A quick comparison of three 135mm 4x5 lenses

[Pere Casals]

I used f11 so differences would show up, and it's an aperture I sometimes use. At f22 the chances are they would all look good in a scan at 2400 ppi.

There is a sample to sample variation, and a used lens can even lack the trimming shims...

Anyway at f/22 it happens that good 4x5 lenses are diffraction limited, so all may resolve near the same. IMHO a multicoated Sironar may favor microcontrast, so fine textures may have an slight better depiction, particularly when bright light sources are in the scene. Perhaps for portrait one may prefer a softer look... Anyway a softer look is easy to obtain in post. With PS it's straight. In the darkroom one can expose paper with "soft focus" effect, this is slightly defocusing the enlarging lens in the middle of the exposure. It is not the same than a Soft Focus lens, but it softens the portrait... this is something I'm still investigating...

A V700 scan at 2400dpi has way less than 2400dpi optical resolving power, with V700 you need higher dpi to obtain such a resolving power. IMHO no flatbed is to notice much difference, perhaps the Cezanne may notice something if you scan a 35mm strip of the 4x5 negative, but near nothing if scanning all negative in one time.

In the darkroom, to notice something you may need a very good enlarging lens, a well aligned enlarger, big paper and a refinated technique.

...and then I will have to decide which lens to keep.

When you decide... IMHO the factors you can consider are (beyond the look you see...) the technical excellence of the Sironar vs the /4.7 Speed of the Xenar.

The Sironar offers a way larger circle of image allowing more movements, and this is way enough to decide. Then you have the multicoating advantage.

Single coated or uncoated are a theoric technical drawback that it can also be an artistic resource... and the /4.7 can be useful if you seek a narrower DOF for portrait. Also bokeh nature may be different for you.

[Geoffrey Poulton]

I found myself preferring the Schneider Xenar 135mm f4.7

I did have the feeling that the focusing was better on this lens, but it just might have been that the tessar was up to the job!

[neil poulsen]

None of them!

In my opinion, a 135mm lens is the least desirable focal length of any lens for a 4x5 camera. It has relatively little room for movements, and at best, it's a wanabe "wide" angle lens.

On the other hand, it's next door neighbor, a 120mm SW is an excellent, moderate wide angle lens. Its sufficiently wide and different enough from a 150mm lens, and it has TONS of movement. By bother with 135mm, if one can have a 120mm or a 121mm SW for a reasonable price.

[djdister]

I think shooting all of them at near wide open, like f/5.6 would have been more interesting to see things like how out of focus areas look, possible distortion, etc.

[rdenney]

None of them!

In my opinion, a 135mm lens is the least desirable focal length of any lens for a 4x5 camera. It has relatively little room for movements, and at best, it's a wanabe "wide" angle lens.

On the other hand, it's next door neighbor, a 120mm SW is an excellent, moderate wide angle lens. Its sufficiently wide and different enough from a 150mm lens, and it has TONS of movement. By bother with 135mm, if one can have a 120mm or a 121mm SW for a reasonable price.

For me, a 135 would be a normal lens for a folding camera with few or no movements.

For any camera I use with movements, I had a 121 SA before I had a 150, and I’ve never used a 135. But it’s a beast and won’t fit in any folder.

Rick “not thinking of a 135 as wide angle” Denney

[BrianShaw]

“Wannabe wide angle”.

Absolutely! I’ve been using 135s for 40 or more years. I once thought of it as a wannabe normal, though.

[rfesk]

135mm is my most used focal length. I rarely need very much in the way of movements.

[AuditorOne]

Why bother with 135mm, if one can have a 120mm or a 121mm SW for a reasonable price.

Because I like the FOV???

I have always considered my 135 as a normal lens with a bit more freedom to work.

A 210 is a bit like skinny jeans, no freedom at all to move.

The 150 is like a well fit pair of dress pants. Comfortable but not something you really want to work in.

The 135 is like an old, comfy pair of coveralls. You can do just about any type of work you want with that comfortable 135. You can build the house, run the plumbing, wire it and then put in the deck out back.

[esearing]

I liked the optar image best then xenar - don't know why. I had used a Xenar for my primary 135 for years, until I bought a nearly new symmar which had better contrast. 135 is most used in my bag too and fits my vision like a 40mm does for 135.
The optar seems to have some film bowing and the xenar seems to have more exposure.

A side by side contact print might be better than individual scans.