Any telephoto (360mm or above) recommendations for a 4x5 (TK45S)?

[manfrominternet]

Hi all,

Can any of you recommend any sharp telephoto lenses for my Linhof Technikardan 45S, specifically 360mm or above?

I shoot color negative and transparency (Ektar/Portra & Provia/Velvia) exclusively, landscapes and architecture in particular.

Many thanks!

[Bob Salomon]

Tele Artar, Tele Xenarthra, Apo Ronar, etc. Symmars, Sironars and similar designs will not fit onto the camera due to the size of the rear barrel being too large to fit through the hole in the front standard.

[Luis-F-S]

What’s a teleartar? How much bellows does the camera have?

[Bob Salomon]

What’s a teleartar? How much bellows does the camera have?

20”. A Tele Arton was a higher quality Schneider Tele ens then the Tele Xenar.

[Luis-F-S]

You didn't say that Bob, pls read your post #2!

[Bob Salomon]

You didn't say that Bob, pls read your post #2!

Tele Arton, not Tele Artar. Sorry for confusion.

[Kiwi7475]

Any experience with the tele Congo’s? There’s 300, 400, and 500mm that are usually quite economical. I wonder how they’d compare to a tele Arton or a Fuji 400mm T in optical quality?

[Huub]

The Nikon 360/500/720mm Nikkor-T* ED set will fit. Especially the 360mm and 500mm configurations have a good reputation when it comes to sharpness and contrast.

[manfrominternet]

I'm actually very curious about the Nikon 360/500/720mm Nikkor-T* ED set, but I worry that the convertible design may mean less sharpness than, say, the 450mm Fujinon C.

So far I'm thinking either the 450mm Fujinon C or the 360/500/720mm Nikkor-T* ED set.

Has anyone had any luck with the Yamasaki Tele-Congo 500mm?

[Dann Corbit]

I have seen listings for a 500mm Telecongo that is f/8 and (supposedly) covers 5x7:
https://picclick.com/Yamasaki-Tele-Congo-500mm-f8-5x7-Large-Format-383691774518.html
Also, f/9.5:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Mint-Yamasaki-Tele-Congo-500mm-f-9-5-Lens-Copal-1-Shutter-From-Japan-/353153276569
THere is a guy who posts here named Maris Rusis who used to sell them and who told me all about my 300mm TeleCongo lens. I bet he would know a lot about it.

[Neal Chaves]

Doesn't the camera use Technika boards? I had a factory Linhof 360 Tele Xenar on a Technika board. The rear element was the same size as that of my 250mm Imagon.

I just checked the Linhof webpage. It shows that the recessed Technika board will mount. Certainly the rear element of the 360mm Tele Xenar will fit easily.

[Kiwi7475]

I'm actually very curious about the Nikon 360/500/720mm Nikkor-T* ED set, but I worry that the convertible design may mean less sharpness than, say, the 450mm Fujinon C.

So far I'm thinking either the 450mm Fujinon C or the 360/500/720mm Nikkor-T* ED set.

Has anyone had any luck with the Yamasaki Tele-Congo 500mm?

We’re not really comparing apples to apples here. The Fuji C is not a tele and will require that much in bellow extension. The Nikkor at 500 will require about 350mm bellow extension for infinity focus since it’s a tele design. Even if your camera supports 450mm in bellows keep in mind it’s more susceptible to wind and at these focal lengths stability is key (could be far more limiting than lens sharpness!).

The Nikkor are quite sharp, but they’re quite big and heavy, if that matters. They provide large coverage with ample movements for 4x5.

The Fuji C is very light and sharp but really it’s more coveted for 8x10 because of its light weight and coverage. Kind of overkill for 4x5 unless you also have an 8x10.

[Bob Salomon]

Doesn't the camera use Technika boards? I had a factory Linhof 360 Tele Xenar on a Technika board. The rear element was the same size as that of my 250mm Imagon.

I just checked the Linhof webpage. It shows that the recessed Technika board will mount. Certainly the rear element of the 360mm Tele Xenar will fit easily.

Sironar, Symmars and similar have too large a rear element to fit.

[Drew Wiley]

The Fuji 450 is a very high quality lightweight lens in a little no. 1 shutter with very little kick or vibration to it. But due to its huge image circle, it should be well shaded with a compendium. The Nikkor teles are going to be heavier and bulkier; but a 360 tele will need less bellows extension. The Congo is probably not going to be up to the same level of optical quality. The Technikardan is a variation of the monorail theme and seems designed for relatively long extensions. But you don't want a excess weight out on the end in order to minimize leverage or vibration. A very sold tripod mount will also be essential. My favorite long lenses for 4x5 monorail use are the 360/10 Fuji A (light no.1 shutter, but now rare and expensive) and the Fuji 450C, which is still fairly common. Ideally, you want to avoid anything in a big heavy no. 3 shutter.

[Rod Klukas]

The 360/500mm/720mm Nikon T is very sharp T DISTance though not at still life closeup distances, This is true of most telephoto designs though. Also the contrast is quite high, as well. and as an added bonus I have tested these under extreme flare threats. No flares even with bright, specular light sources in the images. The 720mm is good, but the focal length is such that you need to really stop down and or use tilting extremes, or shoot from an elevated position, in which case tilt is contra-indicated, to achieve extreme sharpness. But the 720mm only needs 469.2mm of extension for infinity. The 360mm and 500mm are really useful lenses, the 720mm for the reasons mentioned, less so.

In my opinion the 360mm/500mm are equal in sharpness and show better contrast than the 450mm Fuji. The Fuji 450mm does have a larger image than the Telephoto designs. The 450mm Nikon M, in my opinion shows better contrast than the Fuji,and a larger image circle, while being equally sharp with the Fuji 450mm. The Nikon 450 is larger, but not crazily so. The Fuji Telephotos also in my testing, are no where near the Nikon Telephotos for image quality.

[Greg]

Have and use the following (all on Technika boards)
300mm f/6.3 Komura
400mm f/8 FUJINON-T
500mm f/7 KOMURA
600mm f/12 Fujinon T
For B&W photography and printing 11x14's, all work out just fine.

[Drew Wiley]

That miniscule amount of enlargement doesn't tell anyone much, Greg.

[Drew Wiley]

A tele has a very narrow field of view, so yes, less risk of flare. But I've had circumstances where I had to apply a contrast-reduction mask to 4x5 color negs from 450C shots for sake of printing, so all of this flare talk is relative and generally nullified by a decent compendium shade anyway. Nikkor M lenses are wonderful, but in the case of the 450, it's in a no.3 shutter (vs no.1 of a 450C), so it's not just a wt difference involved, but potential vibration amplification way out at the end of the bellows extension. What might work superbly on a more solid 8x10 camera might give you hell on a lightwt 4x5 field setup.

[Jim Andrada]

I have the Nikon 360/500/720 set and I'm completely satisfied with the sharpness. My only complaint is that focusing an f/16 lens (the 720) is a bit hard on my 80 year old eyes. I use the 360 and 500 on my Technika and the 720 on my 5 x 7's

[LabRat]

Some older teles I have used can have flare issues, esp at night... Types with a flat element behind front element can set up reflections even with a good shade as bright lights (like streetlights) can start bouncing around in lens leaving a flare blob somewhere in frame in night shots... (Even lights in frame...)

Modern multicoating should take care of most of the issues, but the "acid" test is doing some night photography with it, and shoot some really bright light stuff with darkness surrounding it and see if there's any bright ghosting in the frame...

While camera is on tripod in above set-up, watch GG as you slightly rotate camera side to side to see if the highlight glow "smears" or move around...

Daylight is not as critical, but can cause slight exposure unevenness...

Test before you keep...

Steve K

[Lou Baleur]

I've used 360 tele xenar, 360 tele arton and 380 15" tele raptar (optar). All 3 provide very good coverage, good contrast and sharpness for my tastes. The 15" tele raptar is my favorite, though.

[Drew Wiley]

Not all those older teles are appropriate for color photography, if that is going to be in mind, and not just black and white work.

[manfrominternet]

Since I already have the Nikon 300mm M f/9, which higher focal length would best round out my 65mm to 300mm set?

Here are the lenses I have already. (It took me a long while to get these):
-65mm Nikon Nikkor-SW f/4
-75mm Nikon Nikkor-SW f/4.5
-90mm Sinar (Rodenstock) Sinaron W f/6.8 (Multicoated)
-120mm Nikon Nikkor-SW f/8
-150mm Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6 (Multicoated)
-210mm Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6 (Multicoated)
-300mm Nikon Nikkor-M f/9

I’m thinking either the 360mm or the 500mm Nikon Nikkor-T* ED. Ideally I’d get both rear convertibles, but I can really only afford one.

[Kiwi7475]

Since I already have the Nikon 300mm M f/9, which higher focal length would best round out my 65mm to 300mm set?

Here are the lenses I have already. (It took me a long while to get these):
-65mm Nikon Nikkor-SW f/4
-75mm Nikon Nikkor-SW f/4.5
-90mm Sinar (Rodenstock) Sinaron W f/6.8 (Multicoated)
-120mm Nikon Nikkor-SW f/8
-150mm Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6 (Multicoated)
-210mm Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6 (Multicoated)
-300mm Nikon Nikkor-M f/9

I’m thinking either the 360mm or the 500mm Nikon Nikkor-T* ED. Ideally I’d get both rear convertibles, but I can really only afford one.

