135 or 150, will i notice a difference?

[Tim Meisburger]

I have been looking for some time for a nice 135 to replace an old Wolly with no luck. But now i see a nice 150 for a good price. If I buy that will i notice the difference? For my lens kit i want 90. 135 and 210. I have a good 210, but before i go to italy this summer wanted to replace my 90mm optar and the Wolly with modern lenses and shutters.

[jeroldharter]

You won't see much difference between a 135 and 150 except for a smaller image circle with a 135.

[mandoman7]

Some people like having a 135 in combo with a 180 and a 90 for a field outfit, for the even spread of focal lengths. But Jerold is right about 135's often having less movements than 150's. In answer to your question, however, you won't see a lot of difference in the actual view with a 15mm difference. Its compares to a 50mm lens vs. a 45mm lens in 35mm format, roughly.

[ic-racer]

Like comparing a 43mm to a 39mm lens on a 35mm camera.

[Vaughn]

If your typical working distances are rather close to mid-range distances, perhaps the 135mm would be nice. Focusing closer then infinity will give you a little larger image circle than at infinity, and the 135mm has a slight advantage of being a wider lens in tight quarters. And works fine at infinity...just with less wiggle room for movements than the 150mm.

If you make a lot of images of grand sweeping views and the use of front movements, than the 150mm might serve you better. I used a 150mm/5.6 Caltar IIN as my only 4x5 lens for many years. Very versatile lens. It worked very well for me out in the open county and under the Redwoods. My 150mm is in a Copal 0 shutter, so the weight is not too much more than the 135mm.

Vaughn

And for some reason a lightweight 4x5 with a 150mm lens, the bellows stretched to focus near infinity, just looks nice and balanced. YMMD!

[Old-N-Feeble]

While I agree you won't see much difference between a 135 and 150 there is another consideration... focal length spacing with your other optics. Your current FL spacing is very even...

90 x 1.5 = 135 x 1.56 = 210

If you switch to a 150mm then your focal length spacing is less even... though still good...

90 x 1.67 = 150 x 1.4 = 210

It's just something to consider.

[jnantz]

i have a 150 and a 135 and a 127 and i can tell the difference between them all.

[Old-N-Feeble]

i have a 150 and a 135 and a 127 and i can tell the difference between them all.

You can tell significant enough difference in focal length (worth the weight/bulk) to carry a 127, 135 and 150? There's only 7 percent difference between 127 and 135 and only 11 percent between 135 and 150. To carry a wide range of focal lengths you'd need several dozen lenses if spaced only 10 percent apart. My weak back could never carry all that and my feeble brain could never decide on the "perfect" focal length for a given scene.

[Bill_1856]

If you like the view of your present 135, then you'll feel confined by a 150 (even though it only a very little longer).

[David A. Goldfarb]

Usually the reason to choose a 135 vs 150 are unrelated to focal length. For instance, I have 168/6.8 ser. iii Dagor, a 150/4.5 Xenar, and a 135/3.5 Planar. I use the Xenar because I have a rangefinder cam for it, and it closes inside my Technika, and allows for a small amount of movement. I use the Planar, which doesn't close inside the camera and leaves almost no room for movements, but does have a rangefinder cam, when I need the fastest 4x5" lens I have, usually for handheld shooting. I use the Dagor, which closes inside the camera, doesn't have a cam, but covers 8x10", when I'm likely to be photographing a tall building and need maximum front rise. You might even choose one over the other because it uses the same size filters as your other lenses.