300mm lens 4x5" landscape

[Fermat]

Hi
What's the best lens 300mm for 4x5" with the following features:
- as much light as possible;
- for landscape:
- as much small as possible
- Black and White pictures
Thanks

[Eric Woodbury]

"As much light" and "as small" are conflicting.

"Landscape" and "Black and white" are easy.

[BLATT LAB]

There are basically two types of 300mm lenses. The ones with a Aperture of 5.6 wich are big an heavy and the ones from f8.5-9. They are super light and small.

[Mark Sawyer]

F/6.3 Tessars, like the Commercial Ektar, tend to come in larger, older shutters.

The f/5.6 Fujinon-L and Nikkor W come in a Copal 3, which isn't too large.

An f/6.8 Dagor would be a good possibility if you find one in a nice shutter.

[ic-racer]

My 150mm Topcor with 2x focal length converter is pretty light and small compared to the 300mm 5.6 I use on my 8x10 camera.
215266

[Mark Sawyer]

My 150mm Topcor with 2x focal length converter is pretty light and small compared to the 300mm 5.6 I use on my 8x10 camera.
215266

What does your teleconverter do to your viewable light?

[Chauncey Walden]

Fermat, when you say "as much light" are you referring to weight or brightness of wide open focusing?

[Fermat]

Weight

[Bernice Loui]

What can the camera accommodate for a 300mm Lens?
Does the camera have enough bellows and camera extension to accommodate a 300mm focal length lens?


Bernice


Hi
What's the best lens 300mm for 4x5" with the following features:
- as much light as possible;
- for landscape:
- as much small as possible
- Black and White pictures
Thanks

[Fermat]

Yes
Chamonix 45H-1

[Kiwi7475]

What I carry for hiking with my 4x5 is a Nikkor M 300mm f9. Unlimited coverage for 4x5, can be used even for 8x10 in a pinch, very light.

To me that’s the best trade off. An f5.6 will be a heavy lens. I only carry it if I need to shoot for sunrise because I need the extra light to focus.

[Greg]

For my 4x5 Chamonix I use a 300mm f/6.3 Komura in a COPAL 1. Tele lens so relatively little bellows extension needed. Yes larger than a G-Claron but not all by that much. Excellent OEM lenshood stores backward over the lens. Very happy with this optic. I think that they are very undervalued and thus underpriced on the used market.

[ic-racer]

What does your teleconverter do to your viewable light?

2 stop less, so the lens is an f11 300mm. Still with 300mm FL, so not a telephoto, even though they call it a "Teleconverter."

215267

[Jeff Keller]

Fujinon C 300mm f/8.5
Fujinon A 300mm f9
Nikkor M 300mm f/9
Ronar 300mm f/9
G Claron 300mm f/9

other focal lengths (small, & light)
Fujinon C 450mm f/12.5
Fujinon A 360mm f/10
G Claron 270mm f/9
Fujinon A 240mm f/9
Ronar 240mm f/9
G Claron 240mm f/9
Nikkor M 200mm f/9
Fujinon A 180mm f/9

[Bernice Loui]

4x5 with a 300mm f9 _ish lens should be bright enough on the ground glass due to the narrow angle of lens projection to focus and
work with easily out outdoors.

Given the camera has enough bellows and extension, a 300mm lens of f9 _ish full aperture meets the size-weight-portability
needs as requested.


Bernice

[Tin Can]

I have that set

Very clumsy, so I never use the rear extension

Horseman folders have too small lensboards, but I still use mine, as I like camera precision and sturdiness


2x less, so the lens is an f11 300mm. Still with 300mm FL, so not a telephoto, even though they call it a "Teleconverter."

215267

[Jeff Keller]

For my 4x5 Chamonix I use a 300mm f/6.3 Komura in a COPAL 1. Tele lens so relatively little bellows extension needed. Yes larger than a G-Claron but not all by that much. Excellent OEM lenshood stores backward over the lens. Very happy with this optic. I think that they are very undervalued and thus underpriced on the used market.

300mm / 6.3 = 47.6mm
copal 1 hole = 41.6mm
?

240mm / 6.3 = 38.1 mm
240mm Komura ? (a new version of the kodak, 10" commercial?)


300mm / 41.6 = 7.2 max f
or 41.6mm x 5.6 = 233mm max for f5.6 lens in copal 1

[Mark Sampson]

I've used a 300/9 Nikkor-M for landscapes for almost 30 years. Perhaps my favorite lens. It's worked well on featherweight Japanese folders, a Zone Vi 4x5, and a Sinar Norma. I plan to use it for as long as I can. You can't go wrong if you get one.

[Greg Y]

I'd suggest the Nikkor-M 300/9 or the Fuji-A 300/9. I have the 12" Dagor and have also used the 305 G Claron. The Nikkor M and Fuji A are smaller and lighter.

[Drew Wiley]

The 300 Nikkor M would perfectly equate to your expectations. It's with superb color film too. Another time-tested favorite, harder to find these days, would be a 300 Apo Ronar, provided it's the infinity-corrected version in shutter. Then there's the 300 Fuji C - it has a somewhat bigger image circle in case you want something more practical for 8x10 format too. These are all especially compact optically superb lenses in lightweight no.1 shutter. And all of them are plenty bright for outdoor landscape use, even though they are f/9 maximum aperture. You don't want anything way bulkier in a big no.3 shutter with that little Chamonix!

The Fuji A 300 makes sense if you want something deluxe predominantly for 8x10 format down the line, but also light enough to be practical in a 4x5 field kit. Not as compact as the lenses I just mentioned above, harder to find, and apt to be seriously expensive.

[Two23]

I use a Nikon 300M f9 on my Chamonix 4x5 and love it. Also use it on my 8x10--it covers.


Kent in SD

[Michael R]

I use the Fuji 300 C. Excellent lens. Obviously a little dimmer wide open than the big f/5.6ers but since I don’t use this focal length all that often I couldn’t justify the much higher cost at the time. The larger 300mm lenses may or may not work on the Chamonix.

