Looking for a Lens beyond 210mm on a 4x5. Your suggestions?

[l2oBiN]

I am looking for a longer focal lenght lens (beyond 210). I already own a 210 and would like a more compressed view in images. The problem is that my camera only has 300mm bellows draw...

Any suggestions of a suitable lens.. would i need to stick with a telephoto? They seem very heavy...and expensive..

[Two23]

I am looking for a longer focal lenght lens (beyond 210). I already own a 210 and would like a more compressed view in images. The problem is that my camera only has 300mm bellows draw...



What do you want to photo? How important is a fast aperture?


Kent in SD

[l2oBiN]

I don't need a fast aperture.will be using it for landscapes... Only the focal length, quality, size/weight matter..

[Joanna Carter]

Telephoto is very much a relative term. In 4x5 terms, & 400m lens is only equivalent to 105mm in the 35mm world - IOW, a slightly long portrait lens.

I have a Fujinon 400T, which will focus at around 240mm of bellows. Very limited movements and f/8 but still gives excellent results.

[Bob Salomon]

Some cameras with a bellows draw like yours accept extension beds and bellos. Wista is an example of one that has longer beds and bellows available.

[Two23]

A Rodenstock Geronar 300mm f9 would likely do what you want. I use one on my Shen Hao 45 field camera. I am a wilderness/adventurer type of guy. The lens is very small and quite good. It's a relative bargain too.


Kent in SD

[Mark Stahlke]

The Fujinon-C 300mm f/8.5 is an excellent compact lightweight lens. I've used it on a Tachihara that has just over 300mm of bellows. Close focus was limited to about 15 feet. Another way to use a 300mm lens is a top hat lens board.

For a lens shorter than 300mm, consider a 270mm f/9 G-Claron.

[Brian Ellis]

A 300mm normal (as opposed to telephoto) lens will only allow you to focus at infinity on your camera unless you add an accessory extender of some kind. I used the Fuji 400T that Joanna and Mark mention and agree with them - while it had some limitations I didn't find them significant for landscape work (where extensive movements usually aren't needed), overall it was an excellent lens and a better solution for limited bellows draw than buying and having to carry around and use accessories of some sort. Of course it was expensive too - I paid about $1,200 for mine new.

[venchka]

My current 4x5 lens inventory includes a Fujinon-W 250mm/6.3 lens. That may not be enough longer than 210mm for your needs. Or it might replace a 210mm lens for your needs. My current inventory is reasonably well spaced at 125mm-180mm-250mm. The 125mm & 250mm are both Fujinon-W. They make a nice pair. Both are definite keepers.

[Eric Leppanen]

If you are looking for as much focal length as possible in a small, light package, then the new 350mm APO Tele Xenar is an excellent solution:

https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=2966

With the accessory lens barrel, it achieves infinity focus at 280mm of extension. The lens has lots of coverage for 4x5 and is reported to be extremely sharp.

Even though it is called a Tele Xenar, it is a conventional lens design, not a true telephoto.

[Gem Singer]

Keep your eyes open for a Nikon/Nikkor f8 300M in exc. condition.

Previously owned versions of this lens are selling for $450-$550.

Works great for portraiture on cameras with 300mm of bellows draw.

[drew.saunders]

Start here: http://www.ebonycamera.com/articles/lenses.html
There you'll see the flange focal distance for many lenses from several manufacturers, all nicely in one location.

I used a Tachihara, now I'm using an Ebony 45SU, but I got the Fuji 300/8.5 instead of the Nikkor 300/9 because of the 283mm FFD vs. 290mm. In short, an FFD shorter than the focal length acts like a tiny "top hat," so when doing the minimum distance calculations (330mm extension for the Tachi, to which you add the difference between the focal length and flange focal distance), the math (1/fl - 1/bellows = 1/focusing distance) is:
For the Fuji: 1/300 - 1/(330 + (300 - 283)) = 1/2214mm
For the Nikkor: 1/300 - 1/(330 + (300 - 290)) = 1/2550

So I get about 30cm closer focusing distance with the Fuji. The Tachi never really racked out to 330mm very well, so, to be honest, I should probably do those calculations with a 320mm or 325mm bellows. The Ebony really does go to 365mm, so I can focus the 300 Fuji pretty close.

Assuming you really have only 305mm of usable maximum bellows, the Fuji (giving you a 17mm "top hat" for 322mm equivalent bellows draw) might still work for you:
1/300 - 1/322 = 1/4390, so call it 4.5m of minimum focus. Not great for portraits, but usable for landscape.

I have both a Nikkor 200/8 and a Fuji 250/6.3, and I do find them different enough to bring both along quite often, so you might be happy with a 250, which would work for portrait distances for your camera.

Or, as many have said, you could get a top hat lensboard.

Drew

[venchka]

While quite large and heavy, one of the best features of the Fujinon-W 250mm/6.3 lens: They can be had for $200, more or less.

[Lachlan 717]

Fujinon A 240mm f9.

[Drew Wiley]

Either a Fuji A 240, G-Claron 250, or G-Claron 270.

