Focal length/bellows ratio for the landscape photographer?

[CreationBear]

Another "how long is a piece of string?" question, I suppose , but in the course of trying to choose a lens on the long end for the 5x7 kit I'm putting together, I've run across several folks who maintain that the length of the bellows should be 1.3 (or 1.2) times the focal length of your longest lens. For the 480mm of bellows I've got, that puts me looking at lenses in the 360 to 400mm range--or, to put it another way, lenses that I can focus down to five or six feet.

I'm curious: what's the greatest minimum focus distance you'd accept in a lens you used primarily for landscapes? I realize the answer will vary with your own personal style--or topography (no doubt here in the Eastern Woodlands I'll need to get a little closer than y'all who hang out in the Alabama Hills.) Or to put the question even more pointedly, what kind of risk would I be taking with, say, a Fuji 450/12.5 C that only focuses down to 12 feet or so?

[Ken Lee]

You might want to consider the depth of field you get with a 450mm lens at close distance. From the same distance, a 450mm lens at f/22 has the depth of field of 225 mm lens at f/11, a 112mm lens at f/5.6, and a 55mm lens at f/2.8.... not much

Click here for a calculator which will help you determine depth of field for any given film size/focal length/aperture/distance. According to the calculator, on 4x5 inch film a 450mm lens at f/22 focused to 10 feet has depth of field of .28 feet, or 3.4 inches.

At infinity distance, shallow depth of field is less confining but there's a reason why many landscape shooters use very long lenses only for long distance shooting unless they are purposely looking for shallow depth of field effects. (Like portrait shooters who keep only one eye in focus, the rest blurry).

To determine exactly how close you can shoot (and how much additional exposure is required) with a 450mm lens and 480mm bellows draw (or any other combination), you might find this page helpful: Formulas for Bellows Extension and Compensation. Just substitute the numbers.

It can be helpful to place a small and affordable tape measure or plastic ruler in your equipment bag to determine actual bellows extension. If you don't care to perform mental calculations for compensation due to bellows extension (and reciprocity failure during the inevitable long exposures), consider the Reciprocity Timer app for the iPhone. At $1.99 it's very affordable and helpful since it knows about the reciprocity characteristics of many popular films. I don't know if there is a comparable app for other phone platforms.

[Vaughn]

That would not be sufficient near focus for me as an everyday lens. I photograph in the forest, three foot tall ferns, berries, and that sort of thing...along with 300+ foot tall trees. Out in Death Valley I would have no problem...except for the first set-up of the trip. I get fog forming inside my bellows as the sun heats the Humboldt moisture within the bellows into steam. Very odd to see happening on the GG.

On the 8x10 I'll sometimes use the 19" (480mm), and even the 24" (600mm), so it is not impossible to find set-ups in the forest. Slightly wide to slightly long lenses are what I carry usually in the forest. For 8x10: 250 to 360mm, sometimes a 210mm if I know I am going to be in an even tighter place. For 5x7 I just have the 180 and the 210mm. I don't have the bellows for too much longer of a lens on the old beast (Eastman View No.2, no rear extension). Perhaps a small 300mm on it would be nice someday, I'll have to measure the bellows.

[Mark Sampson]

Since you're shooting landscapes, not portraits, you can probably get away with a 16-1/2" lens like a Goerz RD Artar. Which conveniently is 2x the 'normal' f.l. for 5x7, a 210mm (8-1/4"). So that will give you some good 'reach', even if you can't focus very close with it.
Another thing to think about is the fact that most cameras (especially old wooden field cameras) are a bit less rigid near full extension... although that never stopped me. I used to shoot with a 300/9 (12") Nikkor-M on a 4x5 Tachihara that had only 13" of bellows extension. It worked pretty well!

[Bernice Loui]

16-1/2" aka 420mm Goerz Artar makes a nice tele for 5x7. The 19" aka 480mm is good too except this requires more bellows and camera extension than most field cameras are comfortable with. Longer the focal length and camera, the more difficult it becomes to keep the camera stable and vibration free if used outdoors. Figure about just over 19" of bellows for a 5x7 camera is a good workable bellows. If closer focus is needed, more bellows will be needed or consider using a shorter focal length like a 12" or 300mm.

The current longer than "Normal" focal length lenses for the Sinar Norma is:

12" f6.3 Commercial Ektar or 300mm f4.5 Schneider Xenar. Next longer focal length is a 16-1/2" aka 420mm Goerz Red Dot Artar (Brass barrel, the extra weight helps to stabilize the camera). All three lenses are in barrel used with the Sinar Shitter. Longer focal lengths are in the collection and can be used with the Sinar Norma with little difficulty. Realistically, the 16-1/2" RDA is plenty good about 80+ % of the time.


Bernice

[Eric Leppanen]

My 5x7 has 530mm of maximum extension, and even then I found it necessary to mount my Fuji 450C on a one inch extended lens board before I was happy with its close focusing capability. As already noted, the depth of field of a 450mm lens at close distance is ridiculously small, so for most close up landscape work it typically can only be used with planar subjects (a petroglyph on a flat rock face, a flat field of flowers, etc.). There must be sufficient bellows not only for initial focus but for also camera movements to optimize plane of focus (which close subjects will almost always require). Even after all that, in my experience I'm still stopping down to f/45 to get everything in focus.

A telephoto lens would require less bellows, but these are typically optimized for distant subjects. Over the years I have owned two copies of the Schneider 400mm APO Tele Xenar Compact lens; it covers 5x7 (barely) but I was never quite happy with its close up performance.

Given your limited bellows, your best "close up long lens" solution might be a 300mm lens with a 4x5 reducing back.

[Larry Gebhardt]

I use the 450 on the MQC 5x7 without issues, but it has 600mm of extension. I also use it on the Chamonix 45N with an extension plate. I’m not sure on the true bellows length, but it hasn’t proven to be an issue. I’m usually using the long lens for reach, not close up. I use a shorter lens like the 300 or 210 if I need close up with lots of extension. If you take two lenses with you I imagine you will be fine and just adapt to the limitation.

[CreationBear]

Excellent insights, gents (and lady, autocorrect typos aside)! Right now, I have a Fuji 180/9 and G-Claron 240/9 pulling double (or triple) duty across formats, so a 360 would be comforting from a numerological standpoint at the very least. (Of course, if any of y'all made me a killer deal on a Schneider 350/11, that's a risk I'd be willing to assume...)

[Vaughn]

I tend to faster glass as much of where I photograph has low light levels (but excellent contrast). Having the GG be twice as bright (f5.6) is appreciated. Out in the light of day, even my 24"/f11 RD Artar is easy to compose and focus on the 8x10 GG. Both my 180mm and 210mm for the 5x7 are Fuji Ws (f5.6) and are medium-size lenses (Copal 1). The Fuji W 360/6.3 I use on the 8x10 and 11x14 is a beast! I like it.

[CreationBear]

I tend to faster glass as much of where I photograph has low light levels.

That's a great point--I'm always under canopy, and more often than not "down in the holler," so I might have to "translate" these two lenses--I certainly would not want to wrestle with a slow wide angle. (FWIW, I was disappointed to hear about Eric's experience with the Apo-Tele-Xenar...a bit out of my price range usually, but I was thinking that f 5.6 and "long" would make things a lot easier in terms of focusing.)