Help understanding Telephoto lenses

[AdamD]

Hi all. I’m starting to give up on searching the forum for information because it just turns up more questions!! So, let me just ask this one here....

I’m trying to understand the requirements for a camera and user when the lens has a “T” in the name. I’m looking specifically at the Nikon Nikkor 360mm f/8 T ED with 500mm f/11 convertible lens.

As I understand it, a 150mm standard lens (as an example) will need 150mm of bellows extension. Same with a 210mm...but I seem to remember that the rules change when you stick a “T” in the name. Is that right?

How long do my bellows need to go to use a 360mm lens like that Nikon? What about the 500mm version?

Do the telephoto type lenses require anything special about the camera setup or ability? How about the bellows?

What I’m also getting at is this...I know I’d like the 360mm focal length and I figured I’d jump over 300mm and use 360mm at the top end. But, if the 360 is hard to use or has any other funk aspects to it, maybe I should blow off the 360.

It’s akin to this...the 75mm vs 90mm comparison. Both are nice, but the 75mm is definitely more of a pain in the ass to use whereas the 90mm is very straight forward. Is there anything going on at the top end with the 300 and 360?

So can you guide me on understanding pros/cons, special needs, certain talents required for the 360mm or is it pretty simple? And if I did go that way, is the 500mm easy to use or is there anything funky going on with that one?

Thx!!!

[biedron]

Adam,

No special talents required...

Telephotos need less belows extension than the indicated focal length. The Nikon 360 tele requires roughly 260mm extension (for infinity focus) while the 500 tele requires about 350mm extension. That is their principal advantage.

FYI the Ebony camera company used to have a great table for lens parameters, but they are no longer in business and the web page is gone. Fortunately a UK group grabbed the info and it is available at https://www.5x4.co.uk/pages/Lens-Table/. The parameter of interest in the case is the last column, "Flange back"

I've got the 360-500-720 set and use it quite a bit. The three focal lengths share the same front elements (and shutter) - you simply unscrew the rear element for the 360 and replace it with the 500 rear element, or the 720 rear element. The complete set comes up for sale only rarely - you will likely have to piece it together over time.

Hope this helps. Lets see how long before this thread goes way off the rails :eek:

Bob

[Huub]

The main price you pay when using telephoto's is that front tilt gets difficult. Where the front nodal point of most lenses is more or less in the center where the shutter is, with telephoto lenses it is way in front. So when you start tilting the lens, you get all sorts of odd effects and focussing can become a pain. I don't know you camera, but having a good set of back movements helps a lot when using this lens. There is an older threat on telephote lenses that explains it all in detail.

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

I also think the aforementioned Nikkor is great. I would love to have one of those. Especially for mountain shots. I think most of the time there is too much in the pictures. A long focal length is the solution.

On my Technika I can attach a 420mm Apo Ronar at most, because of the bellows extension. A tele would be better. There is also a very good 600mm Fujinon T. But that is also expensive. And you have problems with the tilt.

A solution would be to use roll film in 6x7 or 6x9, with a roll film holder. That way the image detail is narrower. Anyway, you magnify distant views less than close-up views with short focal lengths, which offer more immersion because of the imaged ground. It is a difference like between van Eyck, Breughel or Rogier (short focal length) and Giotto, Piero della Francesca, Massaccio (long focal length). Alternatively, you can enlarge good sections from 4x5.

[Jeff Keller]

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/
The Nikkor T lenses are heavier, a little harder to use with tilts, have more restrictions on shift, but are a good way to get a long focal length on a 4x5. The Fujinon T lenses are also good and are similar but don’t share a common front lens group.

I’ve been happy with my Fujinon T 600 and because of the long focal length, don’t normally use any movements. Weight is the only drawback in use for me.

[Bernice Loui]

Recently discussed.... LOTs.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?161708-Nikkor-T-360mm-500mm-720m-500mm-at-full-aperture-with-4x5-film-how-good

About zero has changed since the introduction of "telephoto design" LF lenses to this day. Essentially, they are intended for field folders that do not have enough camera extension and bellows draw for longer focal length lenses, or to compensate for a camera limitation.

Optically, most non-telephoto lenses have (APO process lenses aka APO nikkor APO artar, APO ronar and etc) better performance except they demand the camera being able to support them with enough extension and bellows length and if the lens is in barrel, a shutter..
Exceptions to this might be the last generation of Schneider APO tele xenar lenses (not tried then due to lack of interest and lots of $ for what they are). The need for shutter with lens is a very real and limiting factor and reality for many LF cameras.


Bernice

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

Hi all. I’m starting to give up on searching the forum for information because it just turns up more questions!! So, let me just ask this one here....

You need this book:

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=30116699673&searchurl=an%3Dleslie%2Bstroebel%26kn%3Dview%2Bcamera%26sortby%3D17&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-title1

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=22683266854&cm_sp=SEARCHREC-_-WIDGET-L-_-BDP-R&searchurl=kn%3Dleslie%2Bstroebel%2Bview%2Bcamera%26sortby%3D17

[Bernice Loui]

Or this book by Steve Simmons:

https://www.amazon.com/Using-View-Camera-Creative-Photography/dp/1626540772


Bernice

[Len Middleton]

Adam,

Not mentioned thus far is the use of a "top hat" style lens board that has an extension built into the lens board, moving the lens away from the front standard.

It too does the same funky stuff on the front tilt, but you get the optical performance of a standard lens design, versus a telephoto lens design. In fact thinking of a lens mounted well in front of the front standard is a good way to visualize the impact of front tilt when using a telephoto lens or a lens mounted on a top hat lens board.

Just another solution with its own compromises,

Len

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

Hello from France!

I have uploaded (see below) a diagram explaining how a telephoto works, not a Nikon but a Schneider-Kreuznach "360 mm" (actually f = 353 mm) Tele-Arton.

For this lens, the flange-focal distance is only 210 mm. That is to say you only need about 210 mm of bellows draw to focus at infinity.
With a 360 mm plasmat type lens or apo-repro (symmetrical) type you would need about 360 mm.

211887

However any additional extension required to focus on a object located ... ahem "much closer than infinity" ;) requires exactly the same amount of additional extension, whichever the lens formula (of same focal length) might be.
In other terms, with a telephoto you have a gain in bellows draw at infinity, but no additional gain for real-world-objects not located at infinity.

Regarding tilting this kind of lens, well, nothing really mysterious.
The rear nodal point H' = N' is not "at rear" but located (in this particular lens design) about 143 mm in front of the lens board: 210 mm + 143 mm = 353 mm = focal length.
Depending on where your axis tilts are located on your front standard, for sure, when tilting the telephoto lens, the image will move much more and will probably defocus much quickly than with a plasmat or a symmetrical design where the rear nodal point is close to the center of the lens board. But if you have base tilts, anyway you never rotate around the rear nodal point of any of your lenses!
Once you know where H'=N' is located, i.e. exactly one focal length ahead of the focal plane (this is a general rule valid for all lenses!), you can anticipate what will happen when you tilt the lens.

My understanding is that photographers in the good old days who worked with this kind of telephoto view camera lens hardly ever tilt them. So where is the problem? ;)

And just for fun, imagine that you plan to make panoramic stitching with this lens.
The diagram shows where the entrance pupil is located i.e. not far from the lens board, at a short distance behind. So you should rotate the camera as a whole for panoramic stitching around the entrance pupil like with any lens, and certainly not around the rear nodal point (this point N'=H' is irrelevant to parallax effects, hence irrelevant to panoramic stitching), located in air in front of the lens quite far away!
The entrance pupil, like in any lens, is neither the object nodal point H=N nor the image nodal point H'=N', but this has been well-known to our all readers from a long time ;)

A copy of this jpeg diagram can be also downloaded from here. (http://bigler.blog.free.fr/public/images/2021-01-27-bellows-draw-tele-arton-360-EN.jpg)

[Michael R]

I mentioned the same thing in another thread. Stroebel is a good resource.


You need this book:

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=30116699673&searchurl=an%3Dleslie%2Bstroebel%26kn%3Dview%2Bcamera%26sortby%3D17&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-title1

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=22683266854&cm_sp=SEARCHREC-_-WIDGET-L-_-BDP-R&searchurl=kn%3Dleslie%2Bstroebel%2Bview%2Bcamera%26sortby%3D17

[AdamD]

Great info!! Many thanks as always....

Now this brings up a question, but I'll also add that I'm shooting with an Arca-Swiss F-Line Classic 171 on a 400mm rail.

Ok...so telephoto lenses do in fact use less extension. That's what I thought, but, what I also got is that there may be some image sacrifice as compared to the non-tele type lens.

So, in my case, with 400mm of extension, which I think equates to 360mm of effective extension, would I be better off with a non-tele? Is the image quality "loss" with a tele that notable to turn me into a pixel peeper? Further, I try to get out and shoot and I carry my Arca-Swiss on my back. My entire kit is up to 32 pounds including my tripod. That includes two lenses, meter and all that other crap we carry...

Anyway, just looking for guidance on pros/cons on tele vs non-tele.

I will look at getting those books. I have the Simmons book. Not enough detail...I would love a follow on to the basic book.

Thanks guys!!

[Bernice Loui]

All goes directly back to what your print image goals are. As previously mentioned many times now, figure out what your image goals are, then what LF optics are required to achieve this, then figure out the best camera that can support these needs and image goals. Picking camera first IMO is simply not a good idea at all.

For a view camera with about 400mm extension and bellows, 360mm would be MAX at infinity, closer up that camera will run out of bellows and extension quick. That view camera outfit would be more comfy with a 300mm or 12" lens or a tele design LF lens. Alternative would be to find a way to add bellows and camera extension. Know this is also a trade-off as more camera extension and bellows makes the entire rig more difficult to keep stable and not move in the wind if outdoors. The other Foto area where camera extension and bellows is length stressed is macro or close-up images.

The great image quality equalizer is f22 and smaller apertures as once stopped down that far or more, any lens worth it's glass should be more than adequate (diffraction and laws of Nature has command here with zero amount of marketing hype will change this) for the vast majority of LF images. Add to this again, the world of LF optics, the majority of them are all of good quality. Nearly always intended for serious artist-photographers and similar. IMO, give up worrying about what is the best lens and all related to that marketing obsession might be as each and every LF optic has a given set of trade-offs with none being best for all image making needs.



Bernice



Great info!! Many thanks as always....

Now this brings up a question, but I'll also add that I'm shooting with an Arca-Swiss F-Line Classic 171 on a 400mm rail.

Ok...so telephoto lenses do in fact use less extension. That's what I thought, but, what I also got is that there may be some image sacrifice as compared to the non-tele type lens.

So, in my case, with 400mm of extension, which I think equates to 360mm of effective extension, would I be better off with a non-tele? Is the image quality "loss" with a tele that notable to turn me into a pixel peeper? Further, I try to get out and shoot and I carry my Arca-Swiss on my back. My entire kit is up to 32 pounds including my tripod. That includes two lenses, meter and all that other crap we carry...

Anyway, just looking for guidance on pros/cons on tele vs non-tele.

I will look at getting those books. I have the Simmons book. Not enough detail...I would love a follow on to the basic book.

Thanks guys!!

[AdamD]

Bernice,

I'm definitely not looking for the best lens. Not even thinking about that.

All I was trying to understand was, given a say for instance, a 360mm tele lens vs a non-tele 360mm lens, would the tele lens be lighter and smaller BUT, non-tele would provide a better image quality?

Is that the basic different/trade-off?

[Huub]

All I was trying to understand was, given a say for instance, a 360mm tele lens vs a non-tele 360mm lens, would the tele lens be lighter and smaller BUT, non-tele would provide a better image quality?

Is that the basic different/trade-off?

As often, the answer is that it depends. The 360mm plasmats are huge lenses, the 360mm process lenses are much smaller and the telelenses will be somewhere in between. With some research on this site you can find the exact data of quite a few lenses.
When it comes to image quality: I only have experience with the 360mm Schneider tele-xenar and the 360 - 500mm Nikon set. Both are more then adequate for my image goals. I think the main advantage of using the Nikon set is that it gives you 3 focal lenghts without much added weight. And on top of that, for focal lengths over 360mm, there are way less options then for instance around the 300mm.

