How useful is having both 120mm and 150mm lenses for 4x5?
How useful is having both 120mm and 150mm lenses for 4x5?
120 and 180 would make more sence and even more 135 and 210mm or 120 and 210mm.
I have a 110 and a 150, I find that spacing, 1.4 focal length ratio, about right.
It mostly depends on what other focal lenghts you have and what you prefer to photograph.
If you have only a 90 and a 150 you might find the gap is too large and a 120 is needed. An alternative spacing would be: 90, 135, 210.
Personally I would find 120, 150 spacing a bit too close, unless I was often shooting in locations where I was unable to adjust my camera position.
Very useful, but then most of my photos are in that focal length range. In fact a 135 mm is my most used lens though I also have 120 and 150 mm lenses. 120 mm and 150 mm look quite different. The Schneider Apo Symmar 120 and a Rodenstock 150 (either N or S) are both tiny lenses that are very sharp moreover they both use the same filter size (49 mm). The 120 mm Apo Symmar won't give you a lot of movements due to it's limited coverage, however it should be fine for landscapes. If you need significant movements a Superangulon 120 f8 (or older 121 mm) or Nikkor 120 SW f8 would provide it (they were designed as wide angles for 5x7) but at the cost of significant bulk and one stop aperture loss when focusing. I prefer the smaller lens. If you can afford it the Super Symmar XL 110 lens is less bulky than the Superangulon or Nikkor 120, allows great coverage and a full extra stop for focusing ease though it is not as tiny as the Apo Symmar 120 which is a gem of a lens.Originally Posted by Lazybones
After having said that it does to some extent depend on your subject matter, way of seeing, budget and other lenses. If you have no other lenses then I would probably start with the 120 and a 210 mm lens then add the 150 mm later.
Sincerely,
Hany.
I find it very useful, so I have not only 120 and 150, but 90, 135 and 180 as well. They all have their uses, and are all useful to get the exact framing I want.
My most-used 120mm (on 4x5") is a Leitmeyr Weitwinkel-Anastigmat 212mm f:6.8 which cost me about $20. The design is similar to the 120mm Angulon.
The actual image width of a 4x5 negative is only 120mm, including the rebates, (so a 120mm lens is effectivelly like a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera). A 150mm lens is just slightly more than the film diagonal. So it's a very good, usable combination.
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
125 and 150 are my most used lenses. Like Hany said, they do look quite different. If you havent explored it, an older fuji 125mm 5.6 NW is a great lens for the money. It has a 200mm or so circle which is more than most 120 and it still quite small, has the EBC coating. But there are 55mm and 52mm filter thread versions so be careful if that's an issue.
I have a 135... and that meets the needs of either a 120 or 150 for me. It is my most used lens.
Oh... one more thought. If I were finding deals like this I'd also be buying and using more variety in lenses!
It's an artistic choice, which only you can make.
The difference is roughly akin to a 40mm and 50mm lens in 35mm terms, if you're old enough to have gone through that learning phase. It's a difference of 25% going up, and 20% going down.
The answer depends on how much you are willing to crop, how many lenses you want to carry or purchase. You could always use the 120 and crop to get the equivalent of 150, if you don't mind cropping. If, on the other hand, you need to make large prints, that 25% difference may seem unacceptable: an image with 25% more grain, and 25% less resolution.
If you are a wide-angle shooter by nature, or if you expect to shoot a lot of architectural photos, then you might want a set of lenses in the wide end of the spectrum anyway, and the 120 won't be wide enough - you'll want a 90, and even shorter.
Some people do well with a combination of 120 and 210. With a little cropping, they become 120, 150, 210, and 250.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks