how can I match the image?

[Michael Carter]

I like to take 35mm photos with a 200mm lens and a 2x teleconverter. What 8x10 equiment would take the same image format? 400mm lens on a 35mm camera would equal what on a 8x10 camera?
Thanks.

[BarryS]

It doesn't really translate exactly because of the different aspect ratios, but 6x is a rule of thumb, so you'd need a 200mm X 2 X 6 = 2400mm lens. Not a practical focal length and probably not easy to find (if at all) for 8x10.

[jb7]

I'm guessing here, but somewhere around 3m?
10 feet?

Depending on magnification, of course,
and whether you're shooting for width or height...

j

[Michael Carter]

Uh Uo That doesn't sound good.
I really wanted a larger negative for telephoto images. I take city views and sometimes they are really far away.
Is there some other size that would work? Like 4x5?
I've been looking at medium format, Kiev 88, they sell new telephoto lenses, but for the same cost ULF is an option, but only if I could take the telephotos.

[Walter Calahan]

Huge

My Nikkor 1200 mm on my 8x10 camera doesn't come close to the look of a 400 mm lens on a 35 mm camera.

Haven't tried my 1200 mm on my 4x5 'cause the bellows isn't long enough. I'd need a third standard in the middle with two sets of bellows. My Arca-Swiss can do it, I just haven't invested in the gear for that long of a lens.

[Ron Marshall]

Uh Uo That doesn't sound good.
I really wanted a larger negative for telephoto images. I take city views and sometimes they are really far away.
Is there some other size that would work? Like 4x5?
I've been looking at medium format, Kiev 88, they sell new telephoto lenses, but for the same cost ULF is an option, but only if I could take the telephotos.

A 1200mm would be about the 4x5 equivalent.

[Gene McCluney]

In practical terms, you CAN'T match the telephoto effects you get with your 35mm camera and a 200mm lens + tele-extender. While in theory one can compute the focal-length lens you would need...in practice this just won't work..as the lens is not available, and if it were, you would need 10 feet or more of bellows between the film and the lens. It would be impossible to get a sharp image due to camera shake due to even light winds blowing on a 10 foot long bellows..

You should use LF and ULF for what they do, and use 35mm for what it can do, and not try to put one set of requirements on another format that never was intended for such work.

[Daniel_Buck]

you could build a lens that has a very long focal length, you can buy lens elements with specific focal lengths. Only thing you need to really figure out is what to use for a shutter. I've done several things, either used my hand/hat/darkslide, taped my lens elements to a copal3 shutter, or used them on a speedgraphic that has a focal plane shutter. There are also others (like packards shutters) that could be used as well.

If you build an aperture (or used an aperture in an existing shutter), stopped down even just a raw lens element doesn't do to bad at all!

And instead of bellows, you could use a box system to avoid the problems with very long bellows (sagging, swayingin the wind, or even the problem of FINDING such a long bellows). Where one box slides in and out of another box for focusing (a long thin box, you could use A/C ducting for the main box element). But no matter what you do, it's going to end up being very large to get a super long lens on 8x10. All you need is something to hold the lens steady, infront of your film, and something to make the distance between light-tight. It's alot of fun, even if your camera doesn't end up looking to pretty, you'll never be able to tell by looking at your final images though!

I've never done anything with such long focal lengths (I was in the 400-600mm range), but I imagine you could find raw lens elements at just about any focal length, or even get one custom ground for you.

[Brian Ellis]

You can get the approximate 4x5 equivalent of any 35mm lens by multiplying the 35mm focal length by 3.5 and by 7 for 8x10. Because 35mm has a different aspect ratio than 4x5 and 8x10 there is no exact correlation but 3.5/7 is close enough for most purposes.

[drew.saunders]

A more practical option would be an 800mm lens on 6x7cm. Pentax made two different 800mm lenses for their 6x7 SLR, both fairly huge, especially the 800 f4 (see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...ax-800mm.shtml for a picture of the beast). With 6x7 you could also go for a 400mm and a 2x. 35mm to 6x7 is roughly 2:1.

Then there's this option, assuming you're an Oil Sheik: http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b...2571e100393a1b