-2012, 20:44
I have been looking for some time for a nice 135 to replace an old Wolly with no luck. But now i see a nice 150 for a good price. If I buy that will i notice the difference? For my lens kit i want 90. 135 and 210. I have a good 210, but before i go to italy this summer wanted to replace my 90mm optar and the Wolly with modern lenses and shutters.

jeroldharter
21-Apr-2012, 20:48
You won't see much difference between a 135 and 150 except for a smaller image circle with a 135.

mandoman7
21-Apr-2012, 21:55
Some people like having a 135 in combo with a 180 and a 90 for a field outfit, for the even spread of focal lengths. But Jerold is right about 135's often having less movements than 150's. In answer to your question, however, you won't see a lot of difference in the actual view with a 15mm difference. Its compares to a 50mm lens vs. a 45mm lens in 35mm format, roughly.

ic-racer
21-Apr-2012, 22:38
Like comparing a 43mm to a 39mm lens on a 35mm camera.

Vaughn
21-Apr-2012, 22:38
If your typical working distances are rather close to mid-range distances, perhaps the 135mm would be nice. Focusing closer then infinity will give you a little larger image circle than at infinity, and the 135mm has a slight advantage of being a wider lens in tight quarters. And works fine at infinity...just with less wiggle room for movements than the 150mm.

If you make a lot of images of grand sweeping views and the use of front movements, than the 150mm might serve you better. I used a 150mm/5.6 Caltar IIN as my only 4x5 lens for many years. Very versatile lens. It worked very well for me out in the open county and under the Redwoods. My 150mm is in a Copal 0 shutter, so the weight is not too much more than the 135mm.

Vaughn

And for some reason a lightweight 4x5 with a 150mm lens, the bellows stretched to focus near infinity, just looks nice and balanced. YMMD!

Old-N-Feeble
22-Apr-2012, 04:45
While I agree you won't see much difference between a 135 and 150 there is another consideration... focal length spacing with your other optics. Your current FL spacing is very even...

90 x 1.5 = 135 x 1.56 = 210

If you switch to a 150mm then your focal length spacing is less even... though still good...

90 x 1.67 = 150 x 1.4 = 210

It's just something to consider.

jnantz
22-Apr-2012, 05:30
i have a 150 and a 135 and a 127 and i can tell the difference between them all.

Old-N-Feeble
22-Apr-2012, 05:59
i have a 150 and a 135 and a 127 and i can tell the difference between them all.

You can tell significant enough difference in focal length (worth the weight/bulk) to carry a 127, 135 and 150? There's only 7 percent difference between 127 and 135 and only 11 percent between 135 and 150. To carry a wide range of focal lengths you'd need several dozen lenses if spaced only 10 percent apart. My weak back could never carry all that and my feeble brain could never decide on the "perfect" focal length for a given scene. :D

Bill_1856
22-Apr-2012, 07:14
If you like the view of your present 135, then you'll feel confined by a 150 (even though it only a very little longer).

David A. Goldfarb
22-Apr-2012, 09:22
Usually the reason to choose a 135 vs 150 are unrelated to focal length. For instance, I have 168/6.8 ser. iii Dagor, a 150/4.5 Xenar, and a 135/3.5 Planar. I use the Xenar because I have a rangefinder cam for it, and it closes inside my Technika, and allows for a small amount of movement. I use the Planar, which doesn't close inside the camera and leaves almost no room for movements, but does have a rangefinder cam, when I need the fastest 4x5" lens I have, usually for handheld shooting. I use the Dagor, which closes inside the camera, doesn't have a cam, but covers 8x10", when I'm likely to be photographing a tall building and need maximum front rise. You might even choose one over the other because it uses the same size filters as your other lenses.

Colin Graham
22-Apr-2012, 09:49
I agree- it's likely you will notice even a slight change if you are used to a certain FL. I carried a 135 Xenar for years but when the shutter got erratic I started using a 150 Xenar instead. It was a little awkward at first- nothing dramatic of course, but it was an adjustment.


If you like the view of your present 135, then you'll feel confined by a 150 (even though it only a very little longer).

adam satushek
22-Apr-2012, 10:04
yeah I carried a 135mm for many years. When I decided I needed a larger image circle I replaced it with a 150mm and 120mm. I have learned to really like and prefer the 150, and still have the 120 for times i want something wider. However, I may have been just as happy with a 135mm if there was a modern version with a large image circle.

Heroique
22-Apr-2012, 10:13
To add a psychological observation to the useful comments above...

If you’re “conditioned” by the 135, you’ll initially perceive the difference – whether objectively big or small – as a subjectively big one.

With time, the subjective difference, if it had been a distraction, will disappear. :^)

Bill_1856
22-Apr-2012, 11:57
the 135/3.5 Planar doesn't close inside the camera and leaves almost no room for movements,.

Interesting, David. My 135/3.5 Xenotar folds nicely into my Tech IV, and does have some room for movements, and takes 58mm filters.

David A. Goldfarb
22-Apr-2012, 12:02
Interesting, David. My 135/3.5 Xenotar folds nicely into my Tech IV, and does have some room for movements, and takes 58mm filters.

The earlier version of the 135 Planar had a special shutter and recessed board to allow it to close in the camera. I have the 2nd version.

John Kasaian
22-Apr-2012, 14:26
You guys seem too hung up on numbers. Just pick your effin' camera up and move it closer or back up until it suits you. Unless you've got walls, autobahns or the Grand Canal in the way,of course, then blow up and/or crop when it comes time to print.
Having a long, a wide, and normal lens is an obscene wealth of glass to flaunt around with---just take your long and your wide, or leave the long and wide at home and just take the normal (if you want to thumb your nose at those wonky shutter demons)

Vaughn
22-Apr-2012, 15:13
John -- sometimes I think my "Go-to" lens is the one with the most dependable shutter...LOL! Each of the formats I use seem to have its one lens...Caltar 150/5.6 for 4x5, Computar 210/6.3 for 5x7 and the FujiW 300/5.6 for 8x10. All in their Copal shutters (0, #1 and #3 respectively). I'll be putting a FujiW 250/6.7 on a board -- adding another lens with a good shutter (Copal #1) to the 8x10 pack...there's room for it and what's a couple more pounds or so... :rolleyes: The barrel lenses are easy to use under the redwoods and the long exposures, though.

BrianShaw
22-Apr-2012, 19:04
Just pick your effin' camera up and move it closer or back up until it suits you.

The difference between a 135 and 150 is about 5.75 paces.

adam satushek
22-Apr-2012, 19:29
The difference between a 135 and 150 is about 5.75 paces.

Yeah, while that is very true....it is not always possible. Usually it is, but not always, fences are often the culprit for me. I really think that if i was for some reason limited to just 1 lens for 4x5 might chose a 135mm (especially if someone made one with like a 300mm image circle). But i do feel that a 150mm and 120mm is currently ideal, FOR ME. While you can often times move to get the framing you like, it is not always possible, and occasionally spatial relationships might differ enough between a 135mm and 150mm to make a difference, but I fully admit that the difference is so slight as to not matter in 99.99999999% of situations.

BrianShaw
22-Apr-2012, 19:53
As you say... "FOR ME" is the most important criteria. I've been working mostly with a 135 since 1980 or so. There are times when I seriously think I should add a 150 too.

adam satushek
22-Apr-2012, 20:12
As you say... "FOR ME" is the most important criteria. I've been working mostly with a 135 since 1980 or so. There are times when I seriously think I should add a 150 too.

Exactly, thats why I used all caps for that portion. This is all incredibly subjective....and very difficult if not impossible to provide useful advice for over the internet. All we can do is relate out own experiences/opinions. 135mm and 150mm are very similar in terms of field of view, however considering how the lens will be used and the particulars of individual lenses the choice can be significant.

cjbroadbent
23-Apr-2012, 02:35
Subjective/Objective whatever: It's not easy to 'mould' your subject with a 150 - it gives a rather plain vanilla perspective because the camera stands perceptibly remote from the subject's horizontal planes.
The old saw about the 'Standard Lens' and film diagonal is perpetuated on Wikipedia by rote. Look it up. It might do for photogrammetry but it is not much help for interpretive photography.
A 135mm lens, or better, a 120 - both pretty close the the longest side of the film - lets you show things 'normal', but nevertheless, lets you get away with subtle exaggeration of the subject's attitude. Most Leica users prefer a 35mm lens for the same reason.