[konakoa]

Adam, regarding the image quality of telephoto lenses. I too have heard over and over they aren’t as good as regular optics. I currently own and use a Nikon 270mm f/6.3 telephoto, a Schneider 400mm f/5.6 apo-tele-xenar (the newer one) and a Nikon 500mm f/11 telephoto. These are all recent, modern lenses and none of these have disappointed me in any way in terms of optical performance. They’re actually sharper than a few of my normal lenses.

That said, where they primarily differ is the is the maximum aperture for focusing—f/11 on the Nikon 500 is okay, not great for composing and focusing—and the size of the image circles. Image circles tend to be smaller and more restricted in the telephoto design, so you’re not going to have a lot of camera movements available. (My Schneider 400 is an exception. Very bright, pretty good movements available.) There is some funkiness as well if you like front lens swings and tilts, also due to the telephoto design. Those are the major tradeoffs. But image quality and sharpness and is not one of them!

I’d be glad to relate some observations and experiences via PM if you’d like.

[Bernice Loui]

The telephoto design lens is often larger than the APO process lens due to the optics required to reduce the back focal length required for a camera with limited extension and bellows, which is the telephoto design LF lens primary advantage and trade-off.

The APO (four element dialyte) process lens has limited image circle, small full aperture but extremely good optical performance about f16 and smaller. Trade off being, the camera must support the extension and bellows required for the focal length used on camera.

Then we have larger full aperture tessar type lenses. They can have good performance at full aperture improves lots two f-stops down and begins to degrade once stopped down past f22. They often have GOOD out of focus rendition and can have excellent contrast rendition in ways other lens designs do not. Image circle is larger than the APO dialyte and telephoto design LF lens, but not as large an image circle as a modern Plasmat, but lots smaller.

The Dagor (Dagor stops at 12" the lens set. as a 12" Dagor easily covers 8x10 and more) is another older than Century lens formulation that has stood the test of time and image makers. IMO, one of the most enduring LF lens designs of all time for many good reasons.

Keep in mind the f22 optical performance equalizer.... Higher contrast rendition is a preference not a given better optical performance advantage, same applies to lower contrast lenses.

And.. the Sorta-Focus Rodenstock Imagon.. strainer disc can be used open or closed or no strainer disc depending on the degree of image softness to meet the print image goal.

They all have their distinct personalities, problems, strengths, bad, excellent and .... all going back to what the image goals are and what the camera can support for lenses.


Top row left to right:

360mm f4.5 Schneider Xenar (Tessar), 13-1/2" f4.5 Cooke Aviar, 360mm H5.8 Rodenstock Imagon.
211919

Bottom row, left to right.
360mm f5.5 Schneider Tele Xenar (arca swiss 6x9 lens board), 14" f6.3 Kodak Commercial Ektar, 14" f9 Goerz APO artar.

Guess which lens of this group is most often used? Exception is the 360mm Tele Xenar as it is used on the Arca Swiss 6x9 mini view camera.
All others are used in a Sinar camera system with a Sinar shutter, with no camera extension or bellows limitations in any way.



Bernice






Bernice,

I'm definitely not looking for the best lens. Not even thinking about that.

All I was trying to understand was, given a say for instance, a 360mm tele lens vs a non-tele 360mm lens, would the tele lens be lighter and smaller BUT, non-tele would provide a better image quality?

Is that the basic different/trade-off?

[Tin Can]

Guess, 360mm f4.6 Schneider Xenar

as you use movements on 5X7

I just started using 240mm f4.5 Xenar with 5X7 slider and Packard, no movements for people

[Bernice Loui]

Another example.

500mm f5.5 Schneider Tele Xenar -vs- 485mm f9 Rodenstock APO ronar. Note the size difference.
211925



Bernice

[Bernice Loui]

f4.6, type, now fixed, f4.5.

240mm f4.5 Xenar does GOOD on 5x7. This or a 10" f6.3 Commercial Ektar is often used on the 5x7 Norma.