I think the natural step would be to go to at least 400 or 450mm. I see no point in 360mm if you already have 300mm.

The Fuji T 400mm (relative cheap, not too heavy) or the Nikkor M 450mm (more expensive) would be two good options. You don’t specify constraints (is weight important? Can the bellows support 450mm and is the camera rigid enough in your application? Are you just trying to minimize cost?)

[manfrominternet]

I think the natural step would be to go to at least 400 or 450mm. I see no point in 360mm if you already have 300mm.

The Fuji T 400mm (relative cheap, not too heavy) or the Nikkor M 450mm (more expensive) would be two good options. You don’t specify constraints (is weight important? Can the bellows support 450mm and is the camera rigid enough in your application? Are you just trying to minimize cost?)

Many thanks! I have a Linhof Technikardan 45S. According to the Linhof website, the Technikardan 45’s maximum camera extension (lens to film plane) is 485 mm.

Weight is somewhat important, but image quality (sharpness, contrast) is most important. Of course, I also like to keep cost to a minimum as I’m just a student. I suppose the pecking order for me would be: image quality, cost, followed by weight. I shoot color negative and color transparency almost exclusively for landscapes and architecture, if that helps.

[Kiwi7475]

Many thanks! I have a Linhof Technikardan 45S. According to the Linhof website, the Technikardan 45’s maximum camera extension (lens to film plane) is 485 mm.

Weight is somewhat important, but image quality (sharpness, contrast) is most important. Of course, I also like to keep cost to a minimum as I’m just a student. I suppose the pecking order for me would be: image quality, cost, followed by weight. I shoot color negative and color transparency almost exclusively for landscapes and architecture, if that helps.

I find the Fuji 400mm a very good lens, and being a tele your below extension for infinity would be 10.4” which means a pretty stable configuration in the open. It’s also quite cheap relatively speaking. 220mm image circle so you have a decent range for movements.
Unless you’re planning to magnify more than x10 I wouldn’t sweat it, it’ll give you more than good enough images. Lens sharpness is overrated, usually the least of your problems, particularly at long focal lengths.

[Drew Wiley]

The biggest problem with long distance shooting is actually atmospheric. Haze and heat waves are the "great equalizer" that limits the effective resolution at distance of all these lenses, rather than minor differences in optical performance.

[LabRat]

The biggest problem with long distance shooting is actually atmospheric. Haze and heat waves are the "great equalizer" that limits the effective resolution at distance of all these lenses, rather than minor differences in optical performance.

When those heat convection waves start, all ultra-tele bets are off... A 400mm on a 4X5 of closer subjects might miss a lot of disturbances...

Very long optics will pick up some strange stuff, like my telescope on the moon that caused it to look like massive " "moonquakes" and liquidification that looked like the invasion was beginning... Or on Sandy Hook NJ looking at lower Manhattan in the 25mi distance through med power binoculars where the skyline was inverting upside-down, then rapidly reversing... Strange...

Don't forget about that "idiot wind" and contrast loss...

Steve K

[Steve Goldstein]

Any experience with the tele Congo’s? There’s 300, 400, and 500mm that are usually quite economical. I wonder how they’d compare to a tele Arton or a Fuji 400mm T in optical quality?

I have a 400mm f/8 Osaka (same as Congo, just a store brand for Bromwell Camera). Optically it is slightly worse than a 400mm Fujinon-T when viewing 11x14 enlargements with a loupe, but it's also 6oz lighter than the Fujinon and my back appreciates that. The Congo won't cover 5x7, the Fujinon will, although just barely.

The 500mm f/9.5 Congo has a 160mm image circle so is just enough for 4x5.

[Joseph Kashi]

FWIW - I have a Fujinon 400T in Copal shutter. It's big, sort of awkward, but fits smaller cameras that use Technika boards. I had low expectations but it's definitely sharper than I expected, sharp enough to be usable without worry. It does cover 5x7 well, but without movements. Using camera movements is unlikely in any event with a telephoto lens.


The 400T Fujinon usually sits in a drawer but it's good enough optically for what it is and I don't anticipate getting rid of it. I've used it primarily with a Rittreck metal field camera, so camera rigidity was not a major concern. Given the amount of weight so far forward of the front standard, I would be concerned about using it on a wooden field camera.

[Carsten Wolff]

The 380mm Wollensak Tele can be good and, in its coated version in particular, is lovely with color film. Infinity focus is about 9" and it fits onto a Technika board. Two minor caveats: Finding one in a good #4 Alphax shutter is not that easy; and you'd need to widen any lens opening in your Technika board past Copal#3 size AFAIK. Nice lens though. I use mine on 5x7". Probably because of this lens, I don't have anything in the 300mm FL neighbourhood anymore.