jnantz
23-Apr-2012, 04:40
hi oldnfeeble

i don't have any other lenses with this close a spread ... the 127+135 are small enough that when lens wrapped they are barely half the size of
the 150 ... they are different enough that one will work in a situation and the others won't ... i don't do the math, or pay attention to how many steps
away or close i might be i'll put on what i think will work, and if too much is cropped out &c i'll go a little wider &c ... i mostly use the 150
but the others come in handy when i need them ...

if i could i'd probably get rid of everything and just use something old like a shutterless casket set, or wide angle rapid rectalinaer
and paper all the time,
but the folks i sometimes do work for kind of frown upon that ..

i have a bad back and damaged joints as well, so i don't really carry much ...

You can tell significant enough difference in focal length (worth the weight/bulk) to carry a 127, 135 and 150? There's only 7 percent difference between 127 and 135 and only 11 percent between 135 and 150. To carry a wide range of focal lengths you'd need several dozen lenses if spaced only 10 percent apart. My weak back could never carry all that and my feeble brain could never decide on the "perfect" focal length for a given scene. :D

rdenney
23-Apr-2012, 05:37
Subjective/Objective whatever: It's not easy to 'mould' your subject with a 150 - it gives a rather plain vanilla perspective because the camera stands perceptibly remote from the subject's horizontal planes.
The old saw about the 'Standard Lens' and film diagonal is perpetuated on Wikipedia by rote. Look it up. It might do for photogrammetry but it is not much help for interpretive photography.
A 135mm lens, or better, a 120 - both pretty close the the longest side of the film - lets you show things 'normal', but nevertheless, lets you get away with subtle exaggeration of the subject's attitude. Most Leica users prefer a 35mm lens for the same reason.

This works for me, too. I find that when I want the flattened perspective of a more distant view, a 150 isn't quite distant enough, and I prefer a 180 or, more often, a 210. But the distance from the subject is still a bit too much for an intimate feel, and for that I prefer something in the 120's. For many years, I had a 121mm Super Angulon, a 150mm Geronar, and an 8-1/2" Ilex Paragon. I used the Geronar maybe once for every dozen times I used the other two, despite that it was the most contrasty lens of the three. Since then, I've added a 180, but even that doesn't get used much. The Paragon is relegated to my fun Speed Graphic--I replaced it on the Sinar with a Sironar-N, but now I'm finding that when I want something longer than normal, even 210 is often not long enough.

Rick "liking the notion of a lens of focal length equal to the width, even for panoramic formats" Denney

BrianShaw
23-Apr-2012, 06:22
I wasn't totally convinced about that notion until "Leica" was invoked! :D

Noah A
23-Apr-2012, 06:32
Will you notice a difference? Maybe. But the real question is, will the difference matter to you?

The 135 feels slightly wider than a 150, but the difference is extremely minor. If you're used to shooting with the 135 you'll probably notice a difference at first, but over time I'm sure you'll get used to the 150.

I've had two 135 mm lenses (an Apo-Symmar and an Apo-Sironar-S) and it is probably my favorite focal length. Both lenses were also darn near perfect lenses in terms of performance. But for the work I do, which is mostly in urban settings, none of the modern 135s have enough image circle to be useful for me. I've sold them both.

I now use a 115 Grandagon and a 150 Sironar-S for the vast majority of my work. I feel like the 135 is so close to the other lenses that it is redundant. Worse still, for me it seemed to confuse the process of setting up a shot since I had too many options. The 115 (or a 120) is a great lens since it gives a wide view that can allow for slightly more exaggerated perspective but not so much that it looks like a "wide" lens. The 135, in my opinion, doesn't have this same look. I think a 135 looks more like a 150.

I would recommend choosing based on your image circle requirements. If you shoot subjects that don't require much movement, then you might consider a good modern 135mm. If you do often use movements like lots of front rise, then a 150 will probably be better.

If you're set on your 90 and 210 lenses and just want to fill in the gap, the 135 does make for slightly more even spacing. But a 150 will fit in just fine too.

