PDA

View Full Version : Long Lens Discussion / Advice



adam satushek
16-Apr-2012, 14:52
Hi all, I have been running into an issue recently where I find myself needing longer and longer lenses to get the framing and spatial relationships I want. I’m just wondering if anyone else has had this happen? I know there was a fairly recent thread questioning whether preferring longer lenses is a function of aging which I found interesting. At the moment I was unable to locate it. I also wanted a conversation that was geared toward the practicality of shooting long lenses in the field and opinions on the specific long lenses that people use and prefer. Also, how long of lenses you all are able to shoot successfully in the field?

Just a bit of background, my first 4x5 had a 5 ½ inch lens, it was great and I didn’t feel like I needed anything else. When I upgraded my camera I got a 135mm and again thought that was all I’d ever need….however after a while I ended up with a 90mm and 210mm which both saw lots of use. This was a very nice kit and again I thought I was set for life. However, I got a 300mm because I got and 8x10 and needed a lens that would cover….I still shot mostly 4x5 at the time, and ended up using the 300mm on 4x5 quite a bit. Eventually, I revamped my 4x5 lens kit, which is now 90mm, 120mm, 150mm, 210mm, 300mm, and 450mm.
The thing that confuses me is that every time I get a longer lens my lens use shifts toward the longer end of my range, to the point where I seem to use the 90mm like once or twice a year at the most, and use my 210mm, 300mm, and 450mm all the time. And I have been running into situations recently where I cannot physically get close enough, or if I can the composition is ruined because the spatial relationships change too much, even with the 450mm. And since I have been shifting more and more to 8x10 this tendency for longer lenses is compounded. I feel like I could really use a 600mm/800mm convertible, and something like a 1200mm, and that I would use them all the time on 4x5 and 8x10. Now those lenses are not only ridiculously expensive (which eliminates them as possibilities for now), but also even in telephoto design require a lot of extension, and since I shoot in the field this is a potential issue.

Sorry for the long post, but to summarize….

Do others find themselves requiring longer and longer lenses to get the compositions they see?

And if so, what long and or telephoto lenses that cover 8x10 with some movements do you recommend for use in the field?

Lastly, how do you mitigate the ‘sail’ effect of 8x10 bellows at extension in the wind? I have a pretty solid setup…but still worry about this. I have heard of the umbrella trick and need to get one to try it out…I really wish I had had one this last Saturday.

Anyway…sorry again for the long post…and I apologize if this has all been covered to death before.

Daniel Stone
16-Apr-2012, 15:37
I'm at the airport righty now and responding from my phone, so please excuse any misspellings ;).

I've found that having a very stable, heavy platform to shoot from which to shoot greatly helps with wettability when using longer lenses. Personally I decided to change cameras when I find my artistic vision required the use of longer lenses. I used to use a Kodak Master 8x10(KMV), but when used at full extension (~30in or so), I found it want the most stable of platforms in even slightly breezy conditions. I now use a Calumet C-1(the black beast I call it :) ), and despite it bring heavy, an d not as ” pretty” as a Deardorff or KMV, I think it much more stable.

Now onto lenses:

Personally, I use both a 24” Red-Dot Artar and a 30” of the same type. Both are extremely sharp, and render subtle details with great clarity and tremendous sharpness. Both cover 8x10 with gobs of movement potential in all directions. More than my camera has capable to it! I contact print 8x10 b/w and drum scan my 8x10 transparencies, and to put it bluntly, I've found lens ”nirvana” now :).

There is lots of more information available here in the prior threads, so happy reading!

