Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 84

Thread: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Chichester, UK

    Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?

    I have a 125mm Fuji 5.6 NW it's a great lens I like a lot, but I would class it as a ''general photography' lens so I wouldn't feel inclined to carry that and a 150mm, most of the time they are doing the same job. I guess it would make sense if you were an architectural photographer who frequently ran into limitations regarding where they could stand, and you could work out of your car. In the landscape you are just adding weight for marginal benefit. Most of the time you can move your camera position. I think if you own too many lenses in a sequence the temptation is to bring them with you 'just in case'. That is a better recipe for back pain than good images.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Mar 2007

    Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?

    4 3/8in / 111mm wa dagor

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Forest Grove, Ore.

    Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    In real world usage, and in terms of commonly available lenses, a 120 to 125 focal length would be the most obvious halfway house between 90 and 150. I can't think of any 110 except the very expensive Super Symmar XL, which is so close to the 90 as to be redundant unless you specially need the wider image circle. And at 115, there's just a big Grandagon. Most 105's barely cover 4x5, if at all, and are awfully close to the 90 perspective anyway. The Fuji 125W is a wonderfully lightweight lens without the distortions of wide-angle designs, if you don't need a lot of extra movements.
    I enjoy photographing architecture, and I finally came to the conclusion that the "progression" from 90mm to my 121mm Schneider Super Angulon was too much of a jump. My solution was to purchase a Fujinon 105mm SW; for me, it perfectly fills this "gap".

    For architecture, 90mm is my most used lens. For landscape, the Fuji 105mm SW is as wide as I care to go.

  4. #24
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    SF Bay area, CA

    Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?

    90 + 150 = 240. Divide that in two or average it, and you get 120 as the midpoint. Like I already noted, there are a number of lenses available in the 120-125 range to choose from. With 115, just a big expensive Grandagon that I'm aware of. But I think it's easy to get bogged down with just too many lenses. Best to get really comfortable first with what one or two can do, and then branch out afterwards if necessary. I worked with only a 210 for my first ten years of 4x5.

    I added 90 and 120 when I started doing commercial portfolios for architects and building contractors. I have never even owned a 150. But for personal outdoor work, I gravitate toward longer lenses : 180,200,250,300, 360, 450 etc, most of which have big enough image circles for 8x10 as well as 4x5 usage.
    Last edited by Drew Wiley; 19-Jan-2021 at 12:01.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Oregon now (formerly Austria)

    Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maris Rusis View Post
    I used to carry a lot of lenses for the 4x5 format until I realised a well made 4x5 negative is very generous in maintaining image quality when cropped. I can crop a 90mm view out of what my 75mm lens takes in, 150mm view from the 135mm lens, 300mm view from the 210mm lens. The key thing is to put the camera in the right place for the composition required and then have a lens that at least "gets it all in".
    Yes indeed!

    While it's nice to have an even progression of lenses, but there are other considerations that determine which focal lengths are most usable, the most important of which are image circle and lens size/weight. That's the main reason that there aren't many "standard" lenses between the workhorse 90mm wide-angle designs and the Plasmat 125/135mm lenses. Making a wide-angle design lens in the 120mm area (like the Super Angulons) results in a huge, unwieldy lens for 4x5. On the other hand, Plasmats shorter than 120mm or so end up barely or not covering 4x5 at all, which prevents the use of even minimal movements.

    FWIW, my basic kit progresses in roughly 50% intervals: 90mm, 135mm, 203mm (or 210mm depending on lens choice) and 300mm. Those four lenses get carried all the time and account for the majority of my work (with the 135mm getting the most use). But, when working in cities, where camera positions are more limited, I'll augment this set by eliminating the 200mm category and adding a 180mm and a 240mm to the mix (these are both Fujinon A compact lenses, so don't really add to the weight of the kit). And I have 75mm and 450mm lenses too for extreme situations. These latter don't get hauled out that much, though.

    So, for the OP, I'd suggest examining what you need for image circle and portability along with focal length when considering which lens might be best to fill in a gap. If I wanted a 110mm view, I'd just use my 90mm and crop...



  6. #26
    Small town, South Carolina, US
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    South Carolina, USA

    Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?

    I am inclined to try my 135/5.6 lens first then go wider or narrower as needed for the desired composition. At present, I have 65, 90, 135, 150, 203, and 240 lenses to choose from.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jan 2019

    Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?

    If only we had zooms, uh? :-)

    For my 4x5, over time and once I had stocked a 65, 75, 90, 125, 150, 180, 210, 240, 300, 360, 400 and 450 mm lenses I realized the only ones that see the sun are the 75, 125, 300 and 450. Of course because of size and weight, but also because of how I compose. YMMV.

    If I know the location I’ll trim down further, to maybe 2 lenses, or maybe bring the 90 instead of a 75mm... small variations. Usually trimming down buys me time, because I can walk further. You can crop a picture you took but you have nothing to crop if you never got to see that location because your back wasn’t cooperating.

    Truth is, unless you shoot at home or in a studio (stills/portraits/products), IMO there’s no real reason to have an intermediate between 90 and 150, once you have a 90 and a 150mm.

    Except for GAS, obviously.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Collinsville, CT USA

    Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?

    At one time I owned a 115mm Grandagon and a 120mm Angulon. I can only surmise that the Grandagon was a tad longer that 115mm and the Angulon a tad shorter than 120mm because the images cast by both lenses wasn't identical but very close to it. When I acquired my whole plate camera, sold both to get a 120mm Nikkor.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Dec 2019

    Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?

    So a lot of good points made here, but I just wanted to understand if the progression from 90mm to 150mm was linear.

    I gather it is.

    As for the "need" for something in the middle...idk. Yes I do, but do I want to carry that and the other lenses? Idk, probably not.

    Cool thanks all!
    Anything in life worth having is worth sharing.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Newbury, Vermont

    Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?

    Adam...about your original question - could you flesh this out a bit? I'm sure its not as simple as saying that a line is defined by two points - but in terms of mentioning two specific focal lengths...just what kind of "linearity" are you alluding to? Horizontal angle of the shorter being close to vertical of the longer of these two?

    It seems that most of the responses here relate to the idea of progression - which some (myself included) tend to think of in terms of percentages. expressing the ratio of your two examples - 150 and 90, as 1.6666 - you would arrive at a longer FL of appx. 250mm (and appx. 55mm for a shorter one) to maintain this ratio in the progression...thereby maintaining (and defining) its linearity.

    Personally, I tend to go with a (approximate) 50 percent progression...which, for 4x5, starts with 65, and adds 90/135/210/305mm lenses. But aside from this, I find certain focal lengths to be compelling in their own right, aside from whatever progression they might also fit. For example, I'm quite attached to both 120mm and 210mm focal lengths for the 5x7 format, whereas if I were to increase the 120mm by my "standard" 50 percent, I'd get 180mm - a focal length I personally find a bit "boring" in 5x7...much the same as I find 135 to be "boring" for 4x5, and have recently begun to substitute a 150 - which, again, blows away the "linearity" of my "preferred" progression.

    Not trying to muddy the waters here, but it seems that to define the "progression" of 90mm to'd need to at least add a third lens, at the "correct" ratio (which would be something close to 55mm and/or something close to 250mm, as described above) to verify the linearity of this progression. Make sense?

Similar Threads

  1. Mathematical Progression of Shutters
    By alan-salsman in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 27-Dec-2010, 19:19
  2. Black & White – a natural progression?
    By uniB in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 14-Feb-2008, 11:43


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts