Longish lens - 4x5 on Chamonix 045n-2

[Meekyman]

Hi Folks,

Basically, I feel I am a bit uncertain about a longish lens, despite placing a WTB for a Schneider 350mm on this forum! I have a 90, 135 and 210mm. I am generally a medium-wide, medium long sort of photographer (based on 35mm use). I live in a flat area and when photographing locally don't often feel the need for very wide, but surprising find the 210 often too short. I would like a longer lens for compressing features and for times when I simply can't walk in closer and also when in more hilly areas for isolating distant views. I also need to carry the lens so am ruling out Tele lenses (Nikon 360/Fuji 400mm). So, it comes down to Nikon 300mm or Schneider 350mm. The former is less costly than the latter! I feel that an extension bracket and fujinon 450mm might just induce too much wobble in the wind and so not really solve my "problem"

Any comments on how different the field of view is of the 300/350mmcompared to the 210 and if they really are sufficiently different? (I have a cardboard masked frame to have a rough idea and I often find it further from my eye than lenses I currently have).

Cheers

Graham

[Robert Oliver]

Love my Nikkor 300mm M f9 on my Chamonix 45n1. Big difference from my 180mm. I also just got a 400mm tele but haven't used it much.

Would love to get a Fujinon 450c but out of the question financially.

[drew.saunders]

Another option is the Fuji C 300/8.5. When I was looking for a 300/9 M-Nikkor (I already have the 200/8), I found a better deal on the Fuji, so I bought one, and have been very happy with it.

[Steve Goldstein]

Both the Nikkor-M and Fujinon-C have way more coverage than you need for 4x5. Be sure to use a lens shade with either one to reduce the amount of stray flare-inducing light bouncing around inside your bellows.

Another option, and considerably more rare, is the 300mm f/9 Docter APO-Germinar, which also fits a Copal 1. It's lighter than either the Fujinon or Nikkor, with ample coverage for 4x5. IIRC its image circle at f/22 is 255mm, compared with 325mm for the Nikkor and 380mm for the Fujinon.

[TGR Laguna]

I use the same lens spacing as you do on my Chamonix, 90mm, 135mm, and 200mm. I recently picked up the Nikkor 300mm but haven't had the chance to use it much just yet. However, it ends up being the same spacing (a factor of 1.5x) as the other three lenses, so the perspective shift will be the same as the 90-135 or the 135-210. Its also more or less a 35mm equivalent to an 89mm, one of my favorite focal lengths. I've thought about adding the Fujinon 450mm, but have paused for the same reasons you've expressed, a concern with shake and stability with the extension. I'm also not sure I need to be out that far as I rarely used the 35mm equivalent of 135mm when shooting landscape.

A lens at 350 or 360 allows the full use of the bellows without the extension, which I think is a great idea. A 350mm lens is 35mm equivalent to about 100mm, which is a focal length I would certainly use. In this case, however, I would probably shift the spacing of the mid lenses by swapping the 135mm for a 150mm and the 200mm for a 240mm. Hmmmm.....decisions, decisions! Overall, I think one might try the lenses one is used to using in 35mm as a start or simply adjust to the new ones. My 135mm is a focal length I've not used before and i really like it.

[Oren Grad]

So, it comes down to Nikon 300mm or Schneider 350mm.

The 305 G-Claron is compact and generally not hard to find nor particularly expensive. Also compact, but a bit harder to find, are the 300 Apo-Ronar and 300 Geronar.

[Peter Yeti]

I use an Apo-Ronar 9/300 on my Linhof Technika and it's a great lens. It falls right into the series 90, 135/150, 210, .... 300. It's quite compact and light-weight and shouldn't be too hard to find. The Apo-Ronar 9/360 already needs a #3 shutter and thus is much less compact. Of course, it's also a question of bellows extension and I don't know how far a Chamonix can go. Anyway, I like the 300 a lot for landscape.

[Meekyman]

Thanks everyone. I really want just a four lens set- Important into landscapes so have to carry the kit on my back. So this longish lens will be it. I dont really want a Tele lens for bulk reasons (also read less image quality but leave that open to debate). I guess my concern is that I buy something that doesn't really get me a long lens at all. For information the Chamonix camera goes to 395mm and is limited by the bed, an extension bracket allows 450mm and probably more.

[DKirk]

Have a look at the symmar 360mm, use one occasionally on 4x5 and it's great albiet heavy, but that's the price for f5.6. . .

[Otto Seaman]

I wouldn't hang a Copal 3 lens on a 4x5 Chamonix.

[Peter Yeti]

The symmar is as big and as heavy as a brick. Filter diameter is 105mm and weight is about 1700g!

For comparison:

Apo-Ronar 9/300: 49mm, 270g (#1 shutter)
Apo-Ronar 9/360: 58mm, 550g (#3 shutter)

I use an Apo-Sironar-N 360mm on my Sinar but wouldn't dare to put this thing on a typical 4x5" field camera. And I certainly wouldn't want to log around three pounds more than necessary.

[Flauvius]

Before you think of acquiring any lens, you should know the physical limitations of your camera and bellows.

First question, what is the length of your bellows?

Second, how much weight can your front standard support?

Third, what are the dimensions of the front standard's lens board?

Once you have the answers, you will have a basis upon which you can decide which lens(es) and shutters are suitable for your camera.

Flauvius

[vinny]

Before you think of acquiring any lens, you should know the physical limitations of your camera and bellows.

First question, what is the length of your bellows?

Second, how much weight can your front standard support?


Third, what are the dimensions of the front standard's lens board?

Once you have the answers, you will have a basis upon which you can decide which lens(es) and shutters are suitable for your camera.

Flauvius

He already listed the length of the bellows.
The lenses he's mentioned do not sit in a copal 3 and he's mentioned that he'd like to carry them in a backpack.
The 45n-2 uses Lihnof boards (which will hold any of the lenses already mentioned) and since he already owns the camera, I'm sure he knows the lens board size.

[Harley Goldman]

I have a Nikkor M 300mm and a Fujinon C 450mm (using the extension board). Both work beautifully on my Chamonix. I can highly recommend both (or the Fuji 300mm, which is about the same size and performance as the Nikkor).

[Thomas Greutmann]

I have used an APO Ronar 360 mounted in an old #2 shutter on a Chamonix. Much lighter and more compact than the #3 shutters, but not so common. But Apo Ronar 360 in #2 Compurs show up occasionally on that auction site. With a little bit of luck and patience you might find one.

Greetings, Thomas

[Meekyman]

Harley,

Mind if I buy ask how often you reach for either lens?

I am really after one longish lens and would rather try to get it right in camera rather than crop after.

Graham

[Harley Goldman]

Graham,

My style is typically tight, intimate work. I use my 240mm the most, followed by both the 300mm and the 450mm. I would guess I use those three 85% of the time. I would not want to be without any of them, since I use them all so much. I use the 300 about as much as I do the 450. That answer doesn't help you much though. :)

[Preston]

For carrying, you can't beat the Fujinon 450 or the Mikkor-M 300. I have the 300 and it's one of my favorite lenses, i.e. it sees a lot of use. I have used Harley's 450 Fuji with the extender board on my Chamonix 045N-2 and it is rock solid.

Lon Overacker has the Nikkor 450 in a Copal-3 and I've never heard him complain about issues due to it's weight, on his Chamonix.

--P

[Larry Gebhardt]

I have the 300mm Nikon and the 450mm Fujinon. I just got the 450 for use on 5x7. For me the 300mm is one of my most used lenses on the Chamonix 045 (original version). I am thinking of getting the extension board so I can use the 450, but so far it doesn't seem pressing.

A 135 to 200 is the same ratio as the 300 to 450, so I'm not sure if you can really choose between them as equivalents as you are trying to do. Seems you really need to figure out how short your current lens set is from what you want. Only you know that. For me I wanted to keep the same ratio between lenses so I went with 90, 135, 200, 300 for my backpacking kit. To add the 450 would be a natural fit, but I'm not sure how often I would use it.

[Meekyman]

Thanks everyone, especially Harley for getting back after your post.

Larry...what I'm really trying to choose between 300mm (and fear its not then tight enough) or the more costly but longer Schneider 350mm (and hope it is right for me). Nice position to be in really.

Cheers

Graham

[angusparker]

Another vote for Nikkor 300mm which I use maybe 40% of my compositions on my Chamonix 45n2. While I have the Fuji 450mm and extension board which is solid except in a stiff breeze I rarely use except if I have a particular application. For a three lens set I tend to pick 110/200/300 or sometimes 125/200/300. I only use lenses with 52mm and 67mm filter size lenses to keep things simple. If you like shorter focal lengths then Fujinon 125/180/240 is a great combo.

[Harley Goldman]

Another vote for Nikkor 300mm which I use maybe 40% of my compositions on my Chamonix 45n2. While I have the Fuji 450mm and extension board which is solid except in a stiff breeze I rarely use except if I have a particular application. For a three lens set I tend to pick 110/200/300 or sometimes 125/200/300. I only use lenses with 52mm and 67mm filter size lenses to keep things simple. If you like shorter focal lengths then Fujinon 125/180/240 is a great combo.

I have a 125/150/240/300/450 lineup. I rarely use the 125, but it is nice to have on occasion. I even have an 80mm, but that stays in the film bag. I have not used it in a few years. I don't "see" in wide angle.

[Tori Nelson]

This is a great thread and I'm happy to have the information. I've just given up 8x10 and am going back to 4x5. My Chamonix F1 should be here next week and I'm encouraged to hear about people being able to use their 450mm with no problems; I had been afraid I was going to have to give it up. I've ordered an extension board from Vinny and now just need to find some lens boards.

[Meekyman]

Thanks once again for replying Harley!

Glad it's been informative Tori.

Reckon I will keep on thinking about what to do for a while. Just been out on a "scouting mission" (aka evening stroll with the wife!) around the neighbourhood fields/rivers and so and took my "viewing frame" with me. Surprising how often I had it a fair way from my eyes. Leaning towards a 450 maybe. I guess the fact I live in a flat area and so I see things tighter here than when in the hills. Confused still I guess!

Graham

[TGR Laguna]

I, too, have found this thread to be very helpful as I was concerned about using the extension and mounting a 450mm on my Chamonix. Now that I understand the camera is still stable, a 450mm may well be in my future. As such, I believe the 300mm is a much better alternative than the 350mm, at least for me. First a Nikkor M is both lighter and less expensive (unfortunately, there are no lightweight choices at the 350-360mm range) and like you, I carry everything on my back. The other factor in my choices has been filter size so I can standardize. I'm not sure of thread size on the 350mm, but I suspect it's up there, whereas the 300 M and the 450 are both 52mm.

One of the main "mental" shifts I've made shooting 4x5 verses 35mm is not being a slave to the full fame, edge to edge requirements of the smaller format. A 35mm negative is so small, one cannot afford to crop. Not so with 4x5. For instance, say the resolution of your lens is 60 lp/mm at the center, 60 half way out and 48 at the edge. If you plan on printing at a factor of 4x (4 times the negative size or 16x20), the resolution of the print will b e 15-15-12 (the resolution of the negative divided by the expansion factor). In comparison, a person with 20/20 vision can resolve 6.7 lp/mm at a normal viewing distance, whereas someone with 20/12 vision may be able to resolve around 11 lp/mm. In other words, the final image will appear razor sharp to everyone. Say, you decided to crop 20% of the image and still blow it up to 16x20. The portion of the negative in use is now 3.2" x 4" and the the expansion factor is 5x. As you are now only using the center part of negative, the final print resolution will be 12-12, still well above anyone's definition of sharp. As a result, a negative shot with a 300mm lens can easily be cropped to produce the same as a 360mm and still be sharp even when printing 16x20. My point here is that your lens choice isn't so much about getting closer as it is about differing perspective and how much you wish to compress the image.

Seeing as a 450mm can be used on the Chamonix, I'm not sure a 350mm is really needed. I've got a 300mm and can add the other when it's in the budget. In the meantime, I can stretch the 300mm to 360mm when the need exists.

Ted

[Kodachrome25]

As such, I believe the 300mm is a much better alternative than the 350mm, at least for me. First a Nikkor M is both lighter and less expensive (unfortunately, there are no lightweight choices at the 350-360mm range) and like you, I carry everything on my back. The other factor in my choices has been filter size so I can standardize. I'm not sure of thread size on the 350mm, but I suspect it's up there, whereas the 300 M and the 450 are both 52mm.

It depends on your lens spread.

In my case I use a Fujinon 240A as my second to longest lens, so a 300 makes no sense. Your 300M is Copal-1, 52mm and 9.5 ounces where as my brand new Schnieder 350mm F11 Apo Tele Xenar is also Copal-1, 58mm and weighs just 4.5 onces more and like the 300M, is super sharp.

So yes, there is indeed a lightweight 350mm out there, I have seen them used for around $700-$800 but it is rare you see one used. New, you are going to spend about the same on the 350 as you might on the not so easy to find used 450 so it might be a wash.