Dan

Drew Wiley
16-Apr-2012, 15:38
The mechanical problem with very long view lenses is that they can get pretty heavy and
have large vibration-prone shutters. You might need two tripods to support your rig, or one
very heavy one with a struts with two rail mounts, in case you use a monorail camera.
I like working with the Fuji 450C when I need reach with the 4X5. It doubles as my "normal"
lens with 8x10. But the longest thing I currently have for 8x10 is the 600C. When you get
way out there, intervening atmospheric effects often blunt the advantage of the bigger
format, and it's faster and cheaper to use 4X5. I have always liked a long perspective.

adam satushek
16-Apr-2012, 15:54
Thanks Daniel and Drew for your responses thus far! For the record, my setup is fairy solid, its an F2 (8x10 and 4x5) on a Gitzo giant that weighs almost 20lbs. That being said, even slight breezes make me nervous.... even with just the 450mm on 8x10, its do able but I feel like I have to be very careful. That's a very good point about atmospheric effects.....I hadn't thought about that.

Drew Wiley
16-Apr-2012, 16:24
Adam - my F2 setup did wonderful with up to 450, but not with the 600C in terms of
handling vibrations. I've reconfigured my system with Norma components, but have yet to
test it with the 600. Here on the coast the wind is incessant much of the year. I've even
had my entire 8x10 with big Ries tripod lifted up and tossed by gusts (luckily, I caught the
camera before it landed!). I just get good at timing the shots. Hard winds this past weekend up on the ridges, but all my long shots look very crisp after dev. It helps to have
a really solid tripod like the Ries, and I never use a tripod head for this kind of work - the
camera bed or Sinar rail mount - whatever - goes right onto the tripod platform. Wish I had
the extra money to put some of my long Apo-Nikkors in shutter. With the 4x5 Sinar setup
I use a Horseman 28 inch bellows - no need for an intermediate support.

Hermes07
16-Apr-2012, 16:44
First of all, if the compositions you want really require long lenses then don't try to talk yourself out of it on paper - there's always a way to make it happen and the only way to tell if it's workable and worth the sacrifices for you is to try it. My preference is for very long lenses/compressed views, and if one day I decide they are too inconvenient, I will switch to a smaller format rather than use too short a lens.

You shoot with a Sinar which is a very good start - Obviously you can add as many rails, intermediate standards and bellows extensions as you want. You can also use the Sinar Copal shutter which opens up a lot of doors in terms of lens choice.
I have quite a bit of experience with shooting the longest lenses on Sinars and believe me, you want to be using two tripods. I don't shoot on mountain tops so I can't tell you how the rig hold up under extreme winds, but the occasions I've used my Norma or P setups outdoors they have worked well enough. I keep the bellows as tight as possible and make sure all the gears and movements are locked down before making an exposure. I've used lighting umbrellas as wind breaks a few times when the conditions have been bad and they do help.

Lens-wise, it's a pretty straight choice between using modern, telephoto lenses in shutter designed for 4x5 / 8x10, or considering the much wider range of lenses in barrel (including telephoto designs) with a behind the lens shutter. Personally I went the latter route as there are far more options and greater coverage on offer. The Red Dot Artars are excellent choices as mentioned. They will all fit onto a standard Sinar board, right up to 1200mm. There are also APO Nikkors, APO Germinars, APO Tessars, APO Ronars, e.t.c. and although I don't have experience with every single lens in all the ranges, as long as you stay away from the biggest aperture/focal-length combos (f/9 at 750mm+), I don't think you'll have too much trouble mounting them or using them with the Sinar shutter. There are also older telephoto designs which are much cheaper and will give you brighter max apertures than the modern Nikkors and Fujinons, but they tend to be front-heavy and in many cases will require you to use a second standard to support the front of the lens. There are far too many to list but if you're considering them, let me know what focal length you're after and I'll try to give you some names.

John Kasaian
16-Apr-2012, 16:49
A 19" Artar is my longest 8x10 lens and gets used quite a bit. I fear a 24" is just too heavy for the poor old girl. I often think I'd like to play with a telescope with a 4x5 attached to it for really long shots but actually doing this on my budget seems challenging at best.

