Looking for a 450mm lens for 4x5" in Copal 1 shutter under 1K ?

[jocl123]

Hi there,
do you now coated lenses which I could use on my Chamonix 45-n1 ?
Thanks, Jo

[Ken Lee]

Your question places a possibly unrealistic limitation on shutter size.

The 450mm Fujinon C fits into a Copal 1 shutter (and takes only 52mm filters) precisely because is a "compact" design: it only opens to f/12.5

Other models (even the Nikkor 450M) open to f/9, and are thus larger, heavier, and mounted in larger shutters.

There is currently a 480mm APO Ronar for sale at the auction site, but it fits in Copal 3 shutter - naturally, since it's f/9 and 1/9 of 480mm is still pretty large. It should work nicely on a Chamonix, as long as it's not too heavy. It's considerably less money than your target price limit.

[jocl123]

Hi Ken,
I got the Apo-Ronar 480 but it is really to heavy.
I kept it for my 8x10 Studio camera.
I know it isn't easy, I really know a lot of lenses but maybe someone can help :)

[jocl123]

Of course it could be a 420-480mm as well.

[Ken Lee]

Another option is a Fujinon 400T (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/lenses/#400T), a telephoto design which requires only ~250mm of bellows draw but gives the magnification of a 400mm lens. I used one on a Tachihara for several years, so I know it will work on a Chamonix.

With a modest amount of cropping, it easily becomes a 450mm lens. :cool:

[Drew Wiley]

The front standard of your little field camera won't support a heavy lens in big shutter without risk of vibration. The Fuji 450C would be ideal. It might take a bit of patience to find one within your budget, but they do sometimes turn up reasonably priced.

[sethlatimer]

I dont think you can focus a lens that long without the bed extender thingie, even with it you can barely focus much closer than infinity. Definitely check any lens' flange focal length before buying.

[Leigh]

The Fujinon C 450mm is f/12.5, not 11.5. Filter size is 52mm.

It's FFL is 425.3mm. The weight is only 270g.

- Leigh

[Preston]

Lon Overacker, a participant here, has the 450 Nikkor. He uses it on his Chamonix 045N-1, and I've never heard him complain about vibration. The front standard is rigid enough to hold this lens. And yes, you will need the extender board to use either Fuji or the Nikkor on this camera.

I've used Harley Goldman's 450-C on my Chamonix 045N-2--it's a dream--wish I could affrord one!

--P

[Jeff Keller]

The Ronar lenses are fairly light. It must be the Copal 3 shutter weight of your Ronar 480 that is the problem. The Fuji 450C is the only light weight lens I'm familiar with. Maybe one of the convertible lenses?

The telephoto lenses don't require as much bellows draw but are heavy.

Jeff Keller

[Corran]

After getting an extension made by vinny here, I recently tried the Nikkor-M 450mm on my Chamonix. Works perfectly, super-sharp, and no vibration issue (assuming no wind). Recommended!

[Corran]

Here's a photo with that setup from yesterday. Pretty heavy crop too:

http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/Untitled-58ss.jpg

You can find them on eBay for under $500 often, and as low as $400 if you wait. You can also find the single-coated "Q" version for even less.

[jocl123]

Thank you everybody, I was always looking for a Fujinon 450 but I never found one in my price range.

[jocl123]

Corran, looks fantastic. I re-consider it again as I had the Nikkor-M always in mind but always thought it would be too heavy.

[Leigh]

The Nikkor M 450/9 weighs 640g in a Copal #3 shutter.

It's a handful, but it's also a superb lens. I have one and use it frequently. I paid $800 in as-new condition.

- Leigh

[Drew Wiley]

I am absolutely certain that, all other things being equal, that if you had the choice of a
#1 shutter and a #3 at long bellows extension on a field camera, the smaller shutter would
have better critical sharpness. And don't try to prove something with a web smudge. I've
been punching 30x40 Cibas for quite awhile now, and can tell the difference even when the
famously stable 8x10 Phillps has been used. With 4x5 the difference is even more pronounced. Just simple physics. Doesn't mean the result won't be acceptable to you, but
there is a factual objective difference. The optics on the Nikkor M are superb and relatively
resistant to flare due to only six MC air-glass interfaces. But for field work on 4x5 I'd rather
have the 450C any day. But it does need to be well shaded due to its huge image circle.

[jocl123]

So I guess at the end there are only those two choices. Thank you all

[Drew Wiley]

The 420 Fuji L would be similar to the single-coated Nikkor Q, but with thicker glass, so unrealistically heavy. (Just an academic note, since the 450M is far more common than either of these other lenses anyway).

[Corran]

While I respect your opinion Drew I just don't see it. This is even on my smaller travel head. I suppose if you were anal one of those long lens support brackets would make this even more stable. This is equivalent to about a 6ft tall print...

http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/Untitled-58crop.jpg

[Drew Wiley]

Well ... the web again, but that crop looks pretty damn fuzzy by my standards. This
is just physics. Fact. I can tell the difference even with my Norma at those kinds of
extensions, or even using a 360 length between a no.1 and no.3 shutter. Field folder 4x5's are really susceptible out way there with serious wt on the end, esp if the wind picks up. My own folder is an Ebony, which is about as stable as they come. But like I said ... might not matter if at all if one is punching out something like 16x20 inkjet prints. It would become an issue with full gloss optical prints. No knock on the 450M - I'd love to own one; but it probably wouldn't see use with any 4x5 kit of mine. Been down that route before and know the distinction all too well by now.