[Two23]

I use the Fuji 300 C. Excellent lens. Obviously a little dimmer wide open than the big f/5.6ers but since I don’t use this focal length all that often I couldn’t justify the much higher cost at the time. The larger 300mm lenses may or may not work on the Chamonix.

I have the Chamonix 045n and would not put a 300mm f5.6 on it. Remember the bellows are stretched way out and this is a lightweight camera. The Nikon 300M is an excellent match.


Kent in SD

[Michael R]

Makes sense to me. The Schneider 300mm Apo Symmar L, for example, was over a kg in weight and not quite symmetric either.

Another thing for OP to consider is filters. The big 300mm lenses take gigantic filters in comparison to the Nikkor M or Fuji C.


I have the Chamonix 045n and would not put a 300mm f5.6 on it. Remember the bellows are stretched way out and this is a lightweight camera. The Nikon 300M is an excellent match.


Kent in SD

[grat]

I have the Chamonix 045n and would not put a 300mm f5.6 on it. Remember the bellows are stretched way out and this is a lightweight camera. The Nikon 300M is an excellent match.


Actually-- looking at the design of the H-1 and the 45N-1, I'd be happier putting the 300mm f/5.6 on the 45N-1. The base plate just looks a bit more secure, and the slides don't look as over-extended-- you can also pull the rear standard back a bit to center up the balance somewhat, and leave the front lens board not quite as extended.

The H1 just looks a bit more fiddly when extended.

Still, it's a very large lens.

[Bernice Loui]

Typical 300mm f5.6 Plasmat in a Copal# 3 shutter is HUGE, weights almost 3 pounds or as much as the camera.. Ya really wanna do this?
Next to this 300mm f5.6 Plasmat is a 300mm f9 APO ronar in a Copal# 1 shutter.
215284

Explain why the 300mm f5.6 Plasmat would be a better or more reasonable choice than a 300mm f9 for a 3 pound field folder view camera?


Bernice






Actually-- looking at the design of the H-1 and the 45N-1, I'd be happier putting the 300mm f/5.6 on the 45N-1. The base plate just looks a bit more secure, and the slides don't look as over-extended-- you can also pull the rear standard back a bit to center up the balance somewhat, and leave the front lens board not quite as extended.

The H1 just looks a bit more fiddly when extended.

Still, it's a very large lens.

[Mark Sawyer]

Explain why the 300mm f5.6 Plasmat would be a better or more reasonable choice than a 300mm f9 for a 3 pound field folder view camera?

Because the OP started his question with:


Hi
What's the best lens 300mm for 4x5" with the following features:
- as much light as possible...

I agree that an f/9 lens is workable for most people in daylight situations, but it seems many of the responses ignore the first qualifier on the list. I love process lenses, and use them often, even for slow processes like wet plate, and at close distances that make them even darker. But the OP wants a bright lens, and that's not an f/9, relatively speaking.

There are multiple good reasons for wanting a wider aperture lens:

Wanting the option of reduced depth of field.

Simply wanting a brighter image to compose by.

Using the more critical depth of field to learn to use movements to get varying distances in focus.

Using that reduced depth of field to more accurately set the movements to get everything in focus closed down.

Because chicks think big lenses are cool.

Okay, that last one never really worked for me, but in theory, the point holds...

Sorry, late night meanderings...

[fotopfw]

See comment #8, light refers to weight, not max. aperture.

[John Earley]

One more Nikon 300/f9 user here. Works great on my Shen Has 4x5 and wonderful images.

[Fermat]

One more Nikon 300/f9 user here. Works great on my Shen Has 4x5 and wonderful images.That's sound great but difficult to find ...

[Two23]

That's sound great but difficult to find ...

They come up fairly regularly on ebay between $500 and $550. Looks like about two per month show up. As with all things LF, patience is rewarded.


Kent iN SD

[Drew Wiley]

It's can be difficult to keep a relatively big heavy f/5.6 clunker 300 studio plasmat from causing vibrations way out at the end of a full bellows extension of a lightweight field camera. Last thing you want outdoors, where wind itself is also a factor. Petite lenses like the 300/9 Nikkor M are prized by outdoor photographers for a good reason.

[Salmo22]

I have a Nikkor M 300mm f/9 that rides on the end of my Arca-Swiss 4x5 on a regular basis. Not only is it a small lightweight package, compared to the big Copal 3 plasmats, it is very sharp and has wonderful contrast. Even if size/weight were no issue, I think it would be hard to improve demonstrably on the images I get from my Nikkor M, Fujinon A, or Fujinon C. I don't have the Fujinon A or C in 300mm, but I know a few photographers that do and they will not part with them regardless of the money offered.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't have a Fuji 300 A either, but the 180, 240, and 360 A's, all of which have seen a lot of 4X5 action; so has the 450C. All but the 180 do double-duty in my 8x10 kit, along with a 600C. My lightweight backpacking kit, which potentially involves both regular 4X5 sheet film holders and 6X9 roll film backs, benefits from the trio of 105, 200, and 300 Nikkor M's. The 105 won't cover 4x5 film itself, so I often substitute a 125/5.6 Fuji W for my shortest focal length. I'm not into blatantly wide-angle perspectives unless it's necessary for an architectural shoot.

I'm sure not getting any younger as the seasons go by. But certain modern innovations have made it easier to keep going, including lighter view cameras and lenses, lighter tents, trekking poles, and so forth. This summer I hope to try out one of those new permethrin-treated long-sleeved T-shirts to find out if I really have more energy in soggy high altitude meadows if half my blood isn't being sucked out by the mosquitoes and horseflies like it usually is.

[grat]

Typical 300mm f5.6 Plasmat in a Copal# 3 shutter is HUGE, weights almost 3 pounds or as much as the camera.. Ya really wanna do this?

Sorry, I wasn't clear-- I personally, think it's a bad idea on either camera.

But if I were crazy enough to try it, it would be on the 45N-1. You can extend the standard out to 300mm without going too far out in front of the base plate.