BrianShaw
16-Apr-2012, 17:00
For 4x5 I stopped at 300mm and certainly won't get anything longer. I'd rather crop if I need to... or walk closer.

Dan Fromm
16-Apr-2012, 18:08
Here http://www.cnngo.com/hong-kong/play/robert-polidori-257129 is Robert Polidori using two Manfrotto 244N Variable Friction Magic Arms with attachments that fasten his camera's rail to two of his tripod's legs. This approach is slightly less cumbersome than using two tripods. I've shot a 2x3 Graflex RB Ser. B with a 610 Apo-Nikkor in front using a single 244N etc. with no stability problems. Used the RB's focal plane shutter on "I" and mirror slap had no or minimal effect.

Drew Wiley
16-Apr-2012, 19:29
A cheap trick, though not ideal, is a 6X9 roll film back. I experimented with a Horseman back last autumn on a very stormy long trip in the high
Sierra. With a very fine long-scale film (Efke 25), all of a sudden your
300 lens behaves like a 450 on 4X5, you 450 like a 600 etc. Less bellows
draw means less vibration and likely also a lighter lens on the front. I'm
not terribly fond of roll film because every tiny blemish in the film itself or
enlarging carrier looks like the Goodyear blimp in the sky. But when you
really want reach up in the mtns, the optical results seem better than a
telephoto, and way better than a med format SLR (much lighter wt too).

adam satushek
16-Apr-2012, 20:06
Thanks Hermes, I honestly hadn't really considered barrel lenses, but I could get a sinar shutter and that could be a great option. Barrel lens seem generally cheaper. My only concern is do you know if there are multicoated process/barrel lenses? I really don't know much about them. I try to stick with modern multicoated lenses as I shoot color and like to enlarge as much as possible, but maybe with a very capable lens shade (like the sinar bellows mask 2) I probably wouldn't notice any difference?

That's an interesting point Drew. I have a 6x9 roll back that I never use....it would at least help me confirm that a 600mm would be useful for me. I prefer to shoot the biggest (up to 8x10) neg that I can, but this could be a good solution for certain shots.

You mention Drew, that telephoto lenses might not provide the optical results of normally designed lenses. I always figured once you get to about 600mm teles would be a great benefit as they would require less bellow draw and thus greater stability and improved performance, but if they are not as sharp to begin with maybe this is canceled out? Or not? I guess I have a lot to learn about giant lenses.......I seriously thought that I was crazy for wanting a 450mm....and now I think im even crazier for wanting something longer, but it seems to keep coming up.

I guess in a perfect world I would just drop 10 grand and pick up the new Schneider apo-tele-xenar 600/800 and a Fine art XXL 1100......but of course that is not even close to the realm of possibility at this point.

Bill_1856
16-Apr-2012, 20:15
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?88696-Elderly-Photographer-using-longer-focal-lengths-as-I-age

adam satushek
16-Apr-2012, 20:23
Thanks Bill! Couldn't find that for some reason....I have a hard time searching effectively on this site

rdenney
16-Apr-2012, 20:52
A cheap trick, though not ideal, is a 6X9 roll film back.

This is exactly why Sinar's variable-format roll-film holder is called the "Zoom"--the idea was that if you were lens-limited, you could adjust the format to provide the desired field of view. Of course, you could also crop from sheet film.

I certainly use long lenses at times on small-format cameras. A recent photo I made of Mount McKinley required every bit of 280mm on 24x36 format--6 times the format diagonal or 8 times the width. Filling the width of the 4x5 frame with the same image would require a 40" lens. That's completely impractical for me, though I know some do it. When I need a lens that long, I use a small camera. Sometimes, we just have to use each format for what it can feasibly do. It gives some of my small-format work a different look than my large-format work, but my large-format work has some features not present in my small-format work, too.

