Three lens backpacking set 90mm, 240mm, and...?

[Yuri Saniko]

Right now I have 2 lenses in my bag - 90mm SA and 240mm fuji-a. I also have 65mm SA but not carry it very often with me.
I want to add 3rd lens to have nice and light backpacking set (to use with wista dx-II).
Which lens in your opinion would be a better choise - 135mm or 150mm?

[Ralph Barker]

For backpacking purposes, I think I'd substitute the far more compact 110mm SS XL for the bulkier 90 SA, and then add a small 150.

[Michael S. Briggs]

The geometric mean of 90 and 240 is 147, so I suggest 150 mm as the lens midway between the two focal lengths that your already have.

[Steve Hamley]

Yuri,

I've shot both the 135mm and 150mm and prefer the slightly wide 135mm focal length. However, you'll just have to try them; I don't know of any advice or formula that would help much with such a subjective difference.

If I were going light, I'd ditch the 90mm SA and get the 80mm Schneider Super Symmar XL, a 135mm of your favorite flavor, and the Fujinon 240A.

Steve

[Ted Harris]

The only problem with substituting the 110 XL for the 90 SA is that 1) it weighs more although it is more compact (I think ... I can always find it when digging around cause it is the heaviest smallish lens in my kit) and it is very expensive. If you stick with the 90 then 150 or a 135 is the way to go. If you move up to 180 you generally also move up to a #1 shutter and more weight. BTW, I hate to mention it but I am replacing my 150 Apo Symmar with a 150 Apo Sironar W for the 5x7 coverage so the Schneider may be available. contqact me offlist if interested.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I'd go with a 150, if you already have a 90.

When I want to go really lightweight I'll carry a 90mm/6.8 Angulon, 135/235 symmar convertible, a set of Linhof 42mm drop-in filters and shade, and my Gowland 4x5" front-moves camera.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Yuri,

When I want to go REALLY light, I carry a three lens set of 90mm f6.3 WA Congo (144g in Copal No. 0), 150mm f9 Germinar W (131g in Compur 0) and 240mm f9 Fujinon A (243g in Copal No. 0). The 150mm is a good fit between the 90 and 240. While I use the 90mm WA Congo for backpacking, I would find the coverage too tight if it was my only wide angle for general purpose shooting (I use an 80mm SS XL and 110mm SS XL as my wide angles when I'm not backpacking).

There are several really light lenses available in the 150mm focal length. The little 150mm f6.3 Fujinon W weighs 136g in a Seiko 0 shutter. It is plentiful and inexpensive on the used market. It is a single coated tessar-type that has excellent performance and a bit more coverage than the typical tessar. The 150mm G Claron, is also tiny and light (especially if you can find one in a late style all-black Compur o). My favorite is the 150mm Germinar-W. It's a similar design to the G Claron (and Fujinon W) with similar coverage, but it's also multicoated. Heck, even an APO-Sironar-S in the 150mm focal length weighs only 229g and takes 49mm filters (to give you an idea, it's just a hair smaller and lighter than your 240mm Fujinon A).

If you want to reduce the weight further, but not sacrifice coverage, you might consider replacing your 90mm SA with an 80mm SS XL (268g). In that case, a 135mm might be a better fit. The lightest 135mm I know of that covers 4x5 is the APO-Sironar-N (or Caltar II-N) at 184g.

As you can tell, this is a subject I've given considerable thought. I haven't updated it in several years, but I have some more lightweight lens recommendation on my web site at:


http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/lightwei.htm

Kerry

[Frank Petronio]

Why not skip the intermediate lens altogether? Either you want information gathering wide vistas or the compression of a longer lens for details and far off subjects. The middle lens is a compromise that does neither, and usually you can avoid it by taking a few steps closer or further. I usually want one or the other - the "normal" stays in the bag unless I have my back to the wall (literally).

To me, I'd stick with the excellent lenses you already have and see how it works out. Maybe I'd upgrade the 90 to a faster, slightly heavier 90 with more even coverage (less vignetting, more movements) and keep the 240A if it is a good example (or trade up to another 210-300).

It's not as extreme a jump as one might think - the 90/240 are approximately equal to a 28mm and a 70mm on a 35mm SLR.

I've also used 90/180 and 75/150 as practical two lens combinations. They certainly make life simplier.

Be brave and your images will be stronger - "the safe way is a supermarket."

[Yuri Saniko]

Thanks! Unfortunately, both SS 80mm and 110mm are above my budget. I can't afford spending $1500 for the lens i will be using 10-15 times per year But if someone know where to get used SS 80mm for 700-800, i would sell my 65 and 90 SA and get that lens.

[CXC]

I wouldn't bother splitting that difference. Instead, consider the longest lens that is practical and will work on your camera. For me that's a 450mm. My standard 3 lens kit is 110/240/450.