[Bernice Loui]

That would be a _still not wise_.
There are those who would be tempted to push the limits by finding a way to install a 500mm f5.5 Tele Xenar in a compound#5 shutter on that 45N-1.
Possible to mount that 500mm f5.5 tele xenar on the 45N-1, likely. Useable, possible, good set up.. all in the mind of the image maker.


Bernice


Sorry, I wasn't clear-- I personally, think it's a bad idea on either camera.

But if I were crazy enough to try it, it would be on the 45N-1. You can extend the standard out to 300mm without going too far out in front of the base plate.

[Drew Wiley]

... and you would be enjoying the jiggly bouncy experience of bunji jumping right on your own camera front standard. A new definition of "moving pictures" in the mind of the image maker, perhaps?

[grat]

That would be a _still not wise_.

What part of "I [...] think it's a bad idea" wasn't clear? ;)


There are those who would be tempted to push the limits by finding a way to install a 500mm f5.5 Tele Xenar in a compound#5 shutter on that 45N-1.
Possible to mount that 500mm f5.5 tele xenar on the 45N-1, likely. Useable, possible, good set up.. all in the mind of the image maker.

No, I'm afraid that won't work. The rear of the Tele-Xenar is 86mm, and the opening in the 45N-1's standard is only 84m... :)

For the sake of argument, yes, you could remove the rear cell from the shutter, mount the lens board, remove the bellows, attach the rear cell, reattach the bellows.... And then, using the extra threaded holes in the bed, you could screw in some form of Y shaped brace to hold the front of the lens and take load off the front standard, and you could get some form of mounting bar with diagonals to place across the bottom of the camera to distribute weight, and you could, in effect, bolt the Chamonix onto the lens, and engineer the load in such a way that you're really attaching the lens to the tripod.

I've got a 120-400 f/4.5 zoom for my "small format" camera that you literally attach the lens to the tripod, and mount the camera like a lens cap.

Is it a good idea? Again-- no. Would I do it for a once-in-a-lifetime shot? Maybe? But I'm unlikely to own the lens, since it would be silly to put it on such a lightweight camera.

All I was pointing out, with my original somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment, is that because of the way the 45H-1 and the 45N-1 are designed and built, you can push the limits of the 45N-1 a bit farther. The Chamonix cameras, because of their composite construction, really are fantastically strong little cameras. I haven't tried to break mine, but the base plate is reassuringly sturdy, and the rear standard is mounted on long L-shaped brackets with large knurled knobs holding them to the base plate. The front standard is made of what appears to be pretty heavy gauge anodized aluminum.

My current "long" lens is a 210mm f/5.6 Caltar-S II, and it weighs 1/3 of what the tele-xenar does-- and slightly more than 1/3 of what the camera weighs. ;)

[Bernice Loui]

215336


Bernice



No, I'm afraid that won't work. The rear of the Tele-Xenar is 86mm, and the opening in the 45N-1's standard is only 84m... :)

[Corran]

I think obviously a tophat lensboard for such a lens is an even worse idea.

I've used a big 300mm f/5.6 Plasmat on my Chamonix with no issues (here in the south with extreme wind a rarity). I definitely prefer my Nikkor-M 300mm though for my type of images/locations ;).

[grat]

215336


That's totally unbalanced. In every sense of the word. :)

[Gabe]

Another vote for the Nikkor-M. Nothing much to add beyond what's already been said; it's simply a fantastic lens, and very popular for a reason.

[Vaughn]

Something to consider, while I do not know how often they can be found in shutters, Red Dot Artars can be found at 12" (305 mm) and 273 mm and 355 mm. They are f/9 lenses. Very sharp.

https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00256/00256.pdf

[John Earley]

Something to consider, while I do not know how often they can be found in shutters, Red Dot Artars can be found at 12" (305 mm) and 273 mm and 355 mm. They are f/9 lenses. Very sharp.

https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00256/00256.pdf
The Goerz (non-red-dot) Artars are also a very good deal for B&W large format photography.

[Vaughn]

The Goerz (non-red-dot) Artars are also a very good deal for B&W large format photography.

No reason not to be! Even uncoated, with a lenshade one should be fine. I found a 1951 Goerz catalog on the Apo Atars (below). Designed to handle 1:10 like the later RDs. The next page of the catalog described the Gotar -- same basic design, but optimized for around 1:5 to 1:1

There is a slight difference between the RDs marketed for graphic work and those put in shutters (judging from the above link and one I found from around the same time) -- the shorter focal lengths RDs in shutters were optimized for 1:20 instead of 1:10. Coverage remained the same. All the RDs seem to have been coated.

[Bernice Loui]

APO artar, excellent for color or B&W. This design goes back decades with remarkable optical performance. In shutter or barrel version makes no significant difference at infinity to life size 1 to 1.

There was a time when most stayed away due to their smaller image circle -vs- focal length. If used as a longer than normal focal length lens, vast majority of the time, their smaller spec'ed image circle is not significant. This market perception and vintage shutters kept their market value low for years.. until recently.

Much the same applies to APO ronar with the APO ronar being available in a modern shutter to vintage ones in compound and similar vintage shutters.


Bernice







The Goerz (non-red-dot) Artars are also a very good deal for B&W large format photography.

[Arne Croell]

Most ligtweight 300mm lenses have been listed already, but here is my take:

1. "Regular" taking lenses:

Nikon Nikkor-M
Fuji Fujinon-C

2. Process lenses that work just fine at infinity and are available in shutters:
2a: Dialyte lenses, 45-48° coverage:
Goerz Red Dot Artar
Schneider Repro-Claron
Schneider Apo-Artar
Rodenstock Apo-Ronar
Docter Apo-Germinar

2b. Symmetric Plasmat lenses, 65-70° official coverage:
Fuji Fujinon-A
Schneider G-Claron
Docter Germinar-W

Rodenstock also made the Apo-Gerogon in the last category, but they don't fit into shutters without machining.

[Drew Wiley]

300M Nikkors are easy to find at the moment, especially from Japanese dealers who list on EBay.

[Bernice Loui]

Seems supply is down, demand is up along with prices are up too. Not just the Nikkor 300mm f9 M, 300mm APO ronar in copal shutter and even APO artars have been affected by lower supply, high demand and higher market prices.