Rick "who didn't have a 600mm lens for his Pentax 6x7 on that Alaska trip, either" Denney

adam satushek
16-Apr-2012, 21:50
Here http://www.cnngo.com/hong-kong/play/robert-polidori-257129 is Robert Polidori using two Manfrotto 244N Variable Friction Magic Arms with attachments that fasten his camera's rail to two of his tripod's legs. This approach is slightly less cumbersome than using two tripods. I've shot a 2x3 Graflex RB Ser. B with a 610 Apo-Nikkor in front using a single 244N etc. with no stability problems. Used the RB's focal plane shutter on "I" and mirror slap had no or minimal effect.

Thanks Dan! Thats an interesting approach! I've admired magic arms and super clamps for years while I was assisting....I always wanted an excuse to get a pair of them....and now I might have one! Though I already have a second gitzo...so i may try that first for expenses sake...however a couple arms and clamps are probably still cheaper than the sinar branded flat support bar thing that allows attachment of 2 rail clamps....

Joerg Krusche
17-Apr-2012, 04:01
Adam,

to my experience nothing can compete with a second tripod .. need not be a heavy tripod .. make sure there is some weight on your rail when it rests on the front tripod such that it will really sit on it. I tried the Manfrotto Magic arm .. was not satisfied .. still vibrations .. and two manfrottos also weigh quite a bit . . just my very personal experience with some really long lenses,

joerg

genotypewriter
17-Apr-2012, 06:23
I know there was a fairly recent thread questioning whether preferring longer lenses is a function of aging which I found interesting.

Correlations can be easily formed but most often they're not accurate. First, I'm in my 20s. When I started off with DSLRs I preferred long lenses for the sorts of perspectives they gave. I've had quite a lot of fun using a 600mm lens on 35mm (which looks like a 2033mm on 4x5) is for all sorts of shots ranging from candids to sports to fashion shows to landscapes. With LF I find myself preferring wider fields of view because that's where LF's strength is greatest over smaller formats is, imo.



Do others find themselves requiring longer and longer lenses to get the compositions they see?

I have experienced this but when approaching fields of view around 3-5 degrees, image quality can drop easily because of atmospheric interferences. I.e. even when size, weight and wind issues have been overcome. So you're better off with a smaller format? :)




That's an interesting point Drew. I have a 6x9 roll back that I never use....it would at least help me confirm that a 600mm would be useful for me. I prefer to shoot the biggest (up to 8x10) neg that I can, but this could be a good solution for certain shots.

Well reducing the format size is cheating, really... since you can shoot 4x5 and crop the middle just as well. Unless you're using a smaller format lens :) But if you're ok with the smaller format approach, you'll be surprised how good modern 35mm teles are. They also have the benefit of faster apertures so you can reduce vibration-induced blurring, etc.

rdenney
17-Apr-2012, 07:09
The atmospheric turbulence issue is a real issue. A few years ago I made a photograph of a thunderstorm and rainbow over the Aquarius Plateau, from Bryce Canton many miles away. I used a 180mm Sonnar on 6x6 (cropped to 645) and the technique should have been decent. The camera was a proven performer, I used a heavy tripod, the lens was at a good aperture (probably f/11), and other photos on that roll were sharp and detailed. But the biggest I can enlarge this image is about 9x12"--after that it shoes the effects of turbulent air. (I've linked it only since its not LF.)

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/aquarius_rainbow_lores.jpg

180mm isn't that long on 6x6--maybe the equivalent of 360mm on 4x5. Conditions were obviously a bit extreme, but the longer one goes, the bigger those effects become.

Maybe the real advantage to working in small format for really long lenses is the attached small print size expectation.

Rick "who'd really like to be able to print this one big" Denney

adam satushek
17-Apr-2012, 07:43
Thanks Rick, Yeah its too bad about that shot, it would be nice large. Since I originally posted I have been considering atmospheric image degradation, and have noticed its affects on several of my images. However, somehow it seems to be fine with these particular images, but I guess that has to do with subject matter and mood. Both of these were shot with my Nikkor-M 450mm on 4x5. The second one I desired a longer lens...but I am actually very pleased with how it turned out.

