Suggestions: Short Tele lenses for 4x5

[Arne Norris]

I'm looking for a lens in the 250 to 300mm range that I will be able to use for portraits with a Master Technika. I plan on doing fairly tight "head shots" with the lens.

I'm thinking that a telephoto design would give me far less bellows extension. I obviously won't need any movements, but I don't want to worry about coverage.

I'm considering:

Nikkor T 270/6.3

Schneider 270/5.5 (newer type of this vintage series)

Schneider 250/5.6 or 250/5.6 MC

The Nikkor looks interesting as it's a modern lens/shutter and a bit longer than the 250, but it's published image circle is a bit tight.

I'm not considering an APO Tele-Xenar as I'm sure it's way out of my budget.

Anyone using any of these who can give me some feedback? Any other similar lenses I should consider?

Thanks!

[David Millard]

I use a 270mm Nikkor on 6x9cm format - its a very sharp and contrasty lens, with a very nice rendition of out of focus areas. It's image circle barely covers 4x5, but that may be irrelevant to your portrait work.

[Mark Stahlke]

One more option to consider is the Fujinon-T 300/8. With a flange focal distance of about 195mm and an image circle of 213mm, it might fit your needs.

[Matus Kalisky]

Event with tele lenses I would be avare of the bellows draw needed. You mention that you want to make a tight head shots what means the size of the subject between 20 - 30 cm - that is macro in the range of 1:3 to 1:2 (I assume the film has 10cm longer edge for simplicity).

Now the tele design lenses have shorter flange to film distance, but once you start to focuse closer than infinity the bellows extension will be as with normal lenses. I mean that if you were doing 1:1 macro with 300mm lens that is non-tele you need 600mm extension. with 300mm tele lens that has 200mm flnage-to-film distance you will need 500mm extension.

So for 1:2 (1:3) macro with normal 300mm lens you need 450 (400) mm of extension.

For a 300mm tele lense just shorten these numbers but the difference between the focal length and flange-to-film distance that is cca 100mm for Fujinon 300T and you will get that for 1:2 (1:3) you need 350 (300) mm of extension.

Actually what metters is is not only the flnage-to-film distance - this defines how much bwllows extension you have left to focus closer, but also the "back focus" of the lens itself.

I have Tachihara that has some 320mm extension and use the Tele Osaka 400/8 with it. It has flange-to-film distance of 236mm, but the back focus is 210mm. So it allows me to focus down to cca 5 meters and not 9 (that would come up following the exaple above).

P.S. I hope I did not screw something up here. You better check it ;)

[Arne Norris]

Thanks for this info Matus.

I will have to look into what you are talking about. One area of camera lenses I know little about is using telephoto lenses on large fomat.

Does anyone know of a good source of information about the relationship between flange focal distance and focal length when focusing in a closer range? Should I be considering using another type of lens design such as a Nikkor M 300mm or the Fujinon 240 A? Plasmat design lenses such as a Symmar or Sironar 240mm in a Copal 3 seem huge and too heavy to lug around.

What I want to do is similar to what Lukas Einsele is doing making the portraits for his series on land mine victims:

http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/testimonials/lukas_einsele_1.htm

This is the German edition of the Schnieder site. There's other English language info on other sites about his project, if anyone is interested. Here's the project site:

http://www.one-step-beyond.de/en/project/project.html

[Aender Brepsom]

I use a Schneider Tele-Arton 5.5/270mm MC both on 6x9 and 4x5 SW Ebonys. It is a good performer and needs only approx. 150mm bellows extension.

[M Brian Mills]

I'm thinking that a telephoto design would give me far less bellows extension.

I am curious about what has caused you think that a telephoto lens will give you less bellows draw...?

You can do tight head-shot work with a macro lens and have the least amount of bellows draw. The closer you get to the subject with a longer lens the more bellows you are going to need which, in turn, gets you around issues with the image-circle.

Another thing to consider is what your aperture will be (what amount of time do you have for making your images?). Obviously the longer your exposure and the smaller your f-stop the more you'll have in focus.

[Arne Norris]

If I'm interpreting what Matus is saying (and what I'm learning from other formulas I've discovered), the shorter film to flange benefit of using a telephoto type lens decreases as you get closer to your subject?

