300Tele Vs 300 Normal - Pros & cons

[Alberto Bregani]

Gentleman,
having the possibility to take a chance for a tele photo lens for my shen 4x5 ( fuji 300/8 T) since I already have a Rodenstock 300 apo Ronar i was wondering why should I buy a(nother) 300mm ( granted that this fuji is a great lens... and i like it so much.. ). Aside the facts i already know that the advantage of the telephoto would be that I have less bellows extension
I'm just talking about "performance" for b/w landscape photography.

Therefore i would like to ask the forum (in brief) pros and cons of having one or the other;
Or both. Why not?

Tks a lot
A

[TheDeardorffGuy]

You can not use any swing or tilt with a tele. Benefits: Shorter bellows extension. less wind surface. Able to kill the background focus better.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi Alberto

It does not make sense to me, because the APO Ronar is a very light and fine lens, only if you have most of the time to short bellows for your work! The Ronar will be sharper then all teles in my opinion!

Cheers Armin

[Drew Wiley]

Your Apo Ronar is probably going to be better optically anyway, and is much lighter and
more portable.

[Ken Lee]

I don't think you can improve on the performance of the Ronar, unless you are looking for wide circle of coverage. In that case, you should get a W lens or at least a Plasmat, not a dialyte process lens.

Tele lenses are not designed for maximum coverage, but to minimize bellows draw on small cameras. They are larger and heavier than normal lenses, because they use more glass. They require patience when making view camera corrections, because the nodal point is located in a different place than normal lenses.

The Ronar is small and light and sharp. It's hard to beat that for landscape purposes.

[dave_whatever]

You can not use any swing or tilt with a tele.

You can (as I was just the other day) but when you swing or tilt the image moves around on the ground glass more than a non-tele will. So you would generally use some drop say in conjunction with forward tilt to regain the same basic composition. So its perfectly doable just less convenient than a non-tele. If you've got a short-bellows camera you have no option but to just live with it.

[Alberto Bregani]

Fast
brief
painless
;-)

I'm not going to sell the Apo
i was only asking' myself ( and the forum) if having a tele (too) could have added something in terms of (performance) value

You make it clear
Tks you all !
A

[Drew Bedo]

If you have the bellows length to work with the 300mm normal lens, go with that.

[Alberto Bregani]

If you have the bellows length to work with the 300mm normal lens, go with that.


Thank You Drew
very kind of you
yes i have a 360mm bellow
I've gone with it, i won't buy a telephoto

Tks again ;)
A

[ic-racer]

Thank You Drew
very kind of you
yes i have a 360mm bellow
I've gone with it, i won't buy a telephoto

Tks again ;)
A
Only 360? If you want to do a closeup shot you may want the tele.

[redu]

I second dave_whatever. Since the nodal point is in the front of the lens the tilts and swings shall be performed in conjuction with rises and shifts respectively. If you cant resist buying a tele, your may consider going for a longer 360 f5.5 Tele Arton or something even longer (i have a Komura 500 f7 along with a 360 Tele Arton)