[archer]

I agree with Drew. The 270 G Claron is a fantastic lens with great coverage and is razor sharp.
Denise libby

[Scotty230358]

I used to own a 270mm Schneider Tele Xenar and whilst it was sharp the movements were too limited. I was luck to get a 240mm f9 APO Ronar for a good price. It is a tiny lens that takes 40.5mm filters. Although it is a process lens and therefore optimised for 1:1 it still works very well at infinity producing very sharp images. The image on the ground glass is, as you would expect, slightly dim but it is an easy lens to focus if you take your time. I also have a 300mm APO Ronar f5.6. Much brighter and a little sharper as its a more modern design.

[Dan Fromm]

300/5.6 Apo Ronar, Scotty? Are you sure? I ask because I thought they were all f/9 or slower.

[Scotty230358]

300/5.6 Apo Ronar, Scotty? Are you sure? I ask because I thought they were all f/9 or slower.

Well blow me!!!:eek: The lens is indeed engraved as an F9. However it is mounted in a Compur electronic shutter whose aperture scale begins at f5.6. Is this the possible reason that I have consistently been underexposing with this lens? I would welcome any advice experts may have.

[aduncanson]

There should be some mention here of the Kodak 10"/6.3 Commercial Ektar and the similar lenses made by Ilex (sometimes branded Caltar.) And also of the 10 3/4"/9 Goerz Apo Artar which will be as sharp as the 270mm G-Claron without all of the pesky extra coverage.

[jnantz]

how about a 15" tele optar ?
i use one on a speed graphic,
so it takes almost no bellows draw
sometimes they come in a shutter
mine is in a barrel ... and i have used it often ...

[jnantz]

just realized i forgot the pix ... sorry no rocks and trees ...

[l2oBiN]

are the g clarons multicoated?

[Brian Ellis]

are the g clarons multicoated?

Every G Claron lens I've owned, and I've owned about six, has been single coated. I'm not aware that any G Clarons were multi-coated. But that's not a big deal, single coating works fine with LF lenses, it's not like 35mm zoom lenses where multi-coating is a necessity.

[Marko Trebusak]

Well blow me!!!:eek: The lens is indeed engraved as an F9. However it is mounted in a Compur electronic shutter whose aperture scale begins at f5.6. Is this the possible reason that I have consistently been underexposing with this lens? I would welcome any advice experts may have.

I have an APO Ronar in Copal #1 and it's definitely f9 lens. For the f5.6 you would need much bigger front element than 40,5mm filter thread of Ronar. And I didn't hear of 300 5.6 APO Ronar.

Cheers,
Marko

[Scotty230358]

I have an APO Ronar in Copal #1 and it's definitely f9 lens. For the f5.6 you would need much bigger front element than 40,5mm filter thread of Ronar. And I didn't hear of 300 5.6 APO Ronar.

Cheers,
Marko

Marko

The filter size of the 300 is, in fact 49mm (my mistake). It looks like i am going to have to get new aperture scales for the shutter.

[Dave Grenet]

I really like my Congo 300mm/5.6. It's a telephoto design and isn't exactly compact though...

[Steve Hamley]

Well blow me!!!:eek: The lens is indeed engraved as an F9. However it is mounted in a Compur electronic shutter whose aperture scale begins at f5.6. Is this the possible reason that I have consistently been underexposing with this lens? I would welcome any advice experts may have.

If the aperture scale is correct for the lens at f:9 and beyond and you're setting it, and exposing for, larger apertures than f:9, then yes that would cause significant underexposure.

If the aperture scale was for whatever was in the shutter before the Apo Ronar, if that's the case, it's likely that the aperture scale is just wrong.

All G-Clarons are single coated.

Cheers, Steve

[Marko Trebusak]

Marko

The filter size of the 300 is, in fact 49mm (my mistake). It looks like i am going to have to get new aperture scales for the shutter.

Ummm you are right, It is 49mm. That's me typing without actually checking the lens itself beforehand.

Marko

[Lightbender]

The 15" tele-optar is a big lens. A wooden view camera like a wista or zone vi may not be very stable.

My suggestion would be to get an extension lens board (or reverse a recessed board) and use a 300mm f9 apo ronar or apo artar or 12" commercial ektar.

240mm does not seem like that much of a difference.

I think Schneider also made a 270mm tele arton or tele xenar.

[Scotty230358]

The 15" tele-optar is a big lens. A wooden view camera like a wista or zone vi may not be very stable.

My suggestion would be to get an extension lens board (or reverse a recessed board) and use a 300mm f9 apo ronar or apo artar or 12" commercial ektar.

240mm does not seem like that much of a difference.

I think Schneider also made a 270mm tele arton or tele xenar.

Schneider did indeed make a 270mm Tele Xenar. I had an old one for a short while that was made in the 50s. It was a sharp lens with good contrast but limited on movements.

[Peter Gomena]

No one has mentioned the Schneider f/5.5 360mm Tele-Xenar. Mine is in a #3 Copal shutter and fits nicely on my field camera. Plenty of coverage, (it will cover 5x7") not too heavy, nice, sharp lens, and only about 8" of bellows draw at infinity.

Peter Gomena

[Philippe Grunchec]

Why not a 5.5/240 Tele-Arton? It is a rather small lens. Mine is in a Compur 2. I also have a 5.5/360 Tele-Xenar (in Compound), both used on my Toyo 45AII.