Longish lens - 4x5 on Chamonix 045n-2

[angusparker]

Another vote for Nikkor 300mm which I use maybe 40% of my compositions on my Chamonix 45n2. While I have the Fuji 450mm and extension board which is solid except in a stiff breeze I rarely use except if I have a particular application. For a three lens set I tend to pick 110/200/300 or sometimes 125/200/300. I only use lenses with 52mm and 67mm filter size lenses to keep things simple. If you like shorter focal lengths then Fujinon 125/180/240 is a great combo.

[Harley Goldman]

Another vote for Nikkor 300mm which I use maybe 40% of my compositions on my Chamonix 45n2. While I have the Fuji 450mm and extension board which is solid except in a stiff breeze I rarely use except if I have a particular application. For a three lens set I tend to pick 110/200/300 or sometimes 125/200/300. I only use lenses with 52mm and 67mm filter size lenses to keep things simple. If you like shorter focal lengths then Fujinon 125/180/240 is a great combo.

I have a 125/150/240/300/450 lineup. I rarely use the 125, but it is nice to have on occasion. I even have an 80mm, but that stays in the film bag. I have not used it in a few years. I don't "see" in wide angle.

[Tori Nelson]

This is a great thread and I'm happy to have the information. I've just given up 8x10 and am going back to 4x5. My Chamonix F1 should be here next week and I'm encouraged to hear about people being able to use their 450mm with no problems; I had been afraid I was going to have to give it up. I've ordered an extension board from Vinny and now just need to find some lens boards.

[Meekyman]

Thanks once again for replying Harley!

Glad it's been informative Tori.

Reckon I will keep on thinking about what to do for a while. Just been out on a "scouting mission" (aka evening stroll with the wife!) around the neighbourhood fields/rivers and so and took my "viewing frame" with me. Surprising how often I had it a fair way from my eyes. Leaning towards a 450 maybe. I guess the fact I live in a flat area and so I see things tighter here than when in the hills. Confused still I guess!

Graham

[TGR Laguna]

I, too, have found this thread to be very helpful as I was concerned about using the extension and mounting a 450mm on my Chamonix. Now that I understand the camera is still stable, a 450mm may well be in my future. As such, I believe the 300mm is a much better alternative than the 350mm, at least for me. First a Nikkor M is both lighter and less expensive (unfortunately, there are no lightweight choices at the 350-360mm range) and like you, I carry everything on my back. The other factor in my choices has been filter size so I can standardize. I'm not sure of thread size on the 350mm, but I suspect it's up there, whereas the 300 M and the 450 are both 52mm.

One of the main "mental" shifts I've made shooting 4x5 verses 35mm is not being a slave to the full fame, edge to edge requirements of the smaller format. A 35mm negative is so small, one cannot afford to crop. Not so with 4x5. For instance, say the resolution of your lens is 60 lp/mm at the center, 60 half way out and 48 at the edge. If you plan on printing at a factor of 4x (4 times the negative size or 16x20), the resolution of the print will b e 15-15-12 (the resolution of the negative divided by the expansion factor). In comparison, a person with 20/20 vision can resolve 6.7 lp/mm at a normal viewing distance, whereas someone with 20/12 vision may be able to resolve around 11 lp/mm. In other words, the final image will appear razor sharp to everyone. Say, you decided to crop 20% of the image and still blow it up to 16x20. The portion of the negative in use is now 3.2" x 4" and the the expansion factor is 5x. As you are now only using the center part of negative, the final print resolution will be 12-12, still well above anyone's definition of sharp. As a result, a negative shot with a 300mm lens can easily be cropped to produce the same as a 360mm and still be sharp even when printing 16x20. My point here is that your lens choice isn't so much about getting closer as it is about differing perspective and how much you wish to compress the image.

Seeing as a 450mm can be used on the Chamonix, I'm not sure a 350mm is really needed. I've got a 300mm and can add the other when it's in the budget. In the meantime, I can stretch the 300mm to 360mm when the need exists.

Ted

[Kodachrome25]

As such, I believe the 300mm is a much better alternative than the 350mm, at least for me. First a Nikkor M is both lighter and less expensive (unfortunately, there are no lightweight choices at the 350-360mm range) and like you, I carry everything on my back. The other factor in my choices has been filter size so I can standardize. I'm not sure of thread size on the 350mm, but I suspect it's up there, whereas the 300 M and the 450 are both 52mm.

It depends on your lens spread.

In my case I use a Fujinon 240A as my second to longest lens, so a 300 makes no sense. Your 300M is Copal-1, 52mm and 9.5 ounces where as my brand new Schnieder 350mm F11 Apo Tele Xenar is also Copal-1, 58mm and weighs just 4.5 onces more and like the 300M, is super sharp.

So yes, there is indeed a lightweight 350mm out there, I have seen them used for around $700-$800 but it is rare you see one used. New, you are going to spend about the same on the 350 as you might on the not so easy to find used 450 so it might be a wash.

I love my 350 and it is as long as I need to go in 4x5. I routinely ski double black diamond terrain or climb peaks above 14,000 feet with the 45N-2, 350 and 4 other lenses on my back, no issues.

[Meekyman]

Well in the end I found a good deal on a used Nikkor 300mm f9, decided that Ted's argument about relatively little loss if cropping 4x5 and so one is one it's way.

Thanks everyone for your input,

Graham

[Carsten Wolff]

Any lens I use that is over ~10" FL on my 4x5/5x7 monorail usually gets steadied by my Manfrotto 359 Long Lens Support (mini-clamp).....makes the world of a difference outdoors.
A 14" Commercial Ektar might do it for you perhaps, too, but it IS getting a bit chunky and needs a fair bit of bellows. There are a few other smallish lenses in the 355-360mm FL out there: E.g. other Tessars/Xenars and Apo/LD-Artars/Ronars come to mind.

[Brian Ellis]

I used the 300mm Nikon lens mentioned by others and also the 400mm Fuji telephoto lens on several different cameras including a Tachihara and Linhof Master Technika. The 400mm Fuji takes a Copal 1 shutter so it's not particularly large or heavy. I didn't find that it produced lower-quality prints than normal lenses but I never did a scientific test comparing it to other lenses, just observed the photographs. Oddly enough, I found that the 400mm Fuji was actually too long for much of what I thought I'd use it for so I tended to use the 300mm Nikon more often.

[angusparker]

I have the Chamonix 4x5 and have the Fujinon 300c, Nikkor 300m, Schneider 350, Fujinon 400t, and Fujinon450c for use on various cameras. I would echo everyone's comments so far.
300 and 450mm are very different FL
300 is very different from 210 and a good useful addition to your set
400t is too heavy and not better than other options mentioned here. Sort of between focal length.
450c works well on the Chamonix except in a windy situation but I rarely use that FL on 4x5
350 makes more sense for a 110, 180, 240, 350 set which is what I use, finding 90 too wide for my tastes. For your set I would stick with the 300 plus the 350 is hard to find unless you buy new from B&H (a few are left in Germany). As to whether to use a Fujinon or Nikkor, I would choose the brand you are already using in your current set to get the same feel across focal lengths.