My primary need for a lens in the 250-300mm range is to do portraits, headshots.

From what I can tell using a normal 270mm lens with a subject to lens board distance of 1.5 meters, I would have a lens board to film distance of about 330mm. Using a telephoto such as a Nikkor T 270, with a film to flange distance of 188mm, I would have a board to film distance of about 248mm. Correct?

[Dan Fromm]

I am curious about what has caused you think that a telephoto lens will give you less bellows draw...?

You can do tight head-shot work with a macro lens and have the least amount of bellows draw. The closer you get to the subject with a longer lens the more bellows you are going to need which, in turn, gets you around issues with the image-circle.

Another thing to consider is what your aperture will be (what amount of time do you have for making your images?). Obviously the longer your exposure and the smaller your f-stop the more you'll have in focus.Brian, read a book.

What makes a telephoto lens is that because the rear node is out in front of the lens, draw -- flange to film distance -- at infinity is somewhat less than (generally about 80% of) draw at infinity of a lens of the same focal length but of normal construction. Telephoto doesn't mean long focus lens, it refers to a design type.

All of the macro lenses I'm acquainted with are of normal construction.

[seawolf66]

Dan: The Telar would that not do the same, reduce your bellow's draw: or have I gotten my facts wrong again:

[Gene McCluney]

Most simply put, a standard 300mm LF lens (for example) requires 12 inches of bellows draw to focus at infinity, and more for closer distances. A "true" telephoto design lens in 300mm by design requires much less bellows draw. They give the same angle of view on the negative. Hence, those of us who like to use compact cameras with limited bellows draw, such as the Crown Graphic style of press cameras prefer "telephoto" design lenses for focal lengths longer than about 210mm, rather than "standard" design lenses. A true telephoto design will not have as wide a circle of coverage, therefore will have more limited movements possible, but a Graphic type of camera only has limited movements anyway.

[Gene McCluney]

Lens suggestions would be the Wollensak Tele-raptars, the Schneider Tele-Xenars, or Tele-Artons. Most of these can be found for reasonable prices, as well as the Komura Tele lenses.

[Armin Seeholzer]

The Rodenstock Rotelar 270 mm was build for portraits and is quite good up to 1:2.
Hope it helps, Armin

[Joseph O'Neil]

A true telephoto design will not have as wide a circle of coverage, therefore will have more limited movements possible, but a Graphic type of camera only has limited movements anyway.

-snip-

Well put. I had a Komura 300mm Tele that (from memory here) did not require much more belows draw than a 210mm.

Nice sharp lens, but I missed the extra movements when I went from my Crown to my Tachihara. The Tachi still does not have the range of movements as some other field cameras I looked it, but it does seem to have more than my old Crown.

Specifically in my case my current "tele" lens is a 270mm G-claron, which does require a lot of belows draw, but I find is still very manageable on the Tachihara, while on my Crown Graphic the 270mm pulls the belows to petty much it's limit. I doubt I would be able to easily use a 300mm G-claron (or similar F9 lens) on my Crown, but I would be able to on my Tachi, but that would be the limit I think.

the flip side is my old Tel-Raptar which is - oh about 375mm - is a big heavy lens, and I find the front standard on my Tachi too light (at least for my liking) while the Crown is a very sturdy camera.

The advice others gave about belows draw at different focal points - such as close up, portrait, etc, all bear out too. In my case, 90% of what I shoot is focusing at or near infinity, so bbear that in mind when I talk about how much bellows draw I personally want/need.

For what it is worth, a good used Wollensak Tele-raptar is a nice lens to use.

joe

[seawolf66]

Go to this site: and check out the lens he has for sale: http://www.cameraeccentric.com/index.html
got a 400mm focus to 6 inchs:

[Mark Fisher]

I have a Tachihara and settled on a 240mm f9 G-Claron in a copal 1. It is a little shorter than you mentioned, but I think it would serve you well. I like to do tight compositions of small stuff and it works well for that. I decided on that focal length because I love my 85mm on my 35mm and 240mm was pretty close to that.

[Arne Norris]

Thanks for everyone's response. I think I'm clear on what I want to do, now I just need to find the lens, which will be a 5.5/270 Tele-Arton, a later version. I understand these versions were made into the early 1980's from feedback of owners. If anyone has one for sale let me know.