Is 300mm long enough for 4x5?

[Ed Richards]

Got a very nice Fuji 600mm telephoto recently and have been shooting with it. It is a pain to use, in that I have to go back to my Sinar F2 with an extension rail and a heavy tripod, and perhaps even a Bogen brace if there is any wind. Compared to my Ebony 45SU and little Gitzo carbon tripod, it is a real pain. (Amazing how spoiled I have gotten in 18 months of using the Ebony, at least as regarding weight and bulkiness.)

I can see where this would be really nice in the mountains or other places where you want to do a vista far away and compress space. I am not into long vista landscape shooting - where I live, it is pretty flat and you can pretty much drive up to whatever you want to shoot. I mostly shoot built stuff anyway. I find that the really limited DOF makes this a pain for anything relatively close to the camera. As someone pointed out in an earlier thread, you also run of image circle (260mm) pretty fast as soon as you start tilting the front. OTOH, I use my Nikon 300 f9 quite a bit. While the DOF is shallow, it is manageable, and there is plenty of image circle for movements.

Anyone routinely use 600 or longer lenses? What do you use them for?

[jeroldharter]

I use the Fuji 600 on my 8x10 camera, sometimes with a 4x5 reducing back.

I don't have enough bellows on my 4x5 for the 600 (or the 450). So I tend to use 4x5 only for ultra wide angle or telephoto shots that would be difficult with 8x10.

[Vaughn]

No -- 150mm max for 4x5, tho I did have 210mm for awhile.

[Larry Gebhardt]

It's rare that I want more than a 300mm on 4x5. And if I do I can just crop, for as often as it comes up.

[Drew Wiley]

The Fuji 450 C is a very nice long lens for 4x5, though I use it more often like a
"normal" for 8x10. I find the 600 C difficult to stablize on the Sinar due to the extreme rail extension and bigger no.3 shutter. My favorite long lens for 4x5 is my
Fuji 360 A (again, something I most use for 8X10), but I did just pick up a lovely
300 M Nikkor for an abbreviated 4x5 travel kit.

[Preston]

I use a Nikkor 300m quite a bit with my Tachi 4x5. I'm pretty much limited to infinity focus due to the Tachi's 310mm extension. By stopping down to f32 and using some front tilt, I can get pretty decent depth of field. It's a sweet, sharp lens!

I will also crop a larger scene, if it's needed.

--P

[Two23]

My longest lens is 300mm f9 Rodenstock. It's almost always enough for me (4x5.) If I am shooting something that needs really long lens I just use my Nikon.


Kent in SD

[Struan Gray]

I 'see' long. My most used lens (60%) is a 240 mm, next (35%) is a 420 mm APO-ronar, and I'd like to go longer. I recently bought a setup that included the 360 mm Nikkor tele, and am idly looking for a 720 mm rear component for it.

I use a Sinar Norma. The camera lives on a 6" rail, and I usually carry one 12" extension. This allows me to take photos of the ground under the tripod with the 240 and close enough to fulfill my desires with the 420.

I have played with more rail, extra supports and the usual gubbins of long lenses with the 620 mm half of my 360 mm Symmar convertible, and although lugging the weight and bulk didn't seem as objectionable as many here seem to think, the setup, aiming, focussing and exposure was more hassle than I like.

That's why I've decided to go for the tele lens - it should work with the same 18" of rail and bellows I already have with me, and my arms will be long enough to operate the front standard without having to walk round to the front of the camera. The lens itself is a little bulky, but the total camera system is easier to carry, and much easier to setup and use.

[GPS]

...

Anyone routinely use 600 or longer lenses? What do you use them for?

I routinely use both 600mm Fuji C and 800mm Nikon. Ok, I use them prevalently on 6x12 and 6x24cm roll film cameras so officially it's no LF. But these lenses are excellent e.g. in high mountains for very interesting panoramic pictures of high tops with details that otherwise escape the eye. 4 000m or higher mountain tops in the first morning sun when the rest of the mountain is still dark etc... The 600mm is capable of choosing an interesting composition in landscape that otherwise would not be reachable on the plain. Picking landscape details from one side of a valley on the other is even impossible without this long lenses. People often asks how I could take that picture because they are not used to see with their eyes as long lenses can see at a many km distance.
Trees right on mountains ridge against interesting sky is yet another motif often spotted with these lenses, mountain sides always changeable with the first snow, etc. etc. The list would be long. All these pictures are impossible to get walking there with a shorter lens...

[Scotty230358]

My long lenses start at 180 and finish at 450mm. I find I use my 240mm and 300mm Apo Ronars a lot. I bought a 450mm Nikkor as there have been occasions that I wanted a longer lens. However my camera (a Walker Titan) does not have enough bellows draw to use the 450 without supplementary tilts to extend the bellows so I use a top hat extension to give me the necessary extension. I would say that 95% of the time the 300mm is as long as I need. The suggestion that you can crop is perfectly valid. My maximum enlargements are 16x13 so I am not stressing a 5x4 negative to do some cropping.

[Bill_1856]

300mm is a little awkward, both financially and physically.
OTOH, for 4x5 the 15" Tele-Raptar and the 360mm Tele-Xenar are both excellent, relatively inexpensive, and you don't need a very long bellows for them.

[Ed Richards]

Struan,

I did not think carrying the Sinar was such a burden until I used the Ebony (substitute any light field camera) and the lighter tripod for a couple of years.:-)

GPS,

If I was shooting in the mountains, I would have the same interests. Down here on the hot, humid plains, there are no far away vistas, and seldom is the air clear enough to shoot them if they were there. (Maybe they are out there, I just cannot see them through the haze.)

[Ken Lee]

Everyone wants everything all the time :) Cheap, portable, powerful. We gotta trade something some times. If we want high magnification, it's going to be either bulky or expensive or both.

I just got a 610mm APO Nikkor to use with a Sinar P and Sinar Shutter. It's brutally sharp (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/Nikkor610Test.html). I'm looking forward to using it more.

[Jim Becia]

I 'see' long. My most used lens (60%) is a 240 mm, next (35%) is a 420 mm APO-ronar, and I'd like to go longer. I recently bought a setup that included the 360 mm Nikkor tele, and am idly looking for a 720 mm rear component for it.

I use a Sinar Norma. The camera lives on a 6" rail, and I usually carry one 12" extension. This allows me to take photos of the ground under the tripod with the 240 and close enough to fulfill my desires with the 420.

I have played with more rail, extra supports and the usual gubbins of long lenses with the 620 mm half of my 360 mm Symmar convertible, and although lugging the weight and bulk didn't seem as objectionable as many here seem to think, the setup, aiming, focussing and exposure was more hassle than I like.

That's why I've decided to go for the tele lens - it should work with the same 18" of rail and bellows I already have with me, and my arms will be long enough to operate the front standard without having to walk round to the front of the camera. The lens itself is a little bulky, but the total camera system is easier to carry, and much easier to setup and use.

I, like Straun, tend to "see" long. I'm guessing that 70 to 80 percent of my work is done with my 240, 300, and 450 on the 4x5 although I am trying to see wider. I do have and use a Fuji 600 at times with my 4x5 (actually, a 5x7 with reducing back that has enough bellows extension.) I like picking out vignettes in a scene. (My arms are just long enough to work the front standard, although I will admit that my face is just about planted on my ground glass. Glad no one can see that while under the dark cloth!) Jim

[Drew Wiley]

I too gravitate toward longer lenses. I consider my 180 as my "wide-angle" for 4x5 (though I own a couple of true wide angles for architectural work or canyoneering);
and my most used lenses are 240 (my ideal of "normal") and 360. I'll carry even longer
lenses when working with my Sinar, but not with the Ebony folder. I chose a Nikkor M
300 for my mid-range because of the multicoating and limited number of air-glass interfaces, i.e., it's relatively high contrast in a small package. I like a certain amt of
atmospheric effect in mtn b&w shots, but it's often helpful to cut through the haze to
distant scenes through forest fire smoke etc, and there are times I don't want to solely
rely on a red filter to do this. The higher contrast lens is also nice as I begin to shoot
color negs more and chromes less. Unfortunatley, when I finally get big blocks of time
for all those long-distance backpacks I've been planning, I'll probably be closer to 70
than 60, so am gradually investing in lighter weight gear, even though I still do most of
my shooting at this time with the 8x10.

[Scotty230358]

I too gravitate toward longer lenses. I consider my 180 as my "wide-angle" for 4x5 (though I own a couple of true wide angles for architectural work or canyoneering);
.

Drew

This matches my experience. I am always surprised just how wide a view you get with a 180mm lens. I find my Wollensak 210 gives quite a wide view as well.

[Armin Seeholzer]

I use the Fuji 600 on my 8x10 camera, sometimes with a 4x5 reducing back.

Me to only with the APO Nikkor 610mm!
Because I did some years ago deside not to go longer with the lenses, then this 610mm, only going smaller with the back gives me longer lenses to!

Cheers Armin

[KenM]

500mm Nikkor is my longest lens. Anything longer on a Technika is a challenge.

I think the Fujinon 600mm lens will work, but the bellows would be stretched to the absolute limit...

[Drew Wiley]

Ken - Shirohito made a great many pictures in the Himalayas and Karakorum with a
Fuji 600T and Technika, often under very adverse conditions, so there must be some
practical way of doing it.

[engl]

The Fujinon A240 is my longest lens on 4x5. If I need a smaller field of view, I'll crop.

I have a totally unproven theory about crops from this lens being closer in detail to a ~500mm lens than the difference in negative size would suggest. Using the center 2x2.5 negative area, a quarter, with the 240mm lens would give the same field of view as when using a 480mm lens and the full negative. I don't think the four times larger negative area used in the later case holds even close to four times as much detail.