Seems more Foto folks are interested in this view camera stuff, which is GOOD as it goes a long ways to aid in the demand for sheet film and it's production-availability.



Bernice





300M Nikkors are easy to find at the moment, especially from Japanese dealers who list on EBay.

[robphoto]

One cheap alternative, though you've got to be ok with a dim ground glass, is a 180mm/315mm Schneider Symmar (not S) convertible.

I got one recently in a Linhof board for less than than $200., and the 315mm focal length (rear element only) is pretty good at typical f:22-32 range, and it's quite small.

[Jody_S]

Most ligtweight 300mm lenses have been listed already, but here is my take:

1. "Regular" taking lenses:

Nikon Nikkor-M
Fuji Fujinon-C

2. Process lenses that work just fine at infinity and are available in shutters:
2a: Dialyte lenses, 45-48° coverage:
Goerz Red Dot Artar
Schneider Repro-Claron
Schneider Apo-Artar
Rodenstock Apo-Ronar
Docter Apo-Germinar

2b. Symmetric Plasmat lenses, 65-70° official coverage:
Fuji Fujinon-A
Schneider G-Claron
Docter Germinar-W

Rodenstock also made the Apo-Gerogon in the last category, but they don't fit into shutters without machining.

Don't forget the Russian process lenses. In Al barrels, much lighter than the Artars for similar build and they can be of excellent quality if you get a good specimen.

[Arne Croell]

Don't forget the Russian process lenses. In Al barrels, much lighter than the Artars for similar build and they can be of excellent quality if you get a good specimen.

Oh, I am aware of them, having written an article about Russian lenses (https://www.arnecroell.com/eastern-block-new.pdf), but I thought the original poster was looking for lenses already in a shutter or being a straight fit into a size 0 or 1 shutter, like the G-Clarons etc. The easiest shutter adaptation of the Russian lenses like the RF-3 or and Industar-11M 300mm version would likely require a size 3 shutter or larger, which defeats the lightweight requirement of the original poster. The same would be true for the Zeiss Jena Apo-Tessars.

[Jim Andrada]

I still use my "ancient" f/9 Repro-Claron 305mm. I bought it new around 1970. But lately for a long lens I use the Nikon 360 - 500 - 720 set (720 on 5 x 7, 360 & 500 on the Technika.) Very sharp, fairly light weight.

[Fermat]

What about a Schneider Xenar 300mm f5.6?

[Steve Goldstein]

Any 300mm f/5.6 lens will be in a Copal 3 or comparable shutter so it will be big and heavy.

[Bernice Loui]

Sure, can be an excellent lens. Except this lens-shutter is going to be BIG. If you're doing landscape images which commonly entails using smaller apertures for film exposures as most landscape folks are into everything in the image apparently sharp. That f5.6 become a size liability.

Know a full aperture f9_ish 300mm is not going to that much dimmer on the GG image as a f5.6, 300mm lens, but the size weight difference needs to be experienced to be properly appreciated.

At this point, optical performance between f5.6 -vs- f9 is not significant enough to get all worked up over or be the deciding factor.


Bernice



What about a Schneider Xenar 300mm f5.6?

[neil poulsen]

My 150mm Topcor with 2x focal length converter is pretty light and small compared to the 300mm 5.6 I use on my 8x10 camera.
215266

How effective might this be when used with a 150mm Apo Symmar? How sharp is it with the Topcor?

[Daniel Unkefer]

I have a 300mm chrome barrel Schneider f4.5 Xenar, I like it a lot. Also the 300mm f6.3 barrel Kodak Commercial Ektar. The Xenar is forward mounted so it integrates with the Norma Shutter. It's really not a heavy lens compared to my Symmars and Componons. Sure is bright to look through. :)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50215751948_fa6e853c9f_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2jvoRyG)300mm F4.5 Xenar Norma (https://flic.kr/p/2jvoRyG) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Forward mounted by my clockmaker friend

[Greg]

How effective might this be when used with a 150mm Apo Symmar? How sharp is it with the Topcor?

Full disclosure, I have never used a 150mm Topcor with 2x focal length converter. I did have a friend who had one and told me it that it produced an excellent image when the lens was stopped down. He also told me that he did try to use the 2X converter with another 150mm brand and tried adapting it to a 210mm, but neither combination was as good as his 150mm Topcor. Not much help here, but I thought I'd pass it on....

[Vaughn]

Sure, can be an excellent lens. Except this lens-shutter is going to be BIG. If you're doing landscape images which commonly entails using smaller apertures for film exposures as most landscape folks are into everything in the image apparently sharp. That f5.6 become a size liability.

Know a full aperture f9_ish 300mm is not going to that much dimmer on the GG image as a f5.6, 300mm lens, but the size weight difference needs to be experienced to be properly appreciated.

At this point, optical performance between f5.6 -vs- f9 is not significant enough to get all worked up over or be the deciding factor.


Bernice

Depends on where one photographs. Having an image over twice as bright is nice (f5.6 vs f9) and becomes significant in the dark forest.

One's tools shape and form the photographer as much as the image. They are a part of the process.

[Mark Stahlke]

I use the Fuji C 300/8.5 for a long lens. I find it very versatile. It's small, light, and bright enough on the ground glass for my aging eyes.
Here's a landscape taken with it.
215998

Here is an architecture shot with it. This one won an award.
215999

This is an abstract taken with my Fuji C 300/8.5.
216000

[Drew Wiley]

Vaughn - isn't the whole point of a dark dank forest so that you can sneak up on your prey? Do you actually need the extra publicity of being the first Bigfoot photographed since the National Enquirer documented one aboard the same UFO as Elvis? Otherwise, I don't miss f/5.6 lenses a bit. F/9 is plenty bright for me, even in the woods. But I do carry an electronic laser-equipped Sasquatch detector, just in case.

[ic-racer]

How effective might this be when used with a 150mm Apo Symmar? How sharp is it with the Topcor?

I suspect the Horseman 150/300 converter will work with a similar construction 150mm lens. I'd call sharpness OK. It is perhaps as sharp as a 300mm plasmat. So, the results would be similar to a 4x5" crop of an 8x10 negative that I exposed with my 300mm 5.6.

[Ernest MacMillan]

My Horseman catalog, circa 1991, listed the following lenses, besides the 150 Topcor, that work with the teleconverter:

Fujinon W 150/5.6,
Nikkor W 150/5.6,
Symmar-S MC 150/5.6,
New Xenar 150/5.6,
Sironar-n 150/5.6,
Apo-Ronar 150/5.6.

This may have more to do with suitable mechanics for attaching the converter, which screws over the rear elements of the lens, rather than optical performance. It is not common, but it is not expensive when located.

[Drew Wiley]

There's no way any teleconverter with all its extra air/glass/dust interfaces is going to yield result anywhere near the league of a late plasmat or some of the other superstar lenses being discussed. Besides, who needs more bulk and fuss? Some of the 300's under discussion are themselves far more compact than that thing.

[Alan Klein]

I'm using a Nikkor M 300mm f/9 on my Chamonix 45H-1. This long lens works best of all my lenses with my eye-level viewfinder attachment. You can see the whole ground glass brighter and clearer, unlike my wider 90mm f/4.5 and 75mm f/5.6 lenses.

[Drew Wiley]

That's typical of longer lenses, Alan. They don't produce a "hot spot" just toward the middle of the glass like wide-angle lenses.

[Bob Salomon]

I'm using a Nikkor M 300mm f/9 on my Chamonix 45H-1. This long lens works best of all my lenses with my eye-level viewfinder attachment. You can see the whole ground glass brighter and clearer, unlike my wider 90mm f/4.5 and 75mm f/5.6 lenses.

Try using the fresnel with a reflex viewer.

[Alan Klein]

Try using the fresnel with a reflex viewer.

The Chamonix GG has a fresnel. Are you recommending something else?

[otto.f]

I have a small and lightweight Nikkor 300mm, F9 I think, easy to get in Japan, but mark extra costs for import and inquire in advance with the seller. I used it with pleasure thus far. It’s just that the stability of the tripod becomes perceivable more crucial than with 150mm, so I wouldn’t pull out too much legs.

[William Whitaker]

Another 2¢, if I may...

I have a 300mm f/9 Red Dot Artar that has served as the long lens in my 5x7 kit for almost 15 years. It's in a Compur shutter. It is very lightweight and "dangerously sharp". The Compur is reliable and a delight to use. f/9 is a bit dark on the ground glass. But the proof is in the negative.

[ic-racer]

My Horseman catalog, circa 1991, listed the following lenses, besides the 150 Topcor, that work with the teleconverter:

Fujinon W 150/5.6,
Nikkor W 150/5.6,
Symmar-S MC 150/5.6,
New Xenar 150/5.6,
Sironar-n 150/5.6,
Apo-Ronar 150/5.6.

This may have more to do with suitable mechanics for attaching the converter, which screws over the rear elements of the lens, rather than optical performance. It is not common, but it is not expensive when located.

Fantastic! Thanks for the info,

[ic-racer]

There's no way any teleconverter with all its extra air/glass/dust interfaces is going to yield result anywhere near the league of a late plasmat or some of the other superstar lenses being discussed. Besides, who needs more bulk and fuss? Some of the 300's under discussion are themselves far more compact than that thing.

Maybe yours is damaged? Mine is fantastic.
When designing a lens, additional elements are used to correct for aberrations, leading to improved performance. Not diminished performance.
Plasmat a 'superstar' lens? That has not been my experience.

[Drew Wiley]

Why the heck would I even want a teleconverter? Even my 4x5 folder will easily accommodate a 360, and my monorails can be extended as far as I wish - I routinely shoot a 450 with it. No need for telephotos or teleconverters. Prime lenses are way less bulky anyway, and nobody on earth is going to improve on any of the modern plastmats I own with any kind of teleconverter. That's sheer nonsense. I don't know what your idea of a plasmat is, but mine include Fujinon A's, G-Clarons, Fuji W's. Adding a teleconverter is like dragging a big log behind your truck and imagining you can go faster that way. Yes, I did once did try an allegedly very good one for MF work, and learned that lesson fast. They're just a bandaid approach for dealing with a camera with too little bellows in the first place. That's why I never bought a Horseman tech camera, even though they're superbly made.

Nor do I know what your printing standards are. I've got 30X40 inch Cibachromes around me that are so crisp that you'd need a magnifier to see all the detail in the perfectly in-focus portions. Some were made with older plasmats nowhere near as sharp or well corrected as the ones I have now, like the good ole 210 Symmar S, and even using older films not more grainy than those today, like 4X5 Ektachrome 64. And you're trying to tell me plasmats in general ain't so good? Switch that up to today's higher acutance 8X10 films, an adhesive or vacuum precision holder, and something like a Fuji A series lens - gosh! Those are high-performance plasmats. But if I really wanted to blow things out of the water, I'd reach for one of my truly apo barrel process lenses.

Something just doesn't add up in your opinion of modern lenses. Improved performance with a converter? Correct for what aberrations ???? The lenses I use don't have any aberrations unless you're outside the limits of a realistic image circle! - sounds like you want to gild the lily with spray paint. But to each his own, I suppose.

[Sal Santamaura]

...mechanics for attaching the converter, which screws over the rear elements of the lens...To eliminate any confusion about the Horseman teleconverter's physical configuration, it has two components. One is a replacement for the lens' Copal 0 retaining ring, which screws onto the shutter and also has larger female threads facing the film. Into those threads goes the converter body, which then covers the lens' rear cell.

I suspect, but haven't confirmed, that any Copal 0-installed 150mm lens with rear cell physical dimensions compatible with the converter will "work." In my experience, the most problematic aspect of the resultant "300mm lens" is that, at full aperture, it's an f/11 optic. Not too much less sharp than the 150mm Nikkor W I tried it on is, but fairly dark to compose and focus with, even using a Maxwell screen. My conclusion was that, even for bellows-limited field cameras like my Horseman FA, it's not worthwhile. My current long lens for that camera is a 240mm Germinar W.

