Fujinon C 450mm F/12 .5 (or another) to replace Fujinon T 400mm F/8 for Lightweight

[angusparker]

Ive used a Chamonix N1 with extensión and the Fuji 450C. It is doable but not recommended simply because of stability/wind. It is hard to get a sharp image. I echo a previous comment about keeping movements simple, there is a high risk of vignetting due to the bellows and bellows sag. Check your corner holes carefully on the GG. Ive also used the Fuji 400T which I think is a better compromise given the shorter bellows. Although you add weight. All in all if you can zoom with your feet you are generally better off using a 300mm lens. The Nikkor 300M is really good and lighter with a more standard filter size 52mm. The Fuji 300C is harder to find and very similar to the Nikkor.

[agregov]

I have used a Fuji 450C for years with an Arca Swiss 4x5 (extension rail and longer bellows). Yes, it can be a bit tricky in windy conditions but you can compensate with faster shutter speeds sometimes. It's a super lens I find critical for landscape shooting in wide open expanses like Death Valley. Another way to think about this problem is to continue using the T400 and if you find yourself using it over and over, that could be a good indicator that you enjoy using longer lenses and you might consider a different camera down the road to support a 450. Chamonix cameras sell well and quite quickly in the forum. Then purchase a model with a longer built-in extension and bellows. The best way to buy equipment IMO is when there's a compelling reason to do so. If you're equipment doesn't support the way you want to shoot, then it's time to upgrade. That said, it doesn't sound like you're at that point yet. You have a super camera. Purchasing a 300mm might be a good idea. They're fairly affordable and quite light. If going from 300mm to 400mm is not enough in the field, yet another clue about your needs. Shoot for next year or so and see if longer lenses call for a possible equipment upgrade. Note, a camera with longer extension will be heavier. With regard to 450C expense, yes they're are more pricey now but not ungodly so (like the 600C). If it will be a well used piece of equipment, the price is worth it.

[Drew Wiley]

Steve has given a valuable hint. A very sharp tiny 300 lens for 6x9 that approximates the reach of a 450 with full 4x5 film is the 300 Nikkor M. Most field camera have enough bellows draw for this. Of course, it's a great little lens for full 4x5 work too, and will even handle 8x10 film with very conservative movements. Often I want something highly portable that will reach way out toward some distant peak during my high altitude backpack trips. The 450C is wonderful when I'm out with a Sinar monorail and its long extensions. But now at my age, long multi-day treks necessarily involve a much lighter, more compact 4x5 folder. And rather than carry an extra lens or tophat extension, it's actually easier just to pack a Horseman 6x9 roll film back; and I still have full 4x5 capability with sheet film holders. Another part of that strategy is to just use full 4x5 only when I think I have the cat in the bag, and the subject will warrant a large print. "What if" shots under rapidly changing light and so forth, where I might want to repeat the shot, are more realistically done with roll film, since it's easy to carry a quantity of that. Given today's excellent optics and fine-grain films, with distant shots the limiting factor with detail is primarily intervening atmosphere, heat waves, etc. So the enlargement capacity of 6x9 vs full 4x5 is not as appreciable as it is with nearer subjects unless the air is especially clear.

[Bernice Loui]

Fujinon 450C f12.5 is coveted for it's small physical size (copal or similar# 1 shutter) and large image circle. IMO, kinda a mixed bag as it's small physical size makes it desirable for folks who travel with a field folder, except the real world difficulty with actually using this lens has to do with field folder camera limitations of bellows draw on a lightweight camera that is subject to a host of factors that can and will cause camera-camera support stability issues in outdoor conditions.

Other choices in this focal length Nikor 450M f9, physically larger, 16" to 19" APO artar (larger, personal fave in barrel with Sinar shutter), APO Ronar and other dialyte lens formula variants. All are physically larger than the 450C f12.5, all have specific trade offs.

No matter how "good" that lens might be, how it is applied determines it's actual image produced.

If telephoto images are the real need, something like a Canon 300mm f2.8L or 500mm f4.5L on a much smaller imager format can do a LOT better than any view camera. Choice of image making tools should be image goals dependent.