[Corran]

If the 100% crop is fuzzy it's from using a flatbed scanner and being stopped down to f/45...but I can see the individual twigs on the ground, that's pretty good IMO.

Obviously yes, wind would be a major factor, I certainly wouldn't argue otherwise. But like I said an extra support bracket, or second tripod, if you were hell-bent on ultimate stability, would be the way to go.

I have the Nikkor-T 500mm, perhaps I should pop off a sheet with each and compare.

[Ken Lee]

While I respect your opinion Drew I just don't see it. This is even on my smaller travel head. I suppose if you were anal one of those long lens support brackets would make this even more stable. This is equivalent to about a 6ft tall print...

I agree: We can always induce vibration by accident - and the wind can always blow - but I have tested a 610mm APO Nikkor and a 450mm Fujinon C with a Sinar Copal Shutter and a mediocre tripod.

The camera is comparatively heavy, but the shutter is larger, but at 1/60 second I have managed to get pretty sharp results (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/aponikkor610/Nikkor610Test.php).

[Drew Wiley]

f/45 is not a good idea for testing on 4x5 film because diffaction is an issue. And you'd have to do a serious drum scan, AND have a precision filmholder to keep film actually flat.
AND get rid of your tripod head and mount the lens right on a serious platform. ETC. But
getting back to the more ordinary world, if the 450M was all I owned in this focal length
and I had a reasonably stiff 4x5, I wouldn't hesitate to use it. At this point, it's the only lens of the M series I don't own yet. They are really superb optics. But the 450C Fuji is much lighter with a much softer shutter, so works better at these long extensions in at least the kind of outdoor situatons I routinely encounter, which includes a lot of wind. Another thing I learned the hard way is that it's a lot easier to drop a heavy lens with sweaty hands after a long climb than a lightwt one. Maybe my fumbly fingers; but you only have to do that once to regret it.

[Drew Wiley]

Ken - I have a whole set of Apo Nikkors and they probably exceed ordinary view lenses of
comparable focal length in terms of sharpness. But the shutter issue is real, and I'm not the only nitpicky printmaker out there who recognizes it, or who has done serious real-world testing. And it is a simple fact of physics, all else like optical design being equal.
The most nitpicky guy I know uses a 610 Apo Nikkor on a massive Toyo 810 and especially
heavy tripod with a little Nikon attached at the film plane - i.e., the focal plane shutter
itself. He specializes in exteme tele-photography and would never even consider a large
shutter in conjunction with the lens itself. I've got a lot of big Cibachromes under my belt,
and like I just said, know the distinction quite well. The average color inkjet print won't
even hold that kind of detail at any size. Of course, sharpness isn't everything, and the
Nikkor M does have some very desirable features in its own right, being among the only
multicoated tessars out there, which are second in hue accuracy and flare-resistance only
to the 14-inch Kern MC dagor (which incidentally has horrible shutter vibration from its
no.3 Compur).

[Corran]

You're certainly correct that "f/45 is not a good idea for testing" and that is not what it was. It's simply a photo I took in the field with the 450M. Just wanted to clarify that.

I'm only doing wet prints, enlarging 4x5 up to at most 16x20 and soon a couple of 20x24's. I printed a 16x20 from the Nikkor-T 500mm racked way out in wind and it's sharper than almost any print I have done. I haven't printed anything from this 450M since I just got it recently.

[Drew Wiley]

You'll probably never detect the difference in a 20x24 print from 4x5. The M will be optically superior to any tele; and with only six air/glass interfaces will have higher contrast. This is all about nuances and practical distinctions like weight, which certainly is a hot topic as we habitual backpackers get older and slower! But any 450M which shows
up for four hundred bucks deserves to get instantly snatched up, regardless of weight,
as long as it's in good shape. But that 450C ... now that is a dream lens in its own right!

[Ken Lee]

Ken - I have a whole set of Apo Nikkors and they probably exceed ordinary view lenses of
comparable focal length in terms of sharpness. But the shutter issue is real, and I'm not the only nitpicky printmaker out there who recognizes it, or who has done serious real-world testing. And it is a simple fact of physics, all else like optical design being equal.
The most nitpicky guy I know uses a 610 Apo Nikkor on a massive Toyo 810 and especially
heavy tripod with a little Nikon attached at the film plane - i.e., the focal plane shutter
itself. He specializes in exteme tele-photography and would never even consider a large
shutter in conjunction with the lens itself. I've got a lot of big Cibachromes under my belt,
and like I just said, know the distinction quite well. The average color inkjet print won't
even hold that kind of detail at any size. Of course, sharpness isn't everything, and the
Nikkor M does have some very desirable features in its own right, being among the only
multicoated tessars out there, which are second in hue accuracy and flare-resistance only
to the 14-inch Kern MC dagor (which incidentally has horrible shutter vibration from its
no.3 Compur).

