Long Lens Discussion / Advice

[adam satushek]

Thanks Hermes, I honestly hadn't really considered barrel lenses, but I could get a sinar shutter and that could be a great option. Barrel lens seem generally cheaper. My only concern is do you know if there are multicoated process/barrel lenses? I really don't know much about them. I try to stick with modern multicoated lenses as I shoot color and like to enlarge as much as possible, but maybe with a very capable lens shade (like the sinar bellows mask 2) I probably wouldn't notice any difference?

That's an interesting point Drew. I have a 6x9 roll back that I never use....it would at least help me confirm that a 600mm would be useful for me. I prefer to shoot the biggest (up to 8x10) neg that I can, but this could be a good solution for certain shots.

You mention Drew, that telephoto lenses might not provide the optical results of normally designed lenses. I always figured once you get to about 600mm teles would be a great benefit as they would require less bellow draw and thus greater stability and improved performance, but if they are not as sharp to begin with maybe this is canceled out? Or not? I guess I have a lot to learn about giant lenses.......I seriously thought that I was crazy for wanting a 450mm....and now I think im even crazier for wanting something longer, but it seems to keep coming up.

I guess in a perfect world I would just drop 10 grand and pick up the new Schneider apo-tele-xenar 600/800 and a Fine art XXL 1100......but of course that is not even close to the realm of possibility at this point.

[Bill_1856]

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ngths-as-I-age

[adam satushek]

Thanks Bill! Couldn't find that for some reason....I have a hard time searching effectively on this site

[rdenney]

A cheap trick, though not ideal, is a 6X9 roll film back.

This is exactly why Sinar's variable-format roll-film holder is called the "Zoom"--the idea was that if you were lens-limited, you could adjust the format to provide the desired field of view. Of course, you could also crop from sheet film.

I certainly use long lenses at times on small-format cameras. A recent photo I made of Mount McKinley required every bit of 280mm on 24x36 format--6 times the format diagonal or 8 times the width. Filling the width of the 4x5 frame with the same image would require a 40" lens. That's completely impractical for me, though I know some do it. When I need a lens that long, I use a small camera. Sometimes, we just have to use each format for what it can feasibly do. It gives some of my small-format work a different look than my large-format work, but my large-format work has some features not present in my small-format work, too.

Rick "who didn't have a 600mm lens for his Pentax 6x7 on that Alaska trip, either" Denney

[adam satushek]

Here http://www.cnngo.com/hong-kong/play/...olidori-257129 is Robert Polidori using two Manfrotto 244N Variable Friction Magic Arms with attachments that fasten his camera's rail to two of his tripod's legs. This approach is slightly less cumbersome than using two tripods. I've shot a 2x3 Graflex RB Ser. B with a 610 Apo-Nikkor in front using a single 244N etc. with no stability problems. Used the RB's focal plane shutter on "I" and mirror slap had no or minimal effect.

Thanks Dan! Thats an interesting approach! I've admired magic arms and super clamps for years while I was assisting....I always wanted an excuse to get a pair of them....and now I might have one! Though I already have a second gitzo...so i may try that first for expenses sake...however a couple arms and clamps are probably still cheaper than the sinar branded flat support bar thing that allows attachment of 2 rail clamps....

[Joerg Krusche]

Adam,

to my experience nothing can compete with a second tripod .. need not be a heavy tripod .. make sure there is some weight on your rail when it rests on the front tripod such that it will really sit on it. I tried the Manfrotto Magic arm .. was not satisfied .. still vibrations .. and two manfrottos also weigh quite a bit . . just my very personal experience with some really long lenses,

joerg

[genotypewriter]

I know there was a fairly recent thread questioning whether preferring longer lenses is a function of aging which I found interesting.

Correlations can be easily formed but most often they're not accurate. First, I'm in my 20s. When I started off with DSLRs I preferred long lenses for the sorts of perspectives they gave. I've had quite a lot of fun using a 600mm lens on 35mm (which looks like a 2033mm on 4x5) is for all sorts of shots ranging from candids to sports to fashion shows to landscapes. With LF I find myself preferring wider fields of view because that's where LF's strength is greatest over smaller formats is, imo.

Do others find themselves requiring longer and longer lenses to get the compositions they see?

I have experienced this but when approaching fields of view around 3-5 degrees, image quality can drop easily because of atmospheric interferences. I.e. even when size, weight and wind issues have been overcome. So you're better off with a smaller format?

That's an interesting point Drew. I have a 6x9 roll back that I never use....it would at least help me confirm that a 600mm would be useful for me. I prefer to shoot the biggest (up to 8x10) neg that I can, but this could be a good solution for certain shots.

Well reducing the format size is cheating, really... since you can shoot 4x5 and crop the middle just as well. Unless you're using a smaller format lens But if you're ok with the smaller format approach, you'll be surprised how good modern 35mm teles are. They also have the benefit of faster apertures so you can reduce vibration-induced blurring, etc.

[rdenney]

The atmospheric turbulence issue is a real issue. A few years ago I made a photograph of a thunderstorm and rainbow over the Aquarius Plateau, from Bryce Canton many miles away. I used a 180mm Sonnar on 6x6 (cropped to 645) and the technique should have been decent. The camera was a proven performer, I used a heavy tripod, the lens was at a good aperture (probably f/11), and other photos on that roll were sharp and detailed. But the biggest I can enlarge this image is about 9x12"--after that it shoes the effects of turbulent air. (I've linked it only since its not LF.)

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/aqu...nbow_lores.jpg

180mm isn't that long on 6x6--maybe the equivalent of 360mm on 4x5. Conditions were obviously a bit extreme, but the longer one goes, the bigger those effects become.

Maybe the real advantage to working in small format for really long lenses is the attached small print size expectation.

Rick "who'd really like to be able to print this one big" Denney

[adam satushek]

Thanks Rick, Yeah its too bad about that shot, it would be nice large. Since I originally posted I have been considering atmospheric image degradation, and have noticed its affects on several of my images. However, somehow it seems to be fine with these particular images, but I guess that has to do with subject matter and mood. Both of these were shot with my Nikkor-M 450mm on 4x5. The second one I desired a longer lens...but I am actually very pleased with how it turned out.

[Drew Wiley]

Cropping 4X5 and greatly enlarging it doesn't accomplish the same thing because the film
simply doesn't lie dead flat in the holder. Some roll film backs aren't that good either; but
when you optimize the film plane they can be very crisp indeed. Atmospheric effects are
a given regardless and require a different kind of planning. But in general, the less weight
and the smaller the shutter at the front end, the better. Telephoto lenses are just heavy
in general, though they reduce bellows draw. But I doubt they compare optically to most
modern conventional lens options. And yes, multicoated process lenses are available. I know a guy who specializes in ultra-telephotography and he uses Apo Nikkor lenses on a
big Toyo 810G with a Nikon body mounted on the back, and the results are superior to what he got with either dedidcated Nikon lenses or Celestron telescopes. But lots of ways
to skin this cat.