Bernice

[Greg Y]

I've used both the Fuji 400T & the 450C....but i was working with a Deardorff 5x7 w a reducing back. More than acceptable prints have been made with the 400T. Here's my favourite Craig Richards' photo of Mt Wilson made with the 400T on a Linhof 4x5. I've seen stunning 20x24 prints of this image. It's in a location where you can't zoom with your feet. The 400T is certainly lighter than a Canon 300 2.8.
I guess, it depends if your use of a 400/450 is an outlier or a common thing. If i used a long lens often enough, i'd consider the Chamonix 5x7 horizontal w the 4x5 reducing back.
I work with 6x6 and 6x7 frequently and never bring either if i'm using LF..... i'm sure you have many options if you're working close to your car.

[Drew Wiley]

Utter nonsense, Loui. How often have YOU actually done that kind of photography, especially up in the mountains? I've done it thousands of times. A properly optimized film plane and a Fuji 450C will work wonders absolutely no small format camera can equal. Even a tad better would be the Fuji 360A - plenty sharp even for roll film. The best tele-photographer I've ever known in terms of technical expertise actually used a big Toyo 8x10 equipped with long Apo Nikkor process lenses, even if there was just a 35mm or 6X7 camera at the film plane. He could have just as easily have used 8x10 film instead with a precision holder. Clumsy, yes. When I have wind issues and don't need plane of focus control, I use a P67 300 EDIF on a big Ries tripod. That lens is the holy grail of MF telephotos, so good that it is prized by widefield astrophotographers; yet my Nikkor 300M is even sharper! But like I already mentioned, the limiting factor is generally atmospheric, not optical. Timing is everything, even up in the relatively clear air of high altitude.

[Bernice Loui]

Much relative Drew...


Canon 300mm f2.8L on Canon mirrorless digital.. Could this be done on a view camera?



Bernice

Utter nonsense, Loui. How often have YOU actually done that kind of photography, especially up in the mountains? I've done it thousands of times. A properly optimized film plane and a Fuji 450C will work wonders absolutely no small format camera can equal. Even a tad better would be the Fuji 360A - plenty sharp even for roll film. The best tele-photographer I've ever known in terms of technical expertise actually used a big Toyo 8x10 equipped with long Apo Nikkor process lenses, even if there was just a 35mm or 6X7 camera at the film plane. He could have just as easily have used 8x10 film instead with a precision holder. Clumsy, yes. When I have wind issues and don't need plane of focus control, I use a P67 300 EDIF on a big Ries tripod. That lens is the holy grail of MF telephotos, so good that it is prized by widefield astrophotographers; yet my Nikkor 300M is even sharper! But like I already mentioned, the limiting factor is generally atmospheric, not optical. Timing is everything, even up in the relatively clear air of high altitude.

[Drew Wiley]

Who cares, Bernice? Is this a Sports photography forum for sake of tiny magazine and web pictures barely larger than the film itself? But view-camera-like box cameras once did it. No choice. My grandfather had a Stutz Bearcat that went 90mph, which must have been quite a jittery thrill back when wooden corduroy log loads were actually the best roads around. But let's say it's for subject matter up in the mountains? My little Ebony folder equipped with a 300 Nikkor M and even roll-film back is going to weight less than the typical long 35mm telephoto. Furthermore, it can be successfully used on a much lighter tripod. Even my Sinar Norma monorail camera equipped with 24 inches of rail will work on a lighter tripod because the rail is so easily adjusted for center of gravity, whereas with a long telephoto it's all forward unless you have some intervening device. Yes, I know that sports and wildlife photographers sometimes even handhold things; but that's often in relation to pricey stabilized lenses and very high shutter speeds at the expense of depth of field. Whole different ballgame. But I have photographed wildlife using even 8x10 - no, certainly not as convenient as 35mm or even MF; but if you want serious enlargement, there's simply no comparison when it does work out. Your own argument could just as easily be refuted the other direction, when somebody takes a cell phone image and crops it - it works, and they don't give a damn about the quality of the image, so it's all equal to them. Happens millions of time a day all over the world. That's fine. It just doesn't happen to interest me, and has nothing to do with LF anyway.

[Bernice Loui]

Yes Drew, very different tool for a very different image making goal. There is far more to making images than just a view camera..

Done,
Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

Of course, Bernice, just like there are a great many different photo forums and chat rooms. This just happens to be where those interested in view cameras somehow coincidentally congregate, for some inexplicable reason.