7222772228

Drew Wiley
17-Apr-2012, 08:28
Cropping 4X5 and greatly enlarging it doesn't accomplish the same thing because the film
simply doesn't lie dead flat in the holder. Some roll film backs aren't that good either; but
when you optimize the film plane they can be very crisp indeed. Atmospheric effects are
a given regardless and require a different kind of planning. But in general, the less weight
and the smaller the shutter at the front end, the better. Telephoto lenses are just heavy
in general, though they reduce bellows draw. But I doubt they compare optically to most
modern conventional lens options. And yes, multicoated process lenses are available. I know a guy who specializes in ultra-telephotography and he uses Apo Nikkor lenses on a
big Toyo 810G with a Nikon body mounted on the back, and the results are superior to what he got with either dedidcated Nikon lenses or Celestron telescopes. But lots of ways
to skin this cat.

genotypewriter
17-Apr-2012, 10:21
I know a guy who specializes in ultra-telephotography and he uses Apo Nikkor lenses on a
big Toyo 810G with a Nikon body mounted on the back, and the results are superior to what he got with either dedidcated Nikon lenses or Celestron telescopes.

I'm not quite a Nikon user but I've used some of their long lenses and they aren't bad. Hearing that lenses with massive image circles are better for the same focal lengths, is a bit difficult to figure out. When you say the results are superior, is it because of the movements?

E. von Hoegh
17-Apr-2012, 10:40
I'm not quite a Nikon user but I've used some of their long lenses and they aren't bad. Hearing that lenses with massive image circles are better for the same focal lengths, is a bit difficult to figure out. When you say the results are superior, is it because of the movements?

No. It's because the Apo Nikkors are better lenses. They don't have "massive" image circles if you look at their angle of coverage specs, the large image circle is a function of the long focal length. The lenses cover 35 to 45 degrees.

Also, the Nikkor lenses for 35mm are telephoto designs, there are tradeoffs.

genotypewriter
17-Apr-2012, 11:02
No. It's because the Apo Nikkors are better lenses.

I guess they can have better correction since they're relatively slow at around f/9.



They don't have "massive" image circles if you look at their angle of coverage specs, the large image circle is a function of the long focal length. The lenses cover 35 to 45 degrees.

I meant "massive" when compared to 35mm tele lenses.

They certainly sound interesting, if diffraction doesn't get in the way.



Also, the Nikkor lenses for 35mm are telephoto designs, there are tradeoffs.

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't all the telephoto vs. non-telephoto pros and cons established when the format size is the same? My Canon 200/2 tele on 35mm is sharper and cleaner at f/2 than my Xenotar 150 is at 2.8 (same central area) and the Xenotar 150 is considered one of the sharpest on LF.

E. von Hoegh
17-Apr-2012, 11:21
I guess they can have better correction since they're relatively slow at around f/9.

They're f:9 because they have better correction. Same reason they have less coverage.


I meant "massive" when compared to 35mm tele lenses.

They certainly sound interesting, if diffraction doesn't get in the way.

Diffraction is the same for all lenses.


Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't all the telephoto vs. non-telephoto pros and cons established when the format size is the same? My Canon 200/2 tele on 35mm is sharper and cleaner at f/2 than my Xenotar 150 is at 2.8 (same central area) and the Xenotar 150 is considered one of the sharpest on LF.

I don't have any experience with Canon lenses, the newer teles with low dispersion glass are very good though. Same with the Xenotar, no experience.I never heard it was particularly sharp, or otherwise.

adam satushek
17-Apr-2012, 12:06
So it sounds like I need to do some research on barrel and process lenses...in the 600, 800, and 1200mm range, and preferably multicoated ones. Also, need to research Sinar copal shutters. Seems like the cheapest option.

