Can someone give a Recommendation of a good Tele lenses for 4*5”

[esbtse]

Hi,
I have a Horseman LX 4*5"
and 90mm, 120mm, 240mm lenses.
I like to do landschapesphotos and my question is what tele lence do I need? Maby Nikon 450?
Best Regards,
Thomas Ertiksson

[Ken Lee]

Hej Thomas - Do you mean long lenses, or telephoto lenses ?

We often confuse the two. Tele lenses allow you to use less bellows draw than a standard lens of the same focal length. They do this at the expense of coverage, and because the nodal point of the lens is at a different location, they require some patience while performing view camera adjustments. That said, they can be very handy if the camera has limited bellows extension.

The Nikon 360 and Fujinon 300T and 400T lenses are popular. I used a 400T (www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/tech.html#400T) on my Tachihara. The lens requires roughly 250mm of bellows draw at infinity, since the camera allowed only 300mm. I made some of my favorite images with it.

[esbtse]

Hej Thomas - Do you mean long lenses, or telephoto lenses ?

We often confuse the two. Tele lenses allow you to use less bellows draw than a standard lens of the same focal length. They do this at the expense of coverage, and because the nodal point of the lens is at a different location, they require some patience while performing view camera adjustments. That said, they can be very handy if the camera has limited bellows extension.

The Nikon 360 and Fujinon 300T and 400T lenses are popular. I used a 400T (www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/tech.html#400T) on my Tachihara. The lens requires roughly 250mm of bellows draw at infinity, since the camera allowed only 300mm. I made some of my favorite images with it.

The Hoseman LX can be extend to 700 mm. I like to use the lense at medium range and on distance object. In the 35 mm format I usually use 85/105-200mm on landscape. I need a gap from the 240mm lens so 450/150=3 => 150mm in 35mm format so I can use a long lense.

[Gene McCluney]

I have Komura 400mm and 500mm telephoto lenses in copal shutters that work just fine with my Super Graphic. (a press camera with limited bellows) These can be from time-to-time found on popular auction sites for reasonable prices. These are nice coated lenses.

[Nick_3536]

With 700mm of bellows you don't need a telephoto for 450mm.

Consider the Fuji 450 F/12.5. Light weight so it won't be a problem that way. Lots of coverage so if you move up in format you'll be covered.

[esbtse]

With 700mm of bellows you don't need a telephoto for 450mm.

Consider the Fuji 450 F/12.5. Light weight so it won't be a problem that way. Lots of coverage so if you move up in format you'll be covered.

How important is the a large apertude?
What about the 480 Rodenstock APO-Sironar N, 480mm APO Nikkor?
Im going to use a back pack I have a Tamerac Expedition 7 for the camera gear but Im not sure I can fit it all in.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Rodenstock 480mm APO Ronar small sharp sharper and lighter then any Telelens in same range!
Sorry you don't get mine!
Armin

[Ken Lee]

Consider weight and filter size. The APO Sironar N is rather large and heavy, and takes large filters. I presume that the APO Nikkor is in the same category. The Fujinon 450C has huge coverage, uses 52mm filters, and weighs only 270 grams. When shot wide open, it has very nice bokeh also.

[Gene McCluney]

With 700mm of bellows you don't need a telephoto for 450mm.



Technically you are correct, HOWEVER press/field style cameras are more subject to vibration from wind, etc., when extended out near their limits, thus making a "telephoto" design lens more practical in many instances.

[Brian Ellis]

When I had a camera with 320mm of extension I used the Fuji 400T and it was an excellent lens plus being relatively light and small for its focal length (Copal 1 shutter, filters in the 62mm range IIRC, I don't remember the exact size but it wasn't big). I was pleasantly surprised to find that the downsides of telephotos that you read about turned out to not be a big deal for me.

[esbtse]

I have a View camera.
My 90/4.5 Rodenstock Grandagon N have a filter size of 82 and I like to have this size as maximum.
My alternatives are:

Rodenstock APO-Ronar 480 f/9 have a filter size of 67
Nikon Nikkor M 450 f/9 have a filter size of 67
Fuji Fujinon C 450/12.5 have a filter size of 57
Fuji Fujinon CM-W 450/8 have a filter size of 86

What lens/lenses shall i go for and how important is the max apertude?
What lens is better for distant subjects and not only optimized at 1:1?

[Ted Harris]

Weight of the lens isn't going to be important when you are lugging that beast of a camera out in the field. I'd get the Nikon 450M. All of the lenses you listed are good lenses. I say I'd get the 450M because I did. That is the lens in that focal length range that I use. I use it on several field cameras and on a Horseman LS which is very similar to your LX.

I hope you have considered the weight of the equipment that you will be carrying aroundoutdoors to do landscapes. With a suitably heavy tripod, the LX on its extendable rail, some lenses and ohter necessities you are likely to be in the range of 35 pounds or more; not to mention that it is no mean feat to set up a Horseman rail camera in the field.

[Shen45]

I have a 19" [482.6mm] Red Dot Artar in a #4 shutter and cannot believe what a wonderful lens it is.

I also have a 360mm Apo Ronar [barrel, no shutter] and that is also a superb lens.

Steve

[Matus Kalisky]

I will sneak in as well. I put my vote for Osaka 400/8. It is probably THE ligthest 400mm tele in Copal#1 - 500g including linhof-technika type metal lensboard (I would not recommend anyhing much heavier with Tachihara). Image cicrcle is not a problem - though one shold be carefull with front movements with a tele lens. The weak point may be the sample to sample variations.

[Bill_1856]

The 10" and 15" Tele-Optar/Raptar lenses are quite good, and CHEAP! I particularly like the 10" which requires almost the same bellows extension as a standard 6" lens.

[Ken Lee]

Fuji Fujinon C 450/12.5 have a filter size of 57

Correction: The filter size is 52mm. I know it sounds small, but C stands for Compact, and it is.

I own one of these lenses, and it takes the same filters as my Fujinon 240A.

[esbtse]

Weight of the lens isn't going to be important when you are lugging that beast of a camera out in the field. I'd get the Nikon 450M. All of the lenses you listed are good lenses. I say I'd get the 450M because I did. That is the lens in that focal length range that I use. I use it on several field cameras and on a Horseman LS which is very similar to your LX.

I hope you have considered the weight of the equipment that you will be carrying aroundoutdoors to do landscapes. With a suitably heavy tripod, the LX on its extendable rail, some lenses and ohter necessities you are likely to be in the range of 35 pounds or more; not to mention that it is no mean feat to set up a Horseman rail camera in the field.

Its my first second hand LF camera. I not sure yet how I going to use it, but I am going to use it outdoors. I have to experiment. If I like doing LF then I’m going to get a field camera. There are a few photographers that use View cameras in the field they disconnect the camera and use a back pack. I’m going to try that and if it gets to heavy I switch to a field camera. My main reason to get a view camera is that it was cheep and I like to use its possibilities for correction.

[Scott Davis]

I'll put in another vote for the Nikkor 450 M. It is a lens you can live with for a long time on a lot of different cameras. Not to be confused with the 450 Q. Both are good lenses, but the 450 M has a much larger image circle.

[Ed Richards]

> If I like doing LF then I’m going to get a field camera.

Whoa. If a field camera is even a possibility, then you need to get a telephoto like the Fuji 400T or the Nikon 360T. While you can use these on your monorail. if you get a Nikon or Fuji 450, you cannot use these on most field cameras.