How Close is a 180mm to a 210mm Lens?

[b._poetz]

... and don't tell me 30mm! LOL

 

Seriously, I shoot primarily portraiture with 4x5 and I own a 150mm, 180mm and several

300mm lenses... my question is: Do you feel it would be redundent to add a 210 focal length to

my kit given that I have a 180 and 300 already? Just want to get some opinions. Thanks folks.

[paul_owen]

In my opinion ... YES. Compare the 150 to the 180 and this is the same degree of difference between a 180 ansd a 210. I think a 150 is too close to a 180 so an option might be to ditch the 180 and get a 210? More "spread" between focal lengths then.

[bruce_watson1]

What Paul said.

[kelly_flanigan1]

For my oddball lenses; the gap is 32mm! Here I have in barrel a 210mm F3.5 Xenar from the 1950's; and 300mm F4.5 Xenar in barrel form the 1960's; and several 178mm F2.5 Aero Ektars of WW2 vintage. On a 4x5 speed graphic; the 178mm is easy to focus; the lens is huge and heavy. One has to be sure the focus rail doesnt slip.<BR><BR> The 210mm F3.5 is alot lighter; and sharper wide open in visible light. The Aero lens is corrected really for IR to visible; but always gets comments becuase it is an oddball lens for portraits. It was commonly used for astrophotography by amateurs in the 1960's; on 4x5 cameras; using old royal-x. <BR><BR> Another lens that is a sleeper in performance is the 203mm F7.7 Kodak Ektar; made to cover a 5x7 camera. It is about or is a symmetrical lens design; and extremely sharp closeup and infinity too. Most are in shutter; and are a light lens that is really compact too. It was once known as the "No.70 lens"; when it was labeled as a Kodak Anastigmat. This lens is abit hard to focus without a cloth; but is really a great sharp lens; even by modern standards. It fits a 1 1/2 inch board/38mm about.; the backfocus is 190mm. For portraits of women; it is really way too darn sharp; and shows all flaws in skin; etc.

[Troll]

If you don't know what you need, then you don't need it.

[Aoresteen]

You do have a delima. I'd work backwads from your 300mm lens. A 210 & 300 work well together. The 210 and 135 work well together. So get a good 210, sell the 150 and 180, and buy a 135mm. Final kit would be 135mm, 210mm, 300mm.

[ken_lee11]

Halfway betwen 180 and 300 is 240. The Fujinon 240A is a terrific lens. There are many

postings here and elsewhere to that effect.

 

If you make contact prints and/or don't intend to crop your negatives, then having lenses

this close together might make some sense.

 

Otherwise, you only need to crop the image made by a 180 by 1/3, and you get a 240 for

free.

[b._poetz]

Okay, let me be a bit more specific. My 150 is a 1930's Heliar and I just picked up the 180

Heliar and having the shutter CLA'd. Now, before I have a new board made for my little Busch

Pressman, I just wanted to see if you folks felt the 180 would be too similar to the 150 I already

have -- and intend to keep. Yes, ideally I plan to pick up a 210 H. in a Compur, but until then I

am debating on whether or not to keep the 180.

[John Crowe]

I have a 135, 210, and 300 and find the spreads a little too drastic. Ideally, I would go 135, 180, 240, 300. I already have the wide end covered with 65 and 90, but looking at 47XL.

[bob fowler]

OK, my "210" is REALLY an 8 1/2" (215mm), but I see a major difference from my 180mm. The jump from 8 1/2" to 12" was too much, so I bought a 10" to bridge the gap. At the same time, I got a great deal on a 9" lens (229mm), so I added that as well. I probably use the 9" and 10" lenses more than the 8 1/2"...

[brian_ellis16]

Think of it in 35mm terms, would you be likely to add a 70mm lens if you already had a 60mm lens for a 35mm camera? Probably not.

[gary_mccutcheon]

I wouldn't just talk or think about it. Use what you have. Shoot a lot. If what you have is not meeting your needs then maybe another lens. Maybe a 210. Maybe not. You may need to experience a few situations where the other lens is needed before you know. You may find that you have all that you need. Making photos is the only way to know.

 

Photo on.

 

Gary

[nicholas_fiduccia]

180 is similar to a 54mm in 35mm terms. 210 is a 63mm. Would you own BOTH a 54mm and a 63mm lens for your 35mm camera? I would not. Now, which lens to get rid of...that is a tougher question only you can answer. I am assembling a 110-180-300 lens kit and I think I will be very happy with the spread. In 35mm terms, this is a 33-54-90mm kit which will work well for the landscapes that I do. You may want to base your kit on another "starting" lens, for example the 210mm. To determine if too lenses are too close, you can think about them in 35mm terms or take the ratio of their focal lenghts. I like a ratio between 1.4 and 1.7. A focal length ratio smaller than 1.3 is probably too close. For example, the ratio between a 210 and a 150 is 1.4 and would be the closest spacing I would consider.

[b._poetz]

Thank you all for your thoughts and suggestions. In the final analysis, it really does come down to

practical experience. Or, as Gary put it: "Making photos is the only way to know." Agreed. So,

that's exactly what I'm going to do.

[r_hofland]

Yes, no need for a 210mm unless you are adding a particular capability, such as choosing a 210mm G-Claron for macro/closeups or one of the newer Apo lenses that just cover 8x10 format as a wideangle.

 

180mm is an excellent all around choice for 4x5 and 5x7 films-- decent for any type of portraiture and general scenic use, with your 300mm lenses adding to it for tight portraits.

[allen_whittier]

The fields of view, on a 4x5, of the four lenses are; 150mm = 35x44 degrees; 180mm = 29x37 degrees; 210mm = 25x32 degrees; 300mm = 18x23 degrees. The field of view is the full angular width of the view from the lens.

[scott_walton2]

It is close enough to rethink as you seem to be doing... Why don't you think in the 400-450mm range. It will give you some nice compression of the background, enable you to shoot some great head and shoulder stuff, or just give you a comfortable distance between you and your subject... just a thought.

[ken_schroeder]

Does your 300 work on your Busch Pressman? The constraint with the Busch and longer lenses is the small size of the camera opening and lens boards. The 210 Fujinon W should fit. Two lenses which should work quite well with the Busch, but really are not portrait lenses are the Nikon M200 and the 240 Fujinon A. Both are excellent lenses, but neither has a large maximum aperture. I have found the Nikon 200M to be a delightful lens. It's very compact and plenty sharp. It has plenty of covering power for portraiture and landscape. Personally, I would not purchase the extra lens for such a small amount of length.

[andy_shand1]

if you got a list of lens focal lengths/format against angle of view then all will be revealed ....i would say a 240 is the way to go.