Is it the general consensus that standard lenses are sharper than telephoto designed ones? In terms of what will cover 8x10 and allow for decent movements?

Jim Becia
17-Apr-2012, 12:21
Adam,

I use a Fuji 600C on my Ebony RW8x10. This is a double extension camera, so by the time I rack out the bellows, it is out there and prone to wind. That being said, I have had virtually no bad images from vibration of the copal 3 shutter or the wind as long as I take my time and work carefully. I find it a great lens with the 8x10, I only wish my arms were about two inches longer! I have never used a "telephoto" design but I do know that I like the perspective of the Fuji 600C and it is one sharp lens. Jim

Drew Wiley
17-Apr-2012, 12:21
A long Apo Nikkor will still throw a huge image circle, so it needs to be very well shaded
for smaller formats (incl 4X5); but in such cases you are using only the center of the lens,
and they're damn well corrected to begin with.

adam satushek
17-Apr-2012, 12:32
Adam,

I use a Fuji 600C on my Ebony RW8x10. This is a double extension camera, so by the time I rack out the bellows, it is out there and prone to wind. That being said, I have had virtually no bad images from vibration of the copal 3 shutter or the wind as long as I take my time and work carefully. I find it a great lens with the 8x10, I only wish my arms were about two inches longer! I have never used a "telephoto" design but I do know that I like the perspective of the Fuji 600C and it is one sharp lens. Jim

Thanks Jim, yeah I have been looking at that lens and it seems like a great option. And I could hold off on the Sinar shutter at least until I decide if I need something longer or not.

Yeah and thanks again Drew, I currently use a second Sinar bellows as a compendium shade, but have considered snagging a Sinar bellows mask 2 to use in addition the the bellows and my multipurpose standard, seems like it could be a good idea. The only problem will being able to reach all the way up there to adjust the flaps while viewing the GG....but I guess that is a decent problem to have.

Thanks!

Drew Wiley
17-Apr-2012, 13:23
Jim - using something like a 600C on a relatively solid 8X10 wooden folder is a completely different ballgame than using it at the end of a long monorail extension with the front std
itself up on rods. And this particular lens is exceptionally light for its focal lengths. Some 3
shutters are worse than others in this respect. And with 4X5 you obviously need more
enlargement than 8X10. Even with my 8X10 Phillips, which is reknowned for its stability,
I need to be very carful with wind with a 600mm extension. Your Ebony is also at the top
of the food chain for stability. With Sinar, you'd need the P system plus two rail clamps
to get that kind of stability, but you'd be up to some serious weight at that point.

Hermes07
17-Apr-2012, 13:26
So it sounds like I need to do some research on barrel and process lenses...in the 600, 800, and 1200mm range, and preferably multicoated ones. Also, need to research Sinar copal shutters. Seems like the cheapest option.

Is it the general consensus that standard lenses are sharper than telephoto designed ones? In terms of what will cover 8x10 and allow for decent movements?

I wouldn't get too caught up in multicoating. As far as I know (and someone will probably correct me here), the only process lenses that were multicoated were the latest APO Ronars. I use some monster process lenses from the thirties that are completely uncoated and the quality is still superb. A coated lens like a Red Dot Artar or an APO Nikkor will certainly not let you down.

I think telephoto lenses are being underestimated a bit also. Perhaps the Nikkors / Fujinons don't give you much of an image circle but that's not necessarily the case with all telephotos. I have a Dallmeyer 1500mm f/8 that I shoot 16x20 with comfortably, even though it is listed as a lens for 8x10. If you're working near the infinity side of things rather than the 1:1 side, I wouldn't hesitate to reach for a tele lens. Length/weight and the hindrance to using movements with the front standard are the biggest negatives for telephoto lenses in my book.

