150mm or 180mm as first lens on 4x5 camera.....and why.

[harlequin]

Hello Team,

Have option to get either 150 or 180mm lens for sinar Alpina...

A) what do you prefer 150 vs 180 and why?

B) would image circle be greater with 180mm?

C) which lens would emulate more closely 50mm on 35mm camera?

Many thanks for your feedback!

Harlequin

 

[Vaughn]

A...Used a 150/5.6 lens only on 4x5 for years...fine and dandy. We used 180mm lenses on many of the 4x5s I checked out to students...a useful single lens for both landscapes and portraits. One point to consider is what other lenses that might (will) follow it. Three-lens kit possibilities; 90/110-150-210mm, or 135-180-210mm (or 240/250mm if you have the bellows...not familiar with the camera). Maybe 90-135-180-240 for a four-lens kit.

B. Generally, yes...if they are similar lens design (plasmats, etc)

C. Neither. 4x5 is a whole different beast and comparsions are tricky...even 'equivilent' focal lengths can have a different feel between formats. But 150mm in 4x5 is about 45mm in the 35mm format, and 180mm in 4x5 is close to 52mm in 35mm format

 

[Huub]

These focal lengths are pretty close, comparable with the difference between 50mm and 60mm in 35mm. Both are very suited as an all round first lens, see also Vaughn's reply. I would check both lenses and their shutters on their state and choose the best of the two, ignoring the differences in focal lenght.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

A. I have a 180mm. Not that I prefer it to the 150, but because I built a 4-lens set, 90-125-180-240.

B. It depens. Please check: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

C. Both and neither. They are both considered "normal" lenses, but 4x5 and 35mm have such different ratios that comparing them is useless.

 

[j-dogg]

I am quite pleased with my Schneider 180/5.6, I did the 150/180 dance early on and kept my 180.

 

[Alan9940]

The decision really comes down to your anticipated lens lineup, if you intend to acquire more than one lens for your 4x5. Personally, I like the 150 focal length and, if I want to go slightly beyond the normal focal length I'll grab the 210. That said, my lightweight 4x5 lens kit consists of 90-135-200-300; all very small lenses for backpacking over greater distances than a short stroll.

 

[abruzzi]

Given the 50mm is usually described a a “long normal” (true “normal” on 35mm is supposedly 43mm, if you agree that normal is the diagonal of the frame) I’d probably say that 180mm might be closer to that. The 4x5 frame is a very different aspect ratio, so take that with a pinch of salt. I started with a 150 (Symmar S) but I prefer my 180 now (Nikkor) since I lean towards long over wide.

as to what a photographer new to 4x5 should start with—either, just ask yourself, do you test wide or long?

 

[Dennis-B]

I've used as "normal" lenses, from around 135mm, to 210mm, My favorite has been a 190mm f/6.3 Wide Field Ektar. It's not designed for 4x5, but provides enormous coverage. Lots of movement when needed.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

You're probably realizing now you've entered the rabbit hole, harlequin.

Sure you don't wanna go back to the blue pill?...

 

[wiltw]

Based upon the vertical height of the frame (93mm)...

• 150mm FL = 1.61 * vertical, is about same vertical AOV of 38mm 'normal' FL on 135
• 180mm FL = 1.94 * vertical, is about same vertical AOV of 47mm 'normal' FL on 135

Whe have seen 'normal' vary from 40mm to 58mm over the years!
IOW, it is dependent what YOU prefer as FOV on 135. Some folks like 35mm FL on their 135, while others like 50mm 'normal' walk around FL
If you think of traditional diagonal measure (in spite of the overlong frame of 135), 45mm 'normal' on 135 format is like 150mm FL on 4x5.

 

[awty]

You need all the lenses you can buy. The 135mm through to the 180mm are typically the cheapest, not a lot of difference, get which ever is the best value then start saving for a 240mm and a 90mm.

 

[removed account4]

Hello Team,

Have option to get either 150 or 180mm lens for sinar Alpina...