Thanks for explaining. That makes excellent sense, and I've never made a print even close to the sizes you're mentioning.

[jocl123]

If the 100% crop is fuzzy it's from using a flatbed scanner and being stopped down to f/45...but I can see the individual twigs on the ground, that's pretty good IMO.

Obviously yes, wind would be a major factor, I certainly wouldn't argue otherwise. But like I said an extra support bracket, or second tripod, if you were hell-bent on ultimate stability, would be the way to go.

I have the Nikkor-T 500mm, perhaps I should pop off a sheet with each and compare.

Yeah, I would like to see that !

[jocl123]

Drew, you really seem to "love" the 450C. Could you share an image with us please ?

[Bernice Loui]

There is more to shutter rattle/shake than just size. The debate over lenses being "shaper" in a #1 -vs- #3 other factors like shutter size, camera mass, camera stability, isolation between the front standard to rear standard, tripod stability, and more all figure into this.

Here is a video of a Fairchild K38 shutter. These are used in old aero recon lenses. I have two of these. One contains a 36" f8 (fixed aperture) Perkin Elmer, The other is a 24" f 2.5 Aero Ektar. Both these lenses weight no less than 20 lbs. Yet, the shutter kicks pretty hard when fired. When used in aero camera systems, they produce very high resolution images under less than ideal conditions of flying aircraft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJ_db1cg6ao


Point being, greater weight and mass helps to damp and stabilize shutter and other vibrations that would otherwise affect image resolution on the imaging plane.

While there is great desire for those who want low weight and small size for portability and easy ability to carry their camera systems, these expectations work against long focal length lenses on any view camera. This is where smaller formats gain an advantage over larger formats (there are exceptions) due to their smaller size and shorter focal length required to produce a similar angle of view.

Another thing to keep in mind is avoid stopping down more than is really required. If the lens is focused at infinity, why stop down any more than is required to negate residual lens aberrations as it will only reduce resolution and not gain any DOF.

Film flatness is another significant factor in all cases.

My approach to using long focal lengths on a view camera is a Sinar monorail with a Sinar shutter and heavy brass barrel Goerz Artars which I have been selected from a number of them and found to meet my image expectations (Tinkered with many including Fujinon A, Fujinon C, Fujinon T, Schneider Tele-Xenar, Nikkor M, Nikkor T-ED, APO Nikkor, APO Ronar, Zeiss APO Tessar, Cooke Avair, Kodak APO process and...) , typical aperture used is f16 or f22 when focused at infinity, with a Gitzo Studex, Sinar Pan-tilt and extra tripod extension to stabilize the long mono-rail.

How much resolution does this set-up deliver, on a city scene, street signs can be read on the color transparency using a 25x microscope. That is plenty good enough for me.

None of the light weight set-ups worked well due to stability or residual vibrations and number of other factors.


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

Sorry, but I don't have any scanner except an old enty-level slide scanner suitable only for
web jpeg work. And in terms of serious objectivity, web evidence is pretty worthless when
it comes to either color accuracy or rendering true detail. The 450C is a very well known lens by outdoor LF photographers, not only for its small size but excellent optical performance. No need to preach about it. My own mode of shooting typically involves setting the view camera directly atop the platform of a Ries wooden tripod, no head between. I do a lot of long lens work, and around here the wind is constant most of the year. But even without wind, some shutters can set up annoying vibrations, esp if there's
harmonic amplification in a flimsy metal head or set of legs. The Prontor studio shutters had
the least kick; most Copals are relatively soft; but then there are some others out there
with a noticable buzz - you can even feel it with your finger tips. Studio photographers often got away with all kinds of things because the actual exposure was done with strobe,
and the exposure itself was only partially affected by shutter issues. But they also often
used tanks of camera which most of us would not prefer to lug around outdoors. While each of these variables individually might seem nitpicky or anal, they do progressively add up with respect to cumulative image quality, so it can be a useful exercise to isolate the
variable and learn how to control them.

[Bernice Loui]

Wind, vibration and numerous other environmental, not controllable factors all work to cause poor image quality when using long focal length lenses in a view camera out doors. Using any long focal length lens out doors on a view camera is challenging in all cases.

Exposure time can also make a difference due to the amount of time the film has to record the image with the shutter open -vs- time of vibration event.

Many times these other factors negate any differences in optics.

Greater weight helps, but makes the entire set-up not portable or really transportable easily.

Camera type and the type of tripod used also has an effect on vibrations and camera stability. Worth noting are the folks who do surveying who tend to like wooden/composite tripods for their stability and ability to damp vibrations.

Recently the Gitzo Studex got parked due to weight and preciousness. In it's place is a Davis & Sanford. Eventually, there is a Dutch Hill short Surveyor's composite tripod that is being modified that will replace the Davis & Sanford.... eventually. Tripods do make a difference. Adding an extra support can really help.


Bernice