Bernice



Guess, 360mm f4.6 Schneider Xenar

as you use movements on 5X7

I just started using 240mm f4.5 Xenar with 5X7 slider and Packard, no movements for people

[AdamD]

Bernice, two things that have piqued my interest.

One is, please tell me your most used long lens. I can’t guess.
The other is, dude! Pan out a bit. I gotta get the goods on the plush red duvet. Seriously, what do you have going on over there!

��

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

Bernice,

I'm definitely not looking for the best lens. Not even thinking about that.

All I was trying to understand was, given a say for instance, a 360mm tele lens vs a non-tele 360mm lens, would the tele lens be lighter and smaller BUT, non-tele would provide a better image quality?

Is that the basic different/trade-off?

The Rodenstock Apo Ronar 9/300 fits into my closed Linhof Technika IV, the Fujinon T 8/300 fits on my opened Horseman 45FA.

The Rodenstock Apo Ronar 9/360 is the dream I own, the Nikkor T 360 is the possession I dream of. But the Ronar fits very well on the Technika IV. You can't close it, because of the Compur Electronic 3, which is another dream that functions accurately. So I use the 360 with the Technika, and the Fujinon SWD 5.6/65 with the Horserman.

[Tin Can]

Dude, I try lenses out and decide for myself what works for me

Real Pros get samples to test and often pick the the best of 3 and return the rest

Many old catalogs over 100 years old offered free or rental testing, some still get that service

It's not just the lens, also common concerns are # of aperture blades, or shape of Waterhouse aperture, Bokeh, image circle vs usable image circle for YOUR image with movements or not, and it goes on to coatings or not, actual lens glass, some now banned and way more

Many Pros suggest getting closer to subject, much closer rather than a long lens

I am NOT a Pro and never will be, as one definition of a Pro is your Pro income is over 50% of total income

I am intense on this forum as I love all kinds of cameras, imagers, aka emulsions, with endless variations to study and to look forward to

My next post today will be about Snowflakes

[Bernice Loui]

For focal lengths longer than "normal (5x7)", typical for images with the majority of the image in apparent focus would be a Goerz APO artar in barrel (aka Red Dot Artar), essentially a process lens used at f16 or smaller aperture. For images that want selective focus, one of the longer than normal focal length Tessar formula lenses would be used. This would be from full aperture (Xenar f4.5, Ektar f6.3...) to f16 being typically the smallest aperture used for a Tessar formula lens. These are nearly always used for people portraits that are not sorta-focus with the Kodak Commercial Ektar being the most often used lens for a long list of reasons.

The 360mm f5.5 is used nearly always on the 6x9 Arca Swiss as a telephoto, no movement and typically at f8 to f16. On the Arca Swiss mini view camera the telephoto design allows using this long a focal length with the fixed rail supplied with the camera. A non-telephoto design lens would not work on the Arca unless major contortions are applied. This lens covers 5x7, but there is little reasons to used it on 5x7 as there are better alternatives in the lens set.

The 500mm f5.5 Tele Xenar, just got this, just got it mounted to a Sinar board. I'll need to decide how best to apply what this lens has to offer then make some images with it.

It all goes back to what the image goals are which then determines what lens, film, post exposure processing and print making method is to be used.

Camera is always a Sinar of some variety as it can be made up-built up as needed these days as there is zero interest in hiking or doing "Ansel Adams" wanna be. The 5x7 Sinar Norma lives in a Pelican flight carry on roller case with four lenses, six film holders and all the needed to make images. Sinar P lives indoors as it is WAY to heavy-bulky to lug, unless the images need that kind of geared precision camera movement which is rare. Still the P & P2 are a joy to use in many ways. Keep in mind Adam, been at this for decades and preferences and much more were established decades ago.. little with the methods have changed, what film and all related has changed LOTs in recent times.


Bernice



Bernice, two things that have piqued my interest.

One is, please tell me your most used long lens. I can’t guess.
The other is, dude! Pan out a bit. I gotta get the goods on the plush red duvet. Seriously, what do you have going on over there!

��