Dan Fromm
17-Apr-2012, 13:31
[QUOTE=adam satushek;876531Is it the general consensus that standard lenses are sharper than telephoto designed ones? In terms of what will cover 8x10 and allow for decent movements?[/QUOTE]

Old Rodenstock propaganda asserted that Apo-Ronars are sharper at distance than contemporary LF telephoto lenses (from Rodenstock, Rotelars; from Scheider, TeleXenars and TeleArtons). And they probably are. But modern LF tele lenses are much better than older ones and I understand that the gap has narrowed a lot. The consensus here hasn't spoken up yet, but it is that new LF teles, especially Nikon's, are sharper than Apo Ronars.

Why are you hung up on having multicoated lenses? Most post-WWII process lenses are single coated and seem to have few problems with flare. One exception that I know at first hand is Konica Hexanon GR IIs; the ones I've had (150/9, 210/9) are a little flary, but I didn't notice it until I shot my 210/9 against a 210/7.7 Beryl S (coated dagor type). A hood, even a short tube of black construction paper, will help a GR II. GR IIs are all too short for you.

Dan Fromm
17-Apr-2012, 13:38
Hearing that lenses with massive image circles are better for the same focal lengths, is a bit difficult to figure out. When you say the results are superior, is it because of the movements?

Subject to minor problems of implementation, a prescription can be realized at any focal length desired. Everything, including aberrations, scales with focal length so a longer lens made to a prescription won't be as sharp centrally or cover as large an angle as a shorter lens made to the same prescription. This is why process lenses' angular coverage falls as focal length increases.

There are two flavors of Apo-Nikkor, tessar and dialyte, and there are also plasmat type Wide Angle Apo-Nikkors. AFAIK, there are two tessars for Nikon SLRs, neither to the tessar type Apo Nikkor prescription, no dialytes and no plasmats. Reasoning from Nikkors for Nikon SLRs to Apo-Nikkor process lenses doesn't work well.

Movements have nothing to do with central sharpness or coverage.

adam satushek
17-Apr-2012, 13:46
Maybe you guys are right, maybe I shouldn't be hung up on multicoating. I have heard that it can make a big difference, but since I tend to use modern lenses I have not really tested it. Just going off of what I have heard, that multicoating is one of the greatest recent improvements in lens design. I have a single coated 300mm caltar-s II, and it seems fine so maybe I shouldn't worry too much...

BrianShaw
17-Apr-2012, 13:49
When using a lenshood I don't knotice too much of a difference betweenmulti-coated, single-coated, and just as often... uncoated.

E. von Hoegh
17-Apr-2012, 13:54
Yup. Multicoating is nice, but it isn't what the ad. writers would have us think.

Drew Wiley
17-Apr-2012, 13:59
Couple of things ... per this discussion, it's the modern dialyte Apo Nikkors I've got in mind.
Then as far as the importance of multicoating, it all depends on the lens design and vintage. Sometimes with huge image circles and a lot of open sky you need a very good
shade indeed even with multicoated lenses. A single coat with comparable angle would
need even more. And the shape and material of the camera bellows also interacts with this
with respect to how much leftover light still gets bounced around. Also obviously depends
on what film you're using. I've had lenses that were simply too contrasty for certain chrome films in avg lighting situations. But modern lenses like Fuji A's, C's, Nikkor M's,
many current plastmats, and later process lenses can all be very very sharp if used at
ideal apertures. The late Apo Ronar now have plenty of competition, even at high magnification applications like roll film.

adam satushek
17-Apr-2012, 14:55
From what I have been reading the fact that process lenses are corrected for 1:1 is not an issue correct? It sounds like once they are stopped down they are excellent performers, which is really good news, since they seem to be available for pretty decent prices...like a Nikkor Apo 600 f9 for $300, vs. like $4000 for a Schneider Apo-tele-xenar....cant argue with that....and with a couple of tripods and a Sinar shutter on a calm day I should be pretty set....

