how can I match the image?

[Michael Carter]

I like to take 35mm photos with a 200mm lens and a 2x teleconverter. What 8x10 equiment would take the same image format? 400mm lens on a 35mm camera would equal what on a 8x10 camera?
Thanks.

[BarryS]

It doesn't really translate exactly because of the different aspect ratios, but 6x is a rule of thumb, so you'd need a 200mm X 2 X 6 = 2400mm lens. Not a practical focal length and probably not easy to find (if at all) for 8x10.

[jb7]

I'm guessing here, but somewhere around 3m?
10 feet?

Depending on magnification, of course,
and whether you're shooting for width or height...

j

[Michael Carter]

Uh Uo That doesn't sound good.
I really wanted a larger negative for telephoto images. I take city views and sometimes they are really far away.
Is there some other size that would work? Like 4x5?
I've been looking at medium format, Kiev 88, they sell new telephoto lenses, but for the same cost ULF is an option, but only if I could take the telephotos.

[Walter Calahan]

Huge

My Nikkor 1200 mm on my 8x10 camera doesn't come close to the look of a 400 mm lens on a 35 mm camera.

Haven't tried my 1200 mm on my 4x5 'cause the bellows isn't long enough. I'd need a third standard in the middle with two sets of bellows. My Arca-Swiss can do it, I just haven't invested in the gear for that long of a lens.

[Ron Marshall]

Uh Uo That doesn't sound good.
I really wanted a larger negative for telephoto images. I take city views and sometimes they are really far away.
Is there some other size that would work? Like 4x5?
I've been looking at medium format, Kiev 88, they sell new telephoto lenses, but for the same cost ULF is an option, but only if I could take the telephotos.

A 1200mm would be about the 4x5 equivalent.

[Gene McCluney]

In practical terms, you CAN'T match the telephoto effects you get with your 35mm camera and a 200mm lens + tele-extender. While in theory one can compute the focal-length lens you would need...in practice this just won't work..as the lens is not available, and if it were, you would need 10 feet or more of bellows between the film and the lens. It would be impossible to get a sharp image due to camera shake due to even light winds blowing on a 10 foot long bellows..

You should use LF and ULF for what they do, and use 35mm for what it can do, and not try to put one set of requirements on another format that never was intended for such work.

[Daniel_Buck]

you could build a lens that has a very long focal length, you can buy lens elements with specific focal lengths. Only thing you need to really figure out is what to use for a shutter. I've done several things, either used my hand/hat/darkslide, taped my lens elements to a copal3 shutter, or used them on a speedgraphic that has a focal plane shutter. There are also others (like packards shutters) that could be used as well.

If you build an aperture (or used an aperture in an existing shutter), stopped down even just a raw lens element doesn't do to bad at all!

And instead of bellows, you could use a box system to avoid the problems with very long bellows (sagging, swayingin the wind, or even the problem of FINDING such a long bellows). Where one box slides in and out of another box for focusing (a long thin box, you could use A/C ducting for the main box element). But no matter what you do, it's going to end up being very large to get a super long lens on 8x10. All you need is something to hold the lens steady, infront of your film, and something to make the distance between light-tight. It's alot of fun, even if your camera doesn't end up looking to pretty, you'll never be able to tell by looking at your final images though!

I've never done anything with such long focal lengths (I was in the 400-600mm range), but I imagine you could find raw lens elements at just about any focal length, or even get one custom ground for you.

[Brian Ellis]

You can get the approximate 4x5 equivalent of any 35mm lens by multiplying the 35mm focal length by 3.5 and by 7 for 8x10. Because 35mm has a different aspect ratio than 4x5 and 8x10 there is no exact correlation but 3.5/7 is close enough for most purposes.

[drew.saunders]

A more practical option would be an 800mm lens on 6x7cm. Pentax made two different 800mm lenses for their 6x7 SLR, both fairly huge, especially the 800 f4 (see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Pentax-800mm.shtml for a picture of the beast). With 6x7 you could also go for a 400mm and a 2x. 35mm to 6x7 is roughly 2:1.

Then there's this option, assuming you're an Oil Sheik: http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/contents-frame/8baac109cb80bddfc12571e100393a1b

[lenser]

Michael,

I believe I remember a photo of the extreme telephoto 4x5 that Andreas Feininger built to shoot tight shots of New York harbor and skyline views from locations considerable distances away in New Jersey. If my iffy memory of forty years ago serves me correctly, both the view of the camera and samples of the work appeared in his book "The Complete Photographer". It's available on Amazon.

At this point, I'm vague as to whether it was an interlocking, sliding box assembly or a very long rail with multiple bellows, but I do remember that it was mounted on two very sturdy tripods.

The photos were incredible and information about the optics was included in the captions.

Lens and Repro might be a good source for extreme large format optics. You might even look for some of the longest optics that were used in the Fairchild Aerial Cameras from WWII that took some phenomenally detailed images from up to six miles high.

Tim

[Michael Carter]

That 800mm lens outfit is way out man! That is a telescope. And that may be the way to go, astrophotography with a proper telescope instead of a telephoto lens.