I have one of the "25654 Lens Panel for Apo-Ronar 300mm" top hat lensboards and shot with a 300mm f/9 Nikkor M mounted on it, but don't consider that a particularly useful combination. In my opinion, it's best to accept the small, light-weight camera for what it is and work within its limitations. Should a 300mm or longer be needed on 4x5, better to use a heavier camera with greater stability at long extensions.

[Drew Wiley]

It's a treat to once again be on the same wavelength as you, Sal. I did have the opportunity to buy one of those relatively rare 240 Germinar W's, but just couldn't justify the price because I rarely shoot anything wide relative to 8x10 format; and for 4X5 use, my 240 Fuji A and 250 GC are outright superb, yet also double if needed for decent 8x10 results, provided the far reaches of the image circle are avoided.

And yes, the dimness of teleconverters is another downside, even when used to further expand the focal length of relatively fast MF teles. But that's where they make the most sense logistically, though rarely with respect to cumulative image quality.

[Bernice Loui]

Horseman 2X tele-converter, lose two f-stops of light making the once full aperture f5.6 lens into a f11 full aperture lens, for a taking aperture of f22 becomes f45 _why_?_

Then there is the added optical system to the prime lens which has every opportunity to degrade the prime lens optical performance.

Then there is the size-weight-bulk of this 2X tele converter which is as big and bulky as a small 300mm f8 or smaller full aperture lens.

Justify why this optic is viable?


Bernice

[Ernest MacMillan]

If you own a compatible 150, and you are carrying it with you already, for an extra 140 grams and very little additional space, you can have a 300mm lens. At f/11 on the 150 it is f/22 in all ways wrt depth of field and illumination. It costs as little as $80. I have not exposed anything with mine-it came with a lens I purchased. But if the ground glass is any indication, it is not too sharp wide open (at f/11 !). Even so, for $80, you can experiment with 300mm and determine if it works for you with regard to composing, perspective for your favorite subjects and distribution of focus. Whether it meet high or even moderate expectations for image quality is somewhat besides the point.

The way most people talk it down, I doubt I could give mine away without an apology.

[Bernice Loui]

Space-weight of any given LF optic should be dependent on the image goals, not space-weight alone.

The two f-stop light loss means prime lens set to a taking aperture of f22 with a exposure time of 1/30 second becomes a taking aperture of f45 at 1/8 second. This could impose a different set of problems.

$80 in the overall cost of doing LF view camera images is zilch or about one or two boxes of 4x5 film. The image makers resources and all involved including time spent making images cannot be replaced (how does one place a $ value on bits of an individual's lifetime?).

At some point, the LF hardware aspect becomes of far lesser importance if the focus is put on expressive image making. This means applying the tools needed to achieve the image goals.

Image quality IS one of the why LF. These days, there is no possible way I'm going to waste time, film, resources and all involved to use and produce anything less than what is close to ideal. Those days of experimenting and tinkering and .. are done, over three decades ago. And, there are no new "toys" that might be of interest, just making expressive images are of interest these days.

Remember these Horseman 2X converters when they were introduced, pondered why? They is a very good case for 2X converters on smaller imager formats. Have both the 1.4X and 2X for the Canon tele lenses and zoom lenses, they work extremely good and they are used very often. For LF, it is extremely difficult to make a viable justification for a 2X "tele-converter"..



Bernice



If you own a compatible 150, and you are carrying it with you already, for an extra 140 grams and very little additional space, you can have a 300mm lens. At f/11 on the 150 it is f/22 in all ways wrt depth of field and illumination. It costs as little as $80. I have not exposed anything with mine-it came with a lens I purchased. But if the ground glass is any indication, it is not too sharp wide open (at f/11 !). Even so, for $80, you can experiment with 300mm and determine if it works for you with regard to composing, perspective for your favorite subjects and distribution of focus. Whether it meet high or even moderate expectations for image quality is somewhat besides the point.

The way most people talk it down, I doubt I could give mine away without an apology.

[Drew Wiley]

Ernest - your postulate of practicing composition with a converter installed falls apart with respect to the premature vignetting you'd get using view camera controls like tilts due the longer overall optical assembly when combining a teleconverter, perhaps even worse than with an ordinary tele lens. And as far as "mere weight" goes, a dedicated Nikkor 300M is less than 300g and quite compact. There's a good reason they're rarely used for LF work. But with MF SLR's, longer focal lengths are big long heavy tubes, so I can understand the temptation to try a teleconverter. Been there, done that, was disappointed.

[Ernest MacMillan]

I am sure that you have more knowledge and experience than I in almost all aspects of this issue. Nonetheless, I don't believe you are correct in talking about the loss of two f-stops unless you intended to shoot at 5.6 or 8. When you set the 150 lens at f/11, you are shooting at f/22 and the film plane will be illuminated the same within reason as any other single lens set f/22 to begin with. There is no additional problem to confound you. Some of the many here more competent than me (a very low standard indeed) on this forum please correct me if I misunderstand. I cannot remember anything I shot at less than f/22 by choice.

Perhaps it is not so for many, but I welcome a cheap way to find out if a lens focal length works for me before spending, say, 500-1000 on a premium lens at the very limit wrt focal length of lenses I would use. When all is said and done, the lp/mm at 50% contrast may not be the limiting factor in the perceived quality of a print. It certainly isn't in mine or many that I have viewed.

[Drew Wiley]

Different people have different quality expectations in a print. For example, contact printers place great emphasis on tonality reproduction, but can get away with felonies when it comes to image sharpness, which nobody is going to notice anyway because there's no enlargement factor. And I have no use for stereotypes about what constitutes a good image and what might not - that is, I want to make that decision myself and not default to the limitations of less than ideal optics, because I do indeed often make large prints which people really do put their noses or reading glasses right up to. I want them to discover intricacies of detail within the overall greater composition. And I tend to use a lot of strong tilts and so forth. So from my perspective, which is at least analogous to the needs of numerous other forum members, though not necessarily all, such distinctions are worth stating.