Hermes07
17-Apr-2012, 15:12
From what I have been reading the fact that process lenses are corrected for 1:1 is not an issue correct? It sounds like once they are stopped down they are excellent performers, which is really good news, since they seem to be available for pretty decent prices...like a Nikkor Apo 600 f9 for $300, vs. like $4000 for a Schneider Apo-tele-xenar....cant argue with that....and with a couple of tripods and a Sinar shutter on a calm day I should be pretty set....

You're thinking right now - it doesn't have to be too complicated or expensive.

Another thing to consider is that the dialyte type process lenses can work as makeshift convertibles if you're stopping them down. I believe that the 600mm APO Nikkor is a tessar type, but the 610mm f9 is a symmetrical dialyte - use only one half of it and you have approximately a 1220mm f/18.

You'll have to check into which brands are the easiest to use this way if you plan to do this. I seem to remember the Nikkors being quite tricky to unscrew whereas the Artars allow you to unscrew the front or rear group pretty easily. 600mm f/9 is nearing the size limit of the sinar board also - you may have to clip the flange to get it to fit.

adam satushek
17-Apr-2012, 15:18
Hermes, Quote, "600mm f/9 is nearing the size limit of the sinar board also - you may have to clip the flange to get it to fit."
Wow, really? that is a large lens......so then is there any chance that a something like a 890mm or 1210mm will ever fit on a sinar board?

Drew Wiley
17-Apr-2012, 15:29
I have a 700-something (maybe 760) Apo Nikkor which will fit on a Sinar bd. The fact that
they are corrected for graphics work does not mean the perform less than ideally at infinity. The bargain prices at the moment aren't such a bargain if you account for the
fact you aren't getting a shutter. But Apo Nikkors do double as superb enlarging lenses
when you don't need speed. You only need to take them down one stop, typically f/11,
and they're in the zone.

Hermes07
17-Apr-2012, 15:32
Depends exactly what aperture ratings they have. As I think I touched on, some brands maintain f/9 all the way into the longer focal lengths, some scale the apertures with the focal lengths to keep the lens sizes small. Some do a bit of both.

I know the lenses in the Artar range do all fit on Sinar boards up to 1200mm for example - I have a 1200mm f/15 Red dot Artar on a standard Sinar 5 1/2" board. I also have a 1200mm F/11 which needs an 8" board and a 1200mm f/9 which needs a full 10 3/4" board.

The barrels used come into it also. My 750mm f/9 Apo Germinar fits on the normal Sinar Board with the flange clipped.

adam satushek
17-Apr-2012, 15:38
Thanks a lot guys, I have learned a lot and I believe process lenses with a Sinar shutter seem like the way for me to go to get long focal lengths without breaking the bank. This is brand new territory for me, and I have a lot to learn..so ill be busy researching lens options and Sinar shutters. Of course, any additional input is of course greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

genotypewriter
17-Apr-2012, 18:18
Diffraction is the same for all lenses.

Only for the same f-numbers. However, SLR lenses have the option to work around diffraction since they're almost always faster than f/9. Even if the APO-Nikkors maintain consistent sharpness/correction from f/9 itself, typical modern DSLR sensors run in to diffraction around that f-number and the more recent ones even sooner.



I don't have any experience with Canon lenses, the newer teles with low dispersion glass are very good though. Same with the Xenotar, no experience.I never heard it was particularly sharp, or otherwise.

Canon has been using calcium fluorite elements in their higher-end long lenses for quite a while now. Some of the more recent iterations have two along with other low dispersion glass.

The Xenotar is extremely sharp, centrally, wide open. There's no noticeable longitudinal CA at close distances either.



Everything, including aberrations, scales with focal length so a longer lens made to a prescription won't be as sharp centrally or cover as large an angle as a shorter lens made to the same prescription...

Exactly what I was referring to, Dan.



Movements have nothing to do with central sharpness or coverage.

Didn't say they did. Was asking in which way they were superior to the SLR tele lenses and the Celestron optics.

But of course... movements can change coverage, if you move the lens away from the focal plane :p