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

[stradibarrius]

In 135 format it is fairly common to see lenses that are 600mm or maybe even more. In L/F it seems that long focal length lenses are not used that often??? Is there a reason for this or am I just not aware that long lenses are used all the time?

[E. von Hoegh]

The 600mm equivalent for 4x5 is 1800mm. I'd think the answer is self evident.

[Eric Rose]

Bellows can become too long and become sails in the wind. Hard to get a sharp exposure then. Some tele designs shorten the required bellows extension but at some point there is a are diminishing returns I guess.

[Old-N-Feeble]

The 135 format really shines for sports and other genres for which long or telephoto lenses are needed in a relatively compact/agile package. Also, 135 excels for photomicrography because the smaller format is far easier to get good results. LF/ULF shines for images requiring great detail on large prints. It's a matter of necessity vs. practicality.

[Sevo]

As others have pointed out, the bellows size soon grows impractical, so that you'd need special, rigid cameras the length of a small car. And at closer range the lack of DOF gets rather out of bounds, too, limiting the practical use to subjects close to infinity.

Due to these factors, large format with very long lenses has been mostly limited to astrophotography (where the "lenses" generally are called "telescopes") and reconnaissance satellites (whose lenses tend to be classified). 5" wide film used with focal lengths in the 3-5m range was common in film age spy satellites (who dropped cartridges of exposed roll film to earth), but with the conversion to digital, spy satellite sensor sizes now have dropped to medium format dimensions.

[John Kasaian]

A 19" Artar is one of my most used lenses on the 8x10. My bellows don't allow for much longer. Generally, long lens=vistas; wide lens=intimate landscapes, or at least that seems to be how it works out for me.

[Drew Wiley]

If large format photography hangs on a few more millennia, maybe there will be a race of
humans with longer arms. It would help. Or just maybe, LF photographers are less evolved, and still retain more distinct simian traits than regular people. We could all submit DNA samples I guess. I personally like long lenses for most of my work, including near
subject matter. But 600mm is just about the limit of practicality for me.

[Brian C. Miller]

Here's the real reason:
$4,308.95 - Schneider 600mm f/9 Apo-Tele-Xenar Lens, 461mm Flange Length
$4,568.95 - Schneider 800mm f/12 Apo-Tele-Xenar Lens, 628.2mm Flange Length
$5,687.95 - Schneider 1100mm f/22 Fine Art XXL Lens in Copal #3 Shutter

These weigh at least 4-1/2 pounds. Take a guess at what an 1800mm telephoto lens would cost and how much it would weigh. Yeah, these are 1/2 the price of a new car, or the price of a decent used car. Nikkor was the cheap seats at about half the price, and Nikon has dropped out of the LF lens market.

Added: If you want to "make" a long lens yourself, visit Surplus Shed and browse through their lens element selection.

[dh003i]

Nikkor-T 600/800/1200 can be had for around $2200 if you can find someone selling it...but it depends on the seller and market.

There are longer lenses, they get much heavier. 1200mm is the longest large-format telephoto focal length that I'm aware of. I think there might be some 72in (1828.8mm) Artar lenses. You'd need 6 feet of bellows to focus at infinity.

[stradibarrius]

Great answers that make perfect sense when pointed out.