Why do you not see longer FL lens in L/F?

[Old-N-Feeble]

Brian... I don't question the need for 300-600mm lenses on 4x5 film. But the OP mentioned 600mm lenses on 135 and wondered why ultra-long lenses aren't used on LF. A 600mm lens on 135 format is equal to a 2160mm lens on 4x5 or 4320mm on 8x10. It's like shooting 6x7cm with a 1270mm lens but without a rigid body camera and with a big wind sail (bellows) attached. But using a 300mm lens on 6x7cm format is about like using a 510mm on 4x5... not too uncommon.

[Two23]

I have a 1930s photography annual that has an article about bird photography. The guy was using 8x10 with 15 inch lens, as I recall. He was using a long cable fired trigger on the camera photo'ing birds on perches, and would also crop down to suit. I used to shoot a lot of wildlife with a Nikon 35mm system, but really can't see a need for a lens longer than 450mm on my Chamonix 4x5. I actually only have a 300mm as my longest lens and don't plan on getting anything longer.


Kent in SD

[Leigh]

Long lenses are quite commonly used on LF cameras, but not those of the "portable" type such as you imply.

Those lenses can be found routinely on process cameras, which have huge robust support structures to maintain rigidity when
mounting lenses that might weigh ten pounds or more.

- Leigh

[Sevo]

Long lenses are quite commonly used on LF cameras, but not those of the "portable" type such as you imply.

Those lenses can be found routinely on process cameras,

Which long lenses have you seen on process cameras? Hereabouts, the oldest horizontal cameras I handled had (Apo-) Tessar types of fairly normal angle, the more modern vertical cameras even have strongly wide lenses (Dagor, Apo-Gerogon etc.), in proportion to the very large formats. At 1:1 any extension will be long, but that is another issue.

[Leigh]

...the oldest horizontal cameras I handled had (Apo-) Tessar types of fairly normal angle...

Angle of view has absolutely nothing to do with focal length.

You're confusing two totally unrelated parameters.

- Leigh

[Sevo]

Angle of view has absolutely nothing to do with focal length.

For many definitions of "long", angle and proportion are very relevant. A hippopotamus may be long in absolute scale, but compared to a snake we'd describe it as a plump animal...

There is no doubt that process cameras often are big - but relative to their size, their lenses are short. Usually they are only half to one fifth the focal length of the "normal" lens of a similarly sized camera for pictorial photography. My Klimsch, with a 50x75 cm frame, is equipped with a 240mm Apo-Gerogon - this is about the equivalent of a 43mm lens for 4x5", i.e. wider than money can buy.

[Leigh]

The focal length of a lens is the distance from the rear node to the film plane when focused at infinity.

Period. End of story.

- Leigh

[Old-N-Feeble]

It's clearly understood that the OP referenced lenses "longer than normal" for a given format. Right? That would be 43mm for 135, 90mm for 6x7cm, 153mm for 4x5in, 305mm for 8x10in, etc.

[Arne Croell]

Most technical points have already been made, I think: stability, the bellows "sail" etc. In addition, for the real long ones, two tripods are a necessity, but also a major hassle! For 8x10, the longest lenses used for well known published images that I am aware of were the ones used by the late Reinhardt Wolf for his images of NY skyscrapers and of Spanish castles; he used Apo-Ronars up to 1200mm(and two big tripods, extra bellows, an extra bellows frame, an extra rail section, and an assistant to schlepp all that gear). That is however, only equivalent to about a 180mm lens on 135. In the skyscraper book, there is an image of him with his 8x10 Sinar on some roof in NYC, and it should be immediately obvious why that is close to the practical limit.
The longest lens I've used for 4x5 (on my Technikardan) is the 720mm Nikkor T, but that is also only equivalent to just 200mm; here is an example: http://www.arnecroell.com/p423836129...d8e3#h2aa5d8e3 I could see myself maybe going up to 1000mm on 4x5, for similar images, but I do net see any need for longer lenses.

Let me turn the question around. The main photographic areas of LF are/were in no particular order: architecture, product photography and still life, portraits, landscape (not wildlife) - all of these are also done with smaller formats, where 400 or 600mm lenses or longer are certainly available. How often have you seen an image from these fields done with one of those lenses?! Maybe the occasional city skyline against a mountain backdrop (e.g. Salt Lake City) to really compress the perspective, but thats about it.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Arne... that image prompted me to view your other images. Impressive work!!