Longest lens for Ebony RW45E?

[Craig Tuffin]

I've purchased an Ebony RW45E. On it's site it says:

MIN/MAX BELLOWS EXTENSION 60mm - 325mm (395mm with tilts)
USABLE LENSES 65mm - 500mm (telephoto)

...but I queried a guy on sneezebay about his Nikkor 360mm and he said that it would be too long for the Ebony. I'm looking a doing some portraits and want a longer lens.

What's your opinion on the longest lens for the camera I've got and what would the movements be like? Is it realistic to use a 65mm on a flat board with the Ebony? I've got a 45mm Grandagon that I use for 612 shots on my Sinar....could I use it with a recessed board?

Sorry for the many questions but I'm attached to this camera at the moment and really want to get the most out of it.

Craig

[Ken Lee]

This table (http://www.ebonycamera.com/articles/lenses.html) on the Ebony web site, lists many lenses of recent manufacture, including the Nikkor 360 T ED. According to the table, the 360 Nikkor Tele requires 261mm of bellows draw, when focused at infinity. So you should have no problem using it.

The Fujinon 400T requires 250mm of bellows extension for infinity focus. A few years back, I owned one, for my Tachihara field camera, and found it quite sharp at its best aperture. Here is a sample (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/Conway2.htm) photo with a detail section (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/fuji400detail.htm). The Nikkor, while a little shorter in length, is probably even a better performer than the Fuji.

Depending on the kind of portraits you make, you may find that long lenses have limited depth of field, and to stop them down enough, you need a lot of light, and/or long exposures, and/or fast film.

Of course, some people like the effect of very selective depth of field, while others (myself included) prefer lenses in the 200-300 mm range on 4x5. Here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/portraits/index.html?18) is one I made with on 4x5 with a vintage 210 mm Heliar lens at f/8. Even at 210 mm, the depth of field is fairly shallow.

[Greg Lockrey]

I have a Nikkor 360 and 500 T that work fine on mine with plenty of bellows to spare. I can focus to about 20 feet with the 500.

[Jay Wolfe]

Notice that the Nikkor lenses mention are tele lenses, which require shorter bellows extension than a "nominal" lens.

[Craig Tuffin]

Thanks guys :) It seems the fleabay guy just didn't want to sell me his lens.

A good point about the tele lens / nominal lenses. What's the longest nominal lens it would take....should I shoot portraiture WITH the nominal lens as apposed to the tele to avoid the subject being 20 or so feet away.

Liked the shots Ken and I DO enjoy the selective focus with smaller apertures. Did you crop it to the 612 pano format or shoot it at that?

Cheers

[BradS]

I have a RW45 and the longest normal (i.e. non-tele design) lens I have used with it is the 300mm Nikkor-M. It works ok...but, is sub-optimal for portraits. You can do a three quarter length with this set up but, cannot focus close enough to do a head and shoulders.

Try a 210 Geronar wide open...it is sublime.

[Ken Lee]

...should I shoot portraiture WITH the nominal lens as apposed to the tele to avoid the subject being 20 or so feet away.

Given a 300mm tele and a 300mm standard lens, you will get the same basic image from the same shooting distance. A tele lens will let you focus closer, because it requires less bellows draw.

What you want to know, is how close can you shoot, and how tight a portrait can you get. Perhaps one of our mathematical experts can share a formula which tells us the answer for lenses of different lengths.

Did you crop it to the 612 pano format or shoot it at that?

I cropped the photo to that format.

[drew.saunders]

Which 360? Nikkor made a 360T that needs 261mm of bellows, but the 360W needs 346mm. The 360/6.5 W would focus only down to about 2.8m (9') on the RW45E and that's using the front/rear tilt trick, so I can see why the seller might claim it wouldn't work, assuming it's the 360/6.5W that's for sale.

[matthew blais]

I use a 360 fuji on mine...have to use the tilts on front.

[Drew Wiley]

Ditto here. No problem with the 360A Fuji, even at reasonably close distances. Ability
to accept this particular lens was one of the criteria I used in selecting this camera.
Important - this lens has a number 1 shutter. A standard 360 plasmat in a 3 shutter
will be just too heavy and bulky for this camera. But note the thread on the new Schneider 360 in no.1, since the Fuji A is relatively rare.

[matthew blais]

A standard 360 plasmat in a 3 shutter
will be just too heavy and bulky for this camera.

Mine's not the "A" and in a copal3 and big...no real problems. The ebony can handle the stress I feel.

[Eric Woodbury]

Ditto here. No problem with the 360A Fuji, even at reasonably close distances. Ability
to accept this particular lens was one of the criteria I used in selecting this camera.
Important - this lens has a number 1 shutter. A standard 360 plasmat in a 3 shutter
will be just too heavy and bulky for this camera. But note the thread on the new Schneider 360 in no.1, since the Fuji A is relatively rare.

The new Schneider is an Apo Xenar 350mm. Something to watch, for sure. It looks to be a tele design and not need all the bellows of a standard 350mm. Right now, it's all vapor-ware.

[mrladewig]

I think it depends on a couple of factors, not just the longest lens that your camera can accept.

1) type of portrait - head and shoulders will be better suited to longer focal lengths, but a 210 should be fine. If you want to shoot full body length portraits, a 150 would probably work well.
2) working distance - once you get type of portrait worked out, how much room do you have to work in. If it is a small indoor space, you might need to stick with a short portrait length because you cannot back up enough to fit the subject in the frame. Also, you might not want to be terribly far from the subject.

But it seems like the Fuji 400T would definitely meet your needs and that the Nikon 500T might be a stretch on that camera. There are tophat lensboards out there which might help you get a longer focal length without the tilt gymnastics.

You might consider a Nikon/Schneider/Rodenstock 240/5.6 or the Fuji 250/6.3 or go to the 300/5.6 lenses. All should work on your camera. All of these would give very thin depth of field in a portrait.

[Arne Croell]

The new Schneider is an Apo Xenar 350mm. Something to watch, for sure. It looks to be a tele design and not need all the bellows of a standard 350mm. Right now, it's all vapor-ware.
Eric, its not a tele design despite the name. They describe it as a completely symmetric lens - it can't be a real tele design then. Check the discussion on the older thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=40937

Apparently the Schneider sales people decided that it is necessary to join the "tele= long focal length" crowd, design type be damned. They are in "good" company, Zeiss has done the same - the new "Tele-Tessar" 85mm f4 for the ZI rangefinder is no real telephoto either; it looks like a Voigtländer "Oxyn" (a mixed Heliar and Dynar) type to me.

The Schneider lens comes with an optional extender tube, essentially a "top hat" extender. That way it needs less than the nominal 350mm extension. So yes, it would be a viable option for the RW.

[Drew Wiley]

No need for either an extension board or a tele to accomodate a true 360 focal length
on the RW45. Just use the bases tilts on the front and rear standards.

[Eric Woodbury]

Arne, You're right. I mistyped in that if it is tele, not much so. SA00 is 324mm, which is somewhat helpful, but not really enough to call it a tele. I'm going ahead with a camera design that has 400mm of bellows. Altho I have a tele I use for, the 600T Nikkor, I'm not sure all the weight is worth the shorter bellows draw.