Which lens next?

[jtomasella]

If you do landscapes, go longer (an obvious rebuttal to Pere, just for sake of the usual fun banter). But there are actually no rules, just personal preferences. I happen to mostly like long perspectives. Somebody else might gravitate more toward wide-angle compositions. That's why the already repeated advice of supplementing your 150 with a 240 one direction, and 90 the other, is wise. It gives you a range of possibilities within a modest budget. One has to experiment a bit to find their own groove.

Honestly I don't even have a wide angle for my digital camera. I either use my 35 mil prime or a long lens. I do like the occasional close up so I will go long first.

[erian]

In fact, today portraits are massively made with shorter than normal focals. We call "Selfies" those nose jobs

I think it is positive a development. It will make using shorter lens for ULF portrait more acceptable. At least in a short run until the market will catch up.

[Greg]

On this end, the 2nd lens I purchased was always one half or double the focal length of my first lens.... except for 11x14. My first lens was a 508mm f/7 Caltar. Second lens was a 355mm f/9 G-Claron.

[Bernice Loui]

Consider a 240mm APO ronar or 9-1/2" APO artar in shutter (1st choice) or 300mm APO ronar or 12" APO artar in shutter depending on bellows capability of your field camera.

The APO ronar or artar is small enough to fit well on a field camera.


Bernice

Honestly I don't even have a wide angle for my digital camera. I either use my 35 mil prime or a long lens. I do like the occasional close up so I will go long first.

[JimboWalker]

Yes, a 90mm would be your next lens. I do not like 210mm lenses. For me, I am either too close or too far away. For a long lens, I recommend the Nikon 300mm f9. My favorite lens is the Rodenstock 180mm f5.6. for "normal"use. Good luck!

[John Kasaian]

My camera (Nagaoka) came with a 150mm. Which lens do you find yourself using more, wide or long?

The question should be, which focal length lens do you find yourself really wanting, longer or shorter?
Don't base your vision on others suggestions---chart your own course.

Personally I went with both a longer and a shorter lens. The shorter lens came first because that is what I needed most to suit my vision. Vision sounds kinda highfalutin' I know, but initially I often found myself running out of real estate on several shots.
OTOH a bull made a longer lens (so I could shoot safely behind fence) more necessary.
Mental note: a large format photographer working under a dark cloth apparently suggests the presence of a very willing Angus heifer to many bulls.

[esearing]

Is your 150 a convertible like a Symmar 150/265? if so then go wide. I found for landscape work I preferred a 135 over a 150 but I shoot wide mostly - I always carry 65, 90, 135, 180/315, then I may choose two of the following 200SF, 210/370, 250, or 300/500. Cheap lenses are easy to buy and experiment with but hard to sell since there are so many of them. Getting a good shutter is just as important as the lens.

[neil poulsen]

For wide, consider a Fuji 105mm SW. 90mm is the obligatory wide lens for architecture, but not necessarily for landscape.

Or, the Schneider 110mm Super Symmar.

[jnantz]

get a 210/370 symmar

[Havoc]

I started with a Symmar 180/315 (cheap) and a Fuji SDW 75 (because I could get it cheap for what it is). Got a CM-W 125 because the hole between 75 and 180 was too large. And then a CM-W 240 because the 180 was neither wide enough or close enough. Added a 90 but it rarely goes out for the same reason the 180 stays at home.

So at the moment I feel good with the 75/125/240 combination. The 75 is great for in the city or landscapes. The 125 is a nice general purpose for me. And the 240 when it need a bit narrower because too much stuff in the way.