[Ken Lee]

Move the large format camera closer to the subject.

Another option is to shoot with a small camera like 35mm or digital, and an even longer lens. Then stitch the images together digitally.

[timparkin]

You could use 4x5 with a Nikkor T-ED 1200mm and you would only need 800mm of bellows.

[Hollis]

Move in closer. Your best telephoto is your feet.

[Darryl Baird]

There are affordable lenses in the 600-700mm focal range that could be used on a 4x5, with a 6x7 or 6x9 (same format as 35mm) roll film back.

For instance, a convertible Schneider Symmar 360 converts to a 620mm f/12 (... not the equivalent of 400mm on 35, but close and less costly):D . Or I've seen Sinar DB mounted lenses of the process style (Apo-Nikkor, Apo-Ronar) in focal lengths of 600-720, f/9 that could be used with their cameras and behind the lens shutters. Once you've invested in the 4x5 gear, you can move on to longer (and more costly) lenses as you can manage.

It's a place to start anyway.

[Mark Sampson]

Look up the work of Andreas Feininger, who was famous for his telephoto views of New York City in the 1940's. He made his own box camera, with a long process-type lens, and a 5-pod to hold it. It's my guess that to get similar effects to 35mm on LF, you don't really need the exact equivalent lens, but I've never tried it, either.

[Daniel_Buck]

I believe I read somewhere that Andreas used a 40" or 46" lens for alot of his stuff?

[Aahx]

One other thing to consider with any realy long telephoto systems... a gyro. To stabilize your lens/camera. Since medium and LF systems don't have built in "stabilizers". The Pentax 6x7 system described above with a gyro would probably be more usefull for your uses, than a bellows view camera system. The latter which would be subjected to other variables such as wind blowing the bellows, or quality build and mounting of standards. All which can add to vibration which could reduce sharpness in your final image.

Just an FYI here is one manufacturers site who makes Gyro's designed for photo/video: http://www.ken-lab.com/

[John Kasaian]

There was another 'tog in New York that took photographs of the achitectural details on skyscrapers--I can't remember his name but IIRC correctly he used a Sinar or Linhof with extra standards, tripods, and lots of bellows. Cool idea!

[Peter K]

There was another 'tog in New York that took photographs of the achitectural details on skyscrapers--I can't remember his name but IIRC correctly he used a Sinar or Linhof with extra standards, tripods, and lots of bellows. Cool idea!
It was Reinhard Wolf in 1979. He used Apo-Ronar's mounted on a Sinar with two bellows.
http://www.reinhartwolf.de/gallery.htm

[ic-racer]

To just about match your diagonal angle of view, use a 3000mm lens. One of the forum members has a 5x7 with a 1016mm lens. The angle of view is greater than what you are after, but you may be able to find one similar.
http://users.snip.net/~joe/BigBertha/default.htm
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=311117

[bglick]

You did not state how much resolution you want to hold, or the budget you would be willing to spend.... these to variables dictate the possible solution.

Lowest cost solution - as Ken mentioned above, use a digital camera with an APS sized sensor and a longer lens, whatever you can afford. With the 1.6x crop factor, the length of the lenses are that much longer, stitch together a handful of images in PS CS3, quality would be tough to beat assuming you have good capture technique. shutter speeds will be as fast as can be expected.


Higher cost solution / better resolution / slower shutter speeds - use MF with a telescope that attaches to the camera body. Adapters are often made for Pentax 67 cameras as well as a few others....which I can't recall. Of course, you pay a small price with shutter speed, as the longer fl's are rather slow. Fast scopes are ultra expensive, slow scopes are more reasonably priced, such as a 6" f15, which is 2250mm fl. or an f12 at 1800mm fl. AT these fl's, you can stitch together several pieces of MF film, between 6 - 10 is my guess.... end quality will be better than LF quality due to the lower f stops that can be shot at, = less apt. diffraction. Not to mention, no camera lens is sharper than a telescope, specially at infinity.

[Michael Carter]

Well, I bought the Pentax 6x7 outfit with a 600mm f4 lens, a lens fo my 35mm Minolta - 500mm Rokkor RF mirror lens, teleconverters, and adapters to a Canon 5D digital cam.. NO telescope. Unless you want to count that 600 lens, it's as big as one.
Big prints here I come!

[Nathan Potter]

As timparkin points out the Nikon 1200 ED is a very good bet on 4X5. The low dispersion glass helps measurably with image contrast, But you must deal with the 36 inch bellows extension required. And you won't realize the resolving capability of that lens unless you completely eliminate differential vibration between the lens standard and the film standard. For that you'll need to employ the equivalent of an optical bench between front and rear standards.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Frank Petronio]

If you only have Kiev money, it ain't going to happen.

[g.lancia]

Get an APS-C digital camera.

[Paddy McKay]

While not an exact, I'm surprised no one has mentioned Tele-Xenars, in the 4x5 format. Schneider's longest tele is the 800mm Apo Tele-Xenar, with only a relatively normal bellows draw required.

Here's a link: http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/foto_e/txr_apo/pdf/large_format_apo_tele_xenar.pdf