[Bernice Loui]

That would be a NO, 2x tele converters work by expanding the prime lens exiting light image ray cone. Once this light ray image cone is expanded, there WILL BE light loss.. This is how the effective 2X focal length is achieved using a 2X converter.

From the Horseman catalog. "new"..
216039



unless some ~noun~ has and had the ability to alter the laws of Physics as is currently known to humanity.

The topic of 2X converter has become confrontational and non-productive. It needs and must stop now.
No further reply at this point as it will simply prompt and inflame increasing non-productive verbage.


Bernice





I am sure that you have more knowledge and experience than I in almost all aspects of this issue. Nonetheless, I don't believe you are correct in talking about the loss of two f-stops unless you intended to shoot at 5.6 or 8. When you set the 150 lens at f/11, you are shooting at f/22 and the film plane will be illuminated the same within reason as any other single lens set f/22 to begin with. There is no additional problem to confound you. Some of the many here more competent than me (a very low standard indeed) on this forum please correct me if I misunderstand. I cannot remember anything I shot at less than f/22 by choice.

Perhaps it is not so for many, but I welcome a cheap way to find out if a lens focal length works for me before spending, say, 500-1000 on a premium lens at the very limit wrt focal length of lenses I would use. When all is said and done, the lp/mm at 50% contrast may not be the limiting factor in the perceived quality of a print. It certainly isn't in mine or many that I have viewed.

[Delfi_r]

The 300 mm Tessars are your best choice, the best: Nikkor-M, but the Cooke Triplet of the Rodenstock Gerogon is nice and good on landscapes.

[Alan Klein]

I am sure that you have more knowledge and experience than I in almost all aspects of this issue. Nonetheless, I don't believe you are correct in talking about the loss of two f-stops unless you intended to shoot at 5.6 or 8. When you set the 150 lens at f/11, you are shooting at f/22 and the film plane will be illuminated the same within reason as any other single lens set f/22 to begin with. There is no additional problem to confound you. Some of the many here more competent than me (a very low standard indeed) on this forum please correct me if I misunderstand. I cannot remember anything I shot at less than f/22 by choice.

Perhaps it is not so for many, but I welcome a cheap way to find out if a lens focal length works for me before spending, say, 500-1000 on a premium lens at the very limit wrt focal length of lenses I would use. When all is said and done, the lp/mm at 50% contrast may not be the limiting factor in the perceived quality of a print. It certainly isn't in mine or many that I have viewed.

When using a tele converter, how do you figure DOF?

[angusparker]

The 300 Nikkor M would perfectly equate to your expectations. It's with superb color film too. Another time-tested favorite, harder to find these days, would be a 300 Apo Ronar, provided it's the infinity-corrected version in shutter. Then there's the 300 Fuji C - it has a somewhat bigger image circle in case you want something more practical for 8x10 format too. These are all especially compact optically superb lenses in lightweight no.1 shutter. And all of them are plenty bright for outdoor landscape use, even though they are f/9 maximum aperture. You don't want anything way bulkier in a big no.3 shutter with that little Chamonix!

The Fuji A 300 makes sense if you want something deluxe predominantly for 8x10 format down the line, but also light enough to be practical in a 4x5 field kit. Not as compact as the lenses I just mentioned above, harder to find, and apt to be seriously expensive.

Agree completely. I own both. The Fuji A 300 is harder to find, heavier, and has a weird filter ring size (55 or 58mm I can't remember). I would go with the Nikkor M 300mm f9. The Fujinon C 300 f8.5 is basically the same lens, harder to find and usually a bit more expensive.

[Fermat]

Another time-tested favorite, harder to find these days, would be a 300 Apo Ronar, provided it's the infinity-corrected version in shutter. .

How do you recognize that a Apo Ronar 300 is a infinity-corrected version?
Thanks

[Bernice Loui]

Unless images made using an APO ronar, APO nikkor, APO artar demands geometric distortion of far less than 0.5% over the entire image area, color separation films of near absolute identical image size, concern for the corrected to infinity or 1:1 (life size) version is of no appreciable significance for expressive photographic images.

That said, been using these APO "process" lenses for view camera images for decades, good examples exceed any possible image expectations imposed on them.
They have excellent color and contrast rendition, for longer than normal focal length more than enough image circle for camera movements, small physical size and often low weight for their focal length. For images made at film exposures of f16 and smaller apertures, there is little if any dis-advantages to these APO process lenses be they in barrel or shutter.


Bernice



How do you recognize that a Apo Ronar 300 is a infinity-corrected version?
Thanks

[Drew Wiley]

The disadvantage of apo barrel lenses per se is that they do not include a shutter; and behind- the-lens universal shutters like the Sinar are not compatible with folding "field cameras". Portability is what is at stake. It's easy to find very compact 300mm lenses in small no. 1 shutter; but with most apo barrel lenses of that focal length you'll need a bulkier no. 3, plus the extra expense of acquiring the shutter and getting it adapted to the lens. And there are times when significantly lighter weight is quite important - like when I had to suddenly yank my view camera and tripod out of the way of a moose and her calf because I ignorantly had my gear set up on their commute path! Obviously, wilderness use has some logistical distinctions from studio applications.

Some of the lenses within the same general family, like Apo Ronars, Artars, and G-Clarons were also available in shutter, and frankly look different from the process versions, and might or might not be infinity corrected. Those with actual experience with specific lenses can comment on that. The famous 4x5 color photographer of the Himalaya and Karakorum, Shirahito, used a 300 Apo Ronar in shutter for many of his infinity shots. I've often used a 300 Nikkor M for either a moderate long view with 4X5 format, or for an even narrower perspective on distant shots in conjunction with a 6X9 roll film back. In my opinion, it exceeds ordinary MF lenses in critical performance; but so would my Fuji A or G Claron.

Nikkor M's the culmination of tessar design, and of thinner elements than traditional tessars. But Fuji C's are of the airspaced 4-element "dialyte" design, and superb at infinity, but so-so at very close range. My Apo Nikkor process lenses are also 4-element airspaced, but superbly corrected all the way from 1:1 to infinity, truly versatile in that respect; I use them mostly for enlarging purposes, but do have Sinar boards adapted for them, just in case I want to shoot with them lenscap-exposure style. Maybe Bernice or someone will finally realize just how lousy Sinar universal shutters are, and in disgust send one to me instead of continuing to fool with it himself.