A) what do you prefer 150 vs 180 and why?

B) would image circle be greater with 180mm?

C) which lens would emulate more closely 50mm on 35mm camera?

Many thanks for your feedback!

Harlequin

Hi Harlequin
A.
I don't have a 180 but I have a 150. it's a computar, ( I think 6.3 if that matters ). I bought from a guy who claimed it was magical and
covered an 8x10 negative ( it was on a 8x10 sinar lens board ) .. not sure it does, I have talked to people, some say it does some say
it doesn't, I never bothered to try so I'll just say ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I prefer the 150 because that because its all I know.

B.
if the lens is a Schneider 105 / 185 convertible, it might throw a large image circle. my converted 210 / 370 throws a gigantic image circle so who knows what the 185 throws ..
it might be a nice portrait lens, Schneider used to suggest "portrait / landscape " use for their converted lenses. I've used the 370 to shoot group portraits, it worked well ( stopped down ).


C.
The "rule of thumb" of the conversion factor between a 35mm lens and a 4x5 lens is take the FL of a 35mm lens and multiply it by 3 ...
that will give you the ballpark figure of what its equivalent in 4x5 format might be. I say rule of thumb because it is between 4 and 5 and closer to 5 ..
so to answer your question, it's "around" 150...

have fun!
John

 

[250swb]

All the answers that lead with 'it depends on your final lens lineup' are good advice.

Like any camera system not many people carry every increment of lens on a 'just in case' basis, they jump a focal length, so with 35mm format they'd carry maybe a 28mm, a 50mm, and a 90mm, or alternatively a 21mm, a 35mm, and a 75mm. So for 4x5 I'd usually take two out of three favourites, either a 90mm, a 150mm or a 210mm and if I only take one lens it's the 150mm. The in-between focal lengths, example a 135mm in-between the 150mm and 90mm are often walkable if it's a matter of magnification in the landscape, and secondly (for me anyway) not a large enough change of view to bother with if it's a case of choosing between wide angle or telephoto. YMMV of course, but I think the principle is a good one whether you are a landscape photographer or portraitist.

 

[Neil Poulsen]

I have and like both focal lengths. But in fact, my first LF lens was a 180mm. This was intentional; I wanted something a little more restricted than a "normal" lens would offer. I thought that a 180mm lens was a nice compromise, in this regard.

My second lens was a 120mm SW. So, a similar compromise, but on the wide-angle side.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

If size is an issue (filters, weight, etc.), be sure to check both lenses to see which fits your needs better.

I like to standardize on filter size so I don't need lots of different-size filters. Smaller lenses can always be stepped up to a larger size, but not vice-versa. If you're planning on adding more lenses to your kit, filter size is something to keep in mind.

FWIW, I have a group of lenses that all use 52mm filters (some with step-up rings) that gets me 100mm, 135mm, 150mm, 180mm, 203mm, 240mm and 300mm. It's only my wider lenses like 90mm and 75mm that end up needing larger filters.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Pioneer]

I like my Schneider Kreuznach 135/235 Convertible on my 4x5. Of course that really isn't a comparison against a 150 since the only 150 I own is an old Zeiss Tessar and I use that one for entirely different reasons. The one is full of "atmosphere" the other is the good lens.

Kind of like owning two pair of pants. One is a worn out pair of blue jeans and the other is a good pair of suit pants. You use each of them and wouldn't get rid of either, but for very different reasons.

As for trying to compare focal lengths between 35mm film cameras and 4x5 large format, in the beginning everyone wants to make comparisons. I don't even try. These cameras are so completely different to use that they really don't compare.

 

[GKC]

Hello Team,

Have option to get either 150 or 180mm lens for sinar Alpina...

A) what do you prefer 150 vs 180 and why?

B) would image circle be greater with 180mm?

C) which lens would emulate more closely 50mm on 35mm camera?

Many thanks for your feedback!

