Lenses Longer than 600mm/24" on 7x17

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Thanks to all for the responses. As expected, it all comes down to a matter of personal preference - and ease of use.

If I do end up assembling my own 7x17, I plan to make the design flexible enough to allow for increasing/decreasing the extension as needed. Since the longest lens I currently have is a 600mm that needs 573mm (22.6") of exension to focus at infinity, I'll probably start with a configuration that provides about 26" of extension (the same as the 7x17 Phillips). This will make the camera as light and compact as possible and will work well with my current set of lenses. The maximum extension will be a function of the length of the focusing rails and the bellows. By providing a way to add an longer extension rail and making the bellows interchangeable it would be easy to increase the maximum extension down the road if I someday feel the need to add a longer lens.

Even if I do add a longer lens in the future, I don't expect it will be anything longer than a 30" RD Artar or a 760mm APO Nikkor. Back in my 11x14 days, I owned a 35" Red Dot Artar. It was a beautiful lens, but as Michael mentioned the PITA factor was quite high. It really pushed the limits of my camera (and my patience) and was quite heavy to be dangling all the way out there on a less than rock-solid front standard.

Kerry

[Struan Gray]

Some of the older process lenses are smaller and lighter than the modern APO-Ronars. Wray made long APO-Lustrars with f16 maximum apertures that are relatively compact. Hard to find though, especially in the US. Some of the early Artars I have seen are also less beast-like than modern lenses.

If you are going to go to the trouble of using a second tripod for your longer lenses, the rail or bed becomes just a way of aligning the front and rear standards as you set the coarse composition. It can therefore be a lot lighter and flimsier than a conventional monorail or extending bed. You could mount the front and rear standards on six-inch rails, and then join them with a lightweight spar - a lighting pole or monopod if you want something photographic, but CF kite making spars and fishing rod blanks are surprisingly cheap if you're tempted to make your own.

[scott_6029]

Well, the 12" dagor and the 16.5 artar pretty much do it for me. Part of the beauty of 7 x 17 is the wide ange of view (with a normal feel and size of the objects in the image). If anything, I might want to go a wee bit wider on occassion. No real desire for longer...yet....certainly I can't imagine longer than 600mm. Plus the lenses can be heavy, extended way out on the bellows with wind as a factor?

BTW, I picked up a 16.5 artar in shutter for $216 on the famous auction site. Yes, its NOT a red dot, but appears coated and has excellent contrast. No flare in photos either. That's what a lens shade or your hand is for..You may want to look into a 19" artar?

[Tracy Storer]

While I haven't used the format extensively yet, I have felt the need to use the 600, but not longer. Usually switching from 14x17 to 7x17 is enough to eliminate excessive blurry foreground. I one were shooting "grand landscape" type imagery, you might want something longer sometimes.
Tracy

[J. P. Mose]

Kerry....what about the new Schneider Fine Art 1100mm lens? I know it is quite pricey at $4,395, but it does have an image circle of 900mm. Just a suggestion...JP Mose

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

J.P. - The 1100mm XXL is too long, too heavy and too expensive for my needs. If I do go beyond 600mm on the 7x17, it will probably be a barrel mounted 30" RD Artar or 760mm APO Nikkor.

Struan - I'd prefer to keep it to a single tripod set-up. This will require a tripod head with a big platform, and perhaps an outrigger support arm. I think a single sturdy tripod with a good head should be able to handle a lightweight 7x17 camera with a 600mm Fujinon C. For going longer, the outrigger support arm might do the trick. As I plan to hike with this beast, a second tripod, even a lightweight carbon fiber one, is really a burdern (literally). Using two tripods is also a PITA in the field. I'd rather make the focusing rails a little beefier and the tripod head platform a little bigger than deal with a second tripod in the field.

Kerry

[robert_4927]

Monopod....can be used as a walking stick and it will provide that little extra stability when you need it with those longer heavier lenses. I have the ries mono, but a CF one would weigh next to nothing. I have a small swivel bipod the screws right on top of mine that allows the lens to sit down into it. Works great.

[Struan Gray]

I can understand your reasoning. All the same, a bipod or even a very flimsy lightweight tripod can make a big difference to vibration with long extensions. It's a simple matter of long lever arms producing large torques: you eventually reach the point where having a single, beefy support point becomes counter productive. Have you seen the Novoflex basicball + two hiking poles solution? I do something similar but uglier with my ski pole straps round an extended monorail.

In my idle moments I design lightweight ULF kit in my head, and I keep coming back to the Panfield-like idea of having a well-featured camera for short lenses with an add-on simple extension for when longer lenses are used. In 4x5 I have to add extra rails, bellows and an intermediate standard once I go above 18", and I carry my 'long kit' as a seperate bag in my backpack, so splitting the camera in two seems like a natural thing to do. In ULF it makes more sense to extend the front than the back, so as to avoid carrying around a huge bellows.

In your shoes I would be tempted to make a 7x17 field-like camera that worked well with lenses up to your arm size in focal length. Then put a rail clamp for your Toho or Arca-Swiss rail on the front of the bed and have a bellows connection on the front standard or on a special lensboard. There is a danger of vignetting, but that's simple geometry to avoid, and if it's a big deal you can make the add-on bellows tapered (use a 5x7 bellows for cameras with 4x5 front standards).

I saw you snagged the 355: have you seen he 750 Artar?

[John_4185]

This is a (very) rough sketch of a setup of my own. The extra black 'leg' is a Manfroto-like extension that collapses into itself for carry. When you need it, it pins to the leg, extends to whatever length is necessary, and then to the big, heavy lens via a velcro strap. Lightweight, small. Dunno. Just a thought.

(I wrote 'Manfroto-like' because it's not by Manfroto, but the same stock material.)

[Jerry Fusselman]

Nice diagram, jj! How did you make it? And how did you manage to make it display here?