How could you not know the Tele Artons or the Tele Xenars? Or the Apo Tele lenses that Schneider made or the Tele lenses from Nikon and Rodenstock and Fuji? They were all for large format.
Printable View
And the excellent early Ross and Dallmeyer telephoto lenses that preceded them, plus of course the CZJ Tele-Tessars :D
The 360mm f5.5 Tele-Xenar was sold for 35mm & 120 in a few focusing mounts as well as in a barrel or a Compound shutter for LF 5x4 & 7x5.
Ian
Won't tele lenses have problems with LF movements also?
Something about back focus IC shifting...
With macro it won't matter as the IC will be much bigger anyway.
I think Andy was just trying to be helpful.
He's been a member since 2001, so it's possible he stopped buying or looking at new lenses decades ago, but yes there are indeed modern ultra sharp 8x10 telephoto lenses from 600mm to 1200mm (I believe the 1200 only needs something like 750mm bellows? Pretty amazing)
EDIT: looked it up, 755mm bellows on that 1200mm
600mm T-ED ftf = 409.2mm (16.1")
800mm T-ED ftf = 527.4mm (20.8")
1200mm T-ED ftf = 755.7mm (29.8")
The serious difference between the bellows extension on the 1200mm is what made me think that it was possible to use macro lens with me seriously beneficial back focus distance.
I put a cheap 90mm enlarging lens on a Sinar board with gaffer's tape to make ??4x enlargement of a coin once. Said lens does not remotely cover 4x5 at infinity but I had the eagle's wing tips from the silver dollar near the edges of the frame and only needed 1 of the two bellows sets iirc. I find this this sort of thing a lot of fun even with kludgy equipment (not the Sinar, but the lights etc, the Sinar is a great piece of gear). Maybe I missed something but doesn't stone just need a lot of bellows on his 8x10?
Stone wants what he wants when he wants it where he wants it how he wants it. In other words, he wants miracles.
Dan, I was asking a question on WHY they didn't ever make a telephoto macro, looking for info and understanding, that's all.
I've already come to the conclusion that because of the limitations of LF, much of my macro work needs to be done on MF, the RZ67 with a 180mm (I have the 175 or 150 or whatever the macro lens is but it needs serious CLA before I use it) and 2 extension tubes shooting PanF+ and it blows 4x5 and 8x10 shots with TMY-2 and Acros100 out of the water in terms of detail and sharpness. I haven't done extensive side by side tests yet, and none of the lenses (MF or LF) are actual Macro lenses, but I will test the MF macro at some point, and if someone wants to loan me a LF macro to test, I would when I have time, and then might consider buying my own, but from what I have shot, it's just better with MF, I use studio lighting and breathing etc isn't an issue this is all strobed at speeds much faster than the lens can even fire at so that doesn't affect anything.
Anyway again, it was just me learning and understanding. Not me being demanding (although sometimes I am, and Dan is right, there are times I want a certain thing, and others often chime in with "why don't you do this or do that" and the simple answer is, because I want to do something else, but I'm not opposed to learning, it's in deciphering when someone actually knows what they are talking about from similar experience, vs those who are well read but have no practical experience in the matter at hand. On Forums it's a lot of the latter and that's why sometimes I hold fast to my own ideas until I can accept a truth to be real from a real experienced source.
But again, this thread is for information gathering as a curiosity because I'm not familiar with all lenses that exist obviously :)
Regarding the Nikkor teles I sought to use them to photograph Arctic birds at the nest, so for closeup not macro. Nikon rep did some inquiry with Nikon tech group and their guidance was to use the W or M series for this work as teles would not perform well at 1:10 or higher mags. PDM