I love my 350 and it is as long as I need to go in 4x5. I routinely ski double black diamond terrain or climb peaks above 14,000 feet with the 45N-2, 350 and 4 other lenses on my back, no issues.

[Meekyman]

Well in the end I found a good deal on a used Nikkor 300mm f9, decided that Ted's argument about relatively little loss if cropping 4x5 and so one is one it's way.

Thanks everyone for your input,

Graham

[Carsten Wolff]

Any lens I use that is over ~10" FL on my 4x5/5x7 monorail usually gets steadied by my Manfrotto 359 Long Lens Support (mini-clamp).....makes the world of a difference outdoors.
A 14" Commercial Ektar might do it for you perhaps, too, but it IS getting a bit chunky and needs a fair bit of bellows. There are a few other smallish lenses in the 355-360mm FL out there: E.g. other Tessars/Xenars and Apo/LD-Artars/Ronars come to mind.

[Brian Ellis]

I used the 300mm Nikon lens mentioned by others and also the 400mm Fuji telephoto lens on several different cameras including a Tachihara and Linhof Master Technika. The 400mm Fuji takes a Copal 1 shutter so it's not particularly large or heavy. I didn't find that it produced lower-quality prints than normal lenses but I never did a scientific test comparing it to other lenses, just observed the photographs. Oddly enough, I found that the 400mm Fuji was actually too long for much of what I thought I'd use it for so I tended to use the 300mm Nikon more often.

[angusparker]

I have the Chamonix 4x5 and have the Fujinon 300c, Nikkor 300m, Schneider 350, Fujinon 400t, and Fujinon450c for use on various cameras. I would echo everyone's comments so far.
300 and 450mm are very different FL
300 is very different from 210 and a good useful addition to your set
400t is too heavy and not better than other options mentioned here. Sort of between focal length.
450c works well on the Chamonix except in a windy situation but I rarely use that FL on 4x5
350 makes more sense for a 110, 180, 240, 350 set which is what I use, finding 90 too wide for my tastes. For your set I would stick with the 300 plus the 350 is hard to find unless you buy new from B&H (a few are left in Germany). As to whether to use a Fujinon or Nikkor, I would choose the brand you are already using in your current set to get the same feel across focal lengths.

[Lightbender]

Thats a very good point that I did not think of before. I.ve been looking around for a long lens myself, now I dont feel like I have to go super long.



I, too, have found this thread to be very helpful as I was concerned about using the extension and mounting a 450mm on my Chamonix. Now that I understand the camera is still stable, a 450mm may well be in my future. As such, I believe the 300mm is a much better alternative than the 350mm, at least for me. First a Nikkor M is both lighter and less expensive (unfortunately, there are no lightweight choices at the 350-360mm range) and like you, I carry everything on my back. The other factor in my choices has been filter size so I can standardize. I'm not sure of thread size on the 350mm, but I suspect it's up there, whereas the 300 M and the 450 are both 52mm.

One of the main "mental" shifts I've made shooting 4x5 verses 35mm is not being a slave to the full fame, edge to edge requirements of the smaller format. A 35mm negative is so small, one cannot afford to crop. Not so with 4x5. For instance, say the resolution of your lens is 60 lp/mm at the center, 60 half way out and 48 at the edge. If you plan on printing at a factor of 4x (4 times the negative size or 16x20), the resolution of the print will b e 15-15-12 (the resolution of the negative divided by the expansion factor). In comparison, a person with 20/20 vision can resolve 6.7 lp/mm at a normal viewing distance, whereas someone with 20/12 vision may be able to resolve around 11 lp/mm. In other words, the final image will appear razor sharp to everyone. Say, you decided to crop 20% of the image and still blow it up to 16x20. The portion of the negative in use is now 3.2" x 4" and the the expansion factor is 5x. As you are now only using the center part of negative, the final print resolution will be 12-12, still well above anyone's definition of sharp. As a result, a negative shot with a 300mm lens can easily be cropped to produce the same as a 360mm and still be sharp even when printing 16x20. My point here is that your lens choice isn't so much about getting closer as it is about differing perspective and how much you wish to compress the image.

Seeing as a 450mm can be used on the Chamonix, I'm not sure a 350mm is really needed. I've got a 300mm and can add the other when it's in the budget. In the meantime, I can stretch the 300mm to 360mm when the need exists.

Ted