[Fermat]

At the end I found a copy of Nikon M 300mm f9 in a dealer here in Milan.
I will try in the next days,

Inviato dal mio M2101K6G utilizzando Tapatalk

[annaneves]

Hmm, I think there is no one right solution in such matters. Personally, I would choose a lens with an aperture of 5.6. But still, you should always choose according to the situation. But when you gain experience, it becomes much easier to choose what fits better. Maybe this time everything will not be super with the quality of the photo, but next time you will understand that it is perfect for your particular photo. After all, in any creative business, you can never strictly adhere to the rules. Often it is the violation of classical rules that helps to create something really new and beautiful. And be sure to save your first pictures. My father actually ordered a frame for my first photo on https://www.frameshop.com.au/custom-picture-frames (https://www.frameshop.com.au/custom-picture-frames) and he gave me this photo 5 years after my photography class. I was very happy about it and you will be glad to see your first attempts to take pictures.

[Jim Noel]

It is difficult to beat the Nikkor M, f9, 300mm within your specifications.
It is small, light, sharp and will fold into many field cameras.

[xkaes]

Agree completely. I own both. The Fuji A 300 is harder to find, heavier, and has a weird filter ring size (55 or 58mm I can't remember). I would go with the Nikkor M 300mm f9. The Fujinon C 300 f8.5 is basically the same lens, harder to find and usually a bit more expensive.

The Fujinon A 300mm has a 55mm filter thread, while the C 300mm has a 52mm thread. They both use a #1 shutter and are very small and light for their focal length.

[Bob Salomon]

Agree completely. I own both. The Fuji A 300 is harder to find, heavier, and has a weird filter ring size (55 or 58mm I can't remember). I would go with the Nikkor M 300mm f9. The Fujinon C 300 f8.5 is basically the same lens, harder to find and usually a bit more expensive.

Why would 55 or 58mm be a “weird filter size?”

[Drew Wiley]

All different lenses. The Fuji A 300 is a close-range correct "super plasmat" excellent at infinity too, with a relatively large image circle. The Fuji 300 C stands for "compact", which it really is, but a completely different optical formula - a 4/4 airspaced dialyte, infinity optimized. The Nikkor 300 M is a very modern tessar formula with excellent contrast, but a more limited image circle barely usable on 8X10 format.

All three are in no. 1 shutter, so relatively light for their focal length, though the C and M are even lighter and more compact than the A. The Nikkor M takes 52mm filters; but when it's in the same kit as somewhat larger lenses, I standardize on 67mm filters, and just bring along a 52-67 step ring, as well as a 58-67 step ring, cumulatively about as much extra weight as a few pennies!

[angusparker]

All different lenses. The Fuji A 300 is a close-range correct "super plasmat" excellent at infinity too, with a relatively large image circle. The Fuji 300 C stands for "compact", which it really is, but a completely different optical formula - a 4/4 airspaced dialyte, infinity optimized. The Nikkor 300 M is a very modern tessar formula with excellent contrast, but a more limited image circle barely usable on 8X10 format.

All three are in no. 1 shutter, so relatively light for their focal length, though the C and M are even lighter and more compact than the A. The Nikkor M takes 52mm filters; but when it's in the same kit as somewhat larger lenses, I standardize on 67mm filters, and just bring along a 52-67 step ring, as well as a 58-67 step ring, cumulatively about as much extra weight as a few pennies!

I would stay away from the Fujinon A 300 (which I own) simply because it is quite a bit heavier and has a weird filter size. The Fujinon C 300 (which I have owned) is generally more expensive than the Nikkor M 300 but comparable otherwise. So based on price, filter size, and weight I would pick the Nikkor.

[Kevin Crisp]

Eric is right. I've gone with the g claron in this focal length. Still easy to focus with f:9 max aperture. MUCH smaller than a faster one. The R Claron would have plenty of coverage for 4X5 and it is smaller still but usually needs a larger Compur 2 shutter.

[ic-racer]

The Horseman focal length converter is pretty nice in actual use. The converter is almost no extra space or weight to carry along in the field. How convienient to in a moment just screw that on the back of the lens. Obviously the comparison here is a 300/150 convertible. In my camera bag, the Horseman converter wins over convertibles i tried.

[Joseph Kashi]

Eric is right. I've gone with the g claron in this focal length. Still easy to focus with f:9 max aperture. MUCH smaller than a faster one. The R Claron would have plenty of coverage for 4X5 and it is smaller still but usually needs a larger Compur 2 shutter.

FWIW, my 305mm Repro-Claron is in a factory Compur 1 shutter. It's an excellent long lens for 4x5 and covers 5x7 with some movement, very small and light yet sharp. Just right for very lightweight field use. That said, I slightly prefer the 305/9 G-Claron, also in a #1 shutter.

[xkaes]

The Horseman focal length converter is pretty nice in actual use. The converter is almost no extra space or weight to carry along in the field. How convienient to in a moment just screw that on the back of the lens. Obviously the comparison here is a 300/150 convertible. In my camera bag, the Horseman converter wins over convertibles i tried.

Calumet sold one as well -- probably the same thing. That might be a good option to a typical 300mm f5.6 in a #3 shutter, but I opted for the Fujinon C 300mm f8.5 in a #1. A little heavier, and more expensive than the converter, but saves a whole f-stop of light loss. And even stopped down, the converters can't be that good.

[linhofbiker]

Is 270 close enough to 300?

I have two light weight lenses in Compur dial-set shutters from a long time ago:

1) 270mm Symmar Doppel f/6.8 that covers about 80 degrees based on the Dagor

2) 12" (304mm) f/7.7 dallon tele-anastigmat dallmeyer but not sure of the coverage (haven't used it yet)

The Symmar covers 5x7 but the Dallmeyer certainly does not so it will have to go! (since I am abandoning formats smallerv than 5x7)