Curious, why choose 135mm over 150mm?

[Vick Ko]

I'm curious, why do you choose 135mm over 150mm for 4x5 shooting?

The focal lengths are so close, I don't think there is a significant delta in perspective.

Is it because most 135mm lenses are smaller? Cheaper? Lighter?

Aren't 150mm lenses still optically better than those in 135mm?

regards
Vick

[Larry Gebhardt]

I like the 135mm as my normal lens, just as I like a 35mm as normal on a 35mm camera.

It also fits well into a lens lineup based on the 1.5 multiplier (90, 135, 200, 300).

I don't know if 150mm are better optically. The Rodenstock APO Sironar I use is excellent. The 150mm would have more coverage, but I don't recall having run out of coverage with the 135mm.

[Ken Lee]

Wasn't it a popular length with Speed Graphic cameras ? A bit wider, a bit more depth of field, smaller, lighter, less bellows draw required: good for photojournalism ? Isn't it about as wide as you can go before the image gets conspicuous foreshortening ?

[DannL]

135mm seemed to be on all the German 9x12 plate cameras I've owned. Some have been sharp and contrasty, while others not so.

[IanG]

I use both, a 150mm has better coverage and room for movements than a comparable 135mm. Ken's comments are right and I tend to use my 135mm along with a 90mm Angulon and a 203mm f7.7 Ektar as a light weight kit in a small backpack.

Where I know I'm going to use quite a bit of movements I use the 150mm in preference, it's easy to clip the corners with the 135.

Ian

[Steve Goldstein]

If you don't mind single-coated, both the 135mm Wide-Field Ektar and the original Fujinon-W with the so-called "inside lettering" cover 80 degrees stopped down, giving at least 20mm larger image circle than pretty much any other 135.

I like the 135 as well for being slightly wider but still "normal" looking. But in truth there's not a lot of difference and I could use the 150 just as easily.

[BrianShaw]

I've been shooting a 135 versus a 150 since my first day of shooting LF. By now it has just become habit. Originally I started because that was the lens on the SuperGraphic I obtained. When I bought a "real" viewcamera I bought 135 instead of 150 mostly because it is what I had and the difference is small enough to not be singificant to me and my shooting needs. Since then, meaning in the last 30 years, I have just been too frugal to buy a 150 because I already have the 135 and don't need two that are that close in focal length. If I were to do it all over again I think I might toss a coin to decide.

[Vaughn]

Wasn't it a popular length with Speed Graphic cameras ? A bit wider, a bit more depth of field, smaller, lighter, less bellows draw required: good for photojournalism ? Isn't it about as wide as you can go before the image gets conspicuous foreshortening ?

And the Speeds and Crowns were typically not used with much movements, and I suppose for newspaper work (especially in tight places) it is better to get more on the film and crop later than to miss something.

[Michael Graves]

I actually went with a 125mm Fujinon and a 150 Fujinon for my backpacking kit. A better delta and both are very lightweight and small.

[Eric Rose]

If you can't see the difference then nothing anyone else says really counts. Those of us that do prefer a 135mm as a standard lens do see a difference. I like my 150mm as well when the composition benefits from it, but my go to lens is the 135mm.