My foolish optimism is based on:
1. The few tests (Perez/Thalmann) I've seen suggest that the longer lenses are considerably less sharp. For the shorter lens, you'd be using only the sharpest center area of lens with higher peak sharpness.
2. If the 480mm lens needs F32 for sufficient DOF, the same image taken as a crop from a 240mm image would be shot at F16 for the same DOF at the same print size. Diffraction would be working as an equalizer.
3. The longer lens requires much more extension, which for me with a field camera, means considerably less stability. The wind sail (aka bellows) is twice as big, or with a tele design, the lens is a lot heavier. To top it off, in the situation described in point 2, the longer lens would need 4 times the exposure time.

I could of course be wrong. Someday I'll see if I can get a chance to compare what differences are like in practice.

[Struan Gray]

I did not think carrying the Sinar was such a burden until I used the Ebony (substitute any light field camera) and the lighter tripod for a couple of years.:-))

My Nikkor came as part of a Toyo field camera kit. It's not much lighter than the Sinar, but it is a bit more compact, and on bright days the rear hood makes it easier to shoot quickly. I have made an honest attempt to get to know it well, but I miss the ease of applying movements on the Sinar (I use them surprisingly often, even with the longer focal lengths), and I also miss the basic stability of the monorail. Despite practising, I haven't reduced my setup and stripdown times at all.

I would save most weight by admitting to myself that there is no real need to take the 150 mm and 90 mm with me - I almost never use them, but can't bring myself to admit it. There are also one or two kilos distributed about my waistline that would be easy enough to do without :-)

I've often thought a Walker would be better suited to the way I photograph, and the weather I usually end up in, but the Norma does everything I want, and allows me to tinker with oddball Heath Robinson/Rube Goldberg constructions when not in the wilderness. I'm not camera-limited - yet.

[Graybeard]

I have a 600mm and 750mm (in front shutters) that I use on my Deardorff.

I don't have an 8x10 enlarger and only do contact prints from 8x10. Composition and cropping is by necessity on the groundglass.

[Struan Gray]

I have a totally unproven theory about crops from this lens being closer in detail to a ~500mm lens than the difference in negative size would suggest.

I'm no purist. I crop when I feel the need post-exposure, and I chose my lenses with a fairly wide spacing of focal lengths because I can't see the benefit of intermediate lengths.

But a jump of x2 is a little large for my tastes. Retaining detail (at normal print sizes) is easy enough, but you have to work harder to maintain that smooth tonality. A 5x enlargement from full-frame 4x5 becomes a 10x enlargement from a half-sized crop, and that demands better technique, film, and equipment. 5x can be made to look good almost effortlessly, in digital or analogue printing, 10x is quite a bit more work.

[engl]

Yes certainly. Still, dealing with those factors seem easier to me than dealing with a 480mm lens on a 4x5 field camera, which is also something that puts demand on technique and equipment. I already use film which holds up for high enlargement (Ektar 100, Acros 100), and the Fujinon A240 is up for it. I scan, and it would put higher demands on the scanner. In the event of making a very big print, drum scanning could be worth arranging.

As a side note, I do not think the arguments made in my last post would be valid for replacing a 240mm lens with crops from a 120mm lens on 4x5. The tests quoted do not show lenses around 120mm being sharper than the A240, and as bigger apertures are more commonly used with wider fields of view, diffraction would not work as an equalizer in the same way. Continuing the same example with the scene shot at F16 on the 240mm, you'd be down to F8 on the 120mm. Few large format lenses are great at this aperture, and if they are, focusing is difficult and the small depth of focus is a challenge for 4x5 holders. You'd be getting close to the limits of most films too.

[Ed Richards]

> Shirohito made a great many pictures in the Himalayas and Karakorum with a
Fuji 600T and Technika, often under very adverse conditions, so there must be some
practical way of doing it.

The 600T has a ffl of 383, only about 34 mm longer than the Nikon 500. You could use a tophat to get a little more extension.

[DuncanD]

I have owned, and since sold, both Fuji C 600mm and Nikkor M 450mm for use only on 4x5 E6. Both necessitated carrying my Toyo monorail in the field - a 30+ lb penalty, with heavier tripod, over my Toyo 45 field. Regardless of the weight & stiffness, it was a challenge to get a stable image with bellows at 450 or more. Nonetheless, I have excellent prints from both.

On the other hand, I've shot Fuji CW 300mm, Fuji C 300mm, and Nikkor M 300mm all with both the Toyo field and, now, with my Canham traditional field. Far less weight, far less windage. And still prints you can put your nose against (i.e., viewing distance of 4cm).

Forgot to mention that all my printed transparencies are drum scanned on a Tango to 800+Mb and printed 48" or more on the long dimension, sometimes from a 50% crop of the 4x5 film.

So to me, well calibrated equipment, stiff support, careful focus under 7x + loupe, and drum scanning = more detail than I can see point blank on 72" prints.

[Brian Ellis]

I had a Fuji 400mm telephoto and almost never used it. 300mm seemed to be as long as I needed for 4x5.