E. von Hoegh
23-Apr-2012, 07:47
I wasn't totally convinced about that notion until "Leica" was invoked! :D

Absolutely. The fact that on my Nikons I use a 35mm lens more than any other makes me the equal of any Leicatographer.

135 vs 150 would mainly be an image circle affair. I think Mr Broadbent is right on the money with the 135-120 recommendation, I use a 9 1/2" lens on 8x10 for those reasons.

Old-N-Feeble
23-Apr-2012, 07:53
A zillion years ago when I shot 4x5 quite a bit I did just fine with 58mm, 90mm, 150mm, 210mm and 300mm lenses. I would have rather had a 65mm that would cover the film instead of cropping images shot with the 58mmm Grandagon but it was okay. I also would have liked a longer lens... but it wasn't in my teenage budget. I don't recall ever feeling the need for more closely-spaced focal lengths except between the 90 and 150. But it wasn't worth the cost or weight to buy a 120 or 135. These days I work out the focal lengths before I purchase even one lens so I can work out the spacing I want... balanced, of course, with performance needs. My current goal is to space FL by a factor of 1.5x with 1.33x being the minimum and 1.67 being the absolute maximum. PERSONALLY, all other factors equal, I can't tell enough difference in focal length to fuss over a factor of less than 1.33x. I can see it... I just don't want to carry dozens of lenses just so I can tweak/refine visual perspective to that minute degree.

Example Of a 6x12cm Kit (this is already bulky/heavy):
38mm
58mm
90mm
135mm
200mm
300mm
450mm

Example Of a Kit I Would NOT Want To Carry (get a pack muke):
38mm
47mm
58mm
65mm
90mm
120mm
135mm
165mm
200mm
240mm
300mm
375mm
450mm

jnantz
23-Apr-2012, 08:53
yeah, that is kind of crazy ..
i have the 127 cause it came with the speed when i bought it 30+ years ago,
and was given the 135 by a friend who retired and gifted me some stuff ..
the 150, well i got that so when the older lenses cr@pped the bed
i would have a modern lens in a modern shutter as a back up lol
but since i have them, i use them ... otherwise i would sell them at a loss ( or profit )
depending on if jim gali starts a website page on over looked workhorse cheap as dirt lenses
and causes a market surge, like he did with brass lenses that used to cost 20-30$ back in the day ...


A zillion years ago when I shot 4x5 quite a bit I did just fine with 58mm, 90mm, 150mm, 210mm and 300mm lenses. I would have rather had a 65mm that would cover the film instead of cropping images shot with the 58mmm Grandagon but it was okay. I also would have liked a longer lens... but it wasn't in my teenage budget. I don't recall ever feeling the need for more closely-spaced focal lengths except between the 90 and 150. But it wasn't worth the cost or weight to buy a 120 or 135. These days I work out the focal lengths before I purchase even one lens so I can work out the spacing I want... balanced, of course, with performance needs. My current goal is to space FL by a factor of 1.5x with 1.33x being the minimum and 1.67 being the absolute maximum. PERSONALLY, all other factors equal, I can't tell enough difference in focal length to fuss over a factor of less than 1.33x. I can see it... I just don't want to carry dozens of lenses just so I can tweak/refine visual perspective to that minute degree.

Example Of a 6x12cm Kit (this is already bulky/heavy):
38mm
58mm
90mm
135mm
200mm
300mm
450mm

Example Of a Kit I Would NOT Want To Carry (get a pack muke):
38mm
47mm
58mm
65mm
90mm
120mm
135mm
165mm
200mm
240mm
300mm
375mm
450mm

Tim Meisburger
24-Apr-2012, 17:03
Thank you fellows for all this advice. Image circle seems a critical factor, but I see that the Sironar-N 135 has 200mm, while the 150 has 208mm. Not much different. I think I like the slightly wider feel of the 135 over the 150 and probably will not miss the extra 8mm all that much. I know the 150 is supposed to be "normal", but weirdly the 210 feels like normal to me. I have not used a 120 or 127, but the general consensus seems to be that if I like 135, I will like 120 or 127 even more. I don't think there is a 127 available in a modern shutter, so I think I will start looking for a 135 Sironar-N, or perhaps something in 120?

Thank you.