Harlequin

A) I'd get the one with the best condition shutter and glass. If I already had a filter kit that fit, that's a definite plus..
B) Usually the longer focal length will have the greater image circle. Usually. Check: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/
for charts on various lens specs and reviews.
C) Comparing the the dimensions of cut film and a 35mm are kind of like apples and oranges. Both focal lengths are well within being considered "normal" for 4x5.

 

[maltfalc]

the crop factor is 3.5x, so 150mm=43mm and 180mm=51mm. you can crop an image shot with a 150mm lens to match one shot with a 180mm lens, but you can't widen an image shot with a 180mm lens to match one shot with a 150mm lens, so the 180mm may be more limiting, but it depends on what you're shooting.

 

[Donald Qualls]

These are both "normal" lenses -- the actual diagonal of 4x5 is about 158 mm (for actual image area). I'd probably choose based on other features: lens design (a symmetrical Gauss vs. a Tessar, for instance), speed, or image circle (bigger is always better). One good option if you can get/afford one is a 150 mm convertible. These can be used as their base focal length, or by unscrewing either the front group or the rear one, at two longer focal lengths as well. It's like getting three lenses in one (I have a 150 mm f/5.6 Componon enlarging lens that lets me do half of this trick -- image quality breaks down with only the front group, but the rear one is a pretty nice 250 mm f/13).

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've never even owned a 150, but have sure as heck done a lot of alpine photography. But if you're into the lightweight concept of an Alpina, why not match it with a lightweight lens? Both the 180 and 240 Fujinon A-series lenses are both very light and compact, plus optically superb. They're among my backpacking favorites. Within a particular design series, the longer the focal length, the bigger the image circle. Keep that in mind.

 

[Mal Paso]

I used a 210mm only for years. Currently 65, 115, 210, 400

 

[Vaughn]

I used a 210mm only for years. Currently 65, 115, 210, 400

I had a 210mm on my new 4x5 I took to New Zealand. The camera had a major light leak, so got only a couple images...but I did spend 3 months taking photographs with it. For the 6-month return trip to NZ (6 years later), I had a lighter 4x5 (used for a couple years before leaving this time) and a 150mm lens...and used my previous 3-months experience of the NZ light and landscape to my best advantage.

I found my personal vision tended towards closer, more intimate scenes than the 'grand landscape' (hard to find under the redwoods, anyway). And for this, the 150mm helped me in tighter areas and closer approaches than the 210mm, while maintaining the feel of what our eyes/brain experience. (Very subjective...YMMD). It is possibly why the Grand Canyon has always been elusive to me, photographically. I have packed a 4x5 down there for weeks and miles for nothing but the experience, it seems. I can handle it now, photographically, but don't have the legs for it because I'd want to go larger...

and the hike up....

Truman Cove, South Island, NZ, 1987
150mm lens, the ocean behind me
16x20 silver gelatin print from 4x5 negative
and
Patagonia, 2019
Two 5x7 negatives, platinum/palladium print
210mm lens

 

[DREW WILEY]

I only used a 210 the first ten years, but after that branched out. I don't give a damn what official "normal" is geometrically to a format. I just care about what feels right to my personal vision. Now I consider a 250 as my "personal normal" for 4x5, with everything shorter feeling a bit wide, and every thing longer a bit extended. I've always been more comfortable with a "longer than normal" lens on any format.

 

[bdial]

In agreement with the above, if I could only have 1 lens for a 4x5, it would be a 210. For portrait work it gives you a nice working distance between you and the sitter, for landscapes it helps you contain the essential elements of a scene. For a very long time, my 4x5 view camera kit was a 210 and a 90.

For large format, I prefer to think in terms of image size, rather than "wide", "normal", or "telephoto"

 

[DREW WILEY]

Back in the mid-60's, my older brother attended the Brooks photo academy, which had quite a high tuition. Knowing their students were on a tight budget, they told them to start out with only two 4X5 lenses : a 210 for portraiture and general commercial usage, and a 90 for architectural interiors. It was good advice.