I mentioned the same thing in another thread. Stroebel is a good resource.
Originally Posted by Daniel Casper Lohenstein
I mentioned the same thing in another thread. Stroebel is a good resource.
Great info!! Many thanks as always....
Now this brings up a question, but I'll also add that I'm shooting with an Arca-Swiss F-Line Classic 171 on a 400mm rail.
Ok...so telephoto lenses do in fact use less extension. That's what I thought, but, what I also got is that there may be some image sacrifice as compared to the non-tele type lens.
So, in my case, with 400mm of extension, which I think equates to 360mm of effective extension, would I be better off with a non-tele? Is the image quality "loss" with a tele that notable to turn me into a pixel peeper? Further, I try to get out and shoot and I carry my Arca-Swiss on my back. My entire kit is up to 32 pounds including my tripod. That includes two lenses, meter and all that other crap we carry...
Anyway, just looking for guidance on pros/cons on tele vs non-tele.
I will look at getting those books. I have the Simmons book. Not enough detail...I would love a follow on to the basic book.
Thanks guys!!
Anything in life worth having is worth sharing.
All goes directly back to what your print image goals are. As previously mentioned many times now, figure out what your image goals are, then what LF optics are required to achieve this, then figure out the best camera that can support these needs and image goals. Picking camera first IMO is simply not a good idea at all.
For a view camera with about 400mm extension and bellows, 360mm would be MAX at infinity, closer up that camera will run out of bellows and extension quick. That view camera outfit would be more comfy with a 300mm or 12" lens or a tele design LF lens. Alternative would be to find a way to add bellows and camera extension. Know this is also a trade-off as more camera extension and bellows makes the entire rig more difficult to keep stable and not move in the wind if outdoors. The other Foto area where camera extension and bellows is length stressed is macro or close-up images.
The great image quality equalizer is f22 and smaller apertures as once stopped down that far or more, any lens worth it's glass should be more than adequate (diffraction and laws of Nature has command here with zero amount of marketing hype will change this) for the vast majority of LF images. Add to this again, the world of LF optics, the majority of them are all of good quality. Nearly always intended for serious artist-photographers and similar. IMO, give up worrying about what is the best lens and all related to that marketing obsession might be as each and every LF optic has a given set of trade-offs with none being best for all image making needs.
Bernice
Bernice,
I'm definitely not looking for the best lens. Not even thinking about that.
All I was trying to understand was, given a say for instance, a 360mm tele lens vs a non-tele 360mm lens, would the tele lens be lighter and smaller BUT, non-tele would provide a better image quality?
Is that the basic different/trade-off?
Anything in life worth having is worth sharing.
As often, the answer is that it depends. The 360mm plasmats are huge lenses, the 360mm process lenses are much smaller and the telelenses will be somewhere in between. With some research on this site you can find the exact data of quite a few lenses.
When it comes to image quality: I only have experience with the 360mm Schneider tele-xenar and the 360 - 500mm Nikon set. Both are more then adequate for my image goals. I think the main advantage of using the Nikon set is that it gives you 3 focal lenghts without much added weight. And on top of that, for focal lengths over 360mm, there are way less options then for instance around the 300mm.
Adam, regarding the image quality of telephoto lenses. I too have heard over and over they aren’t as good as regular optics. I currently own and use a Nikon 270mm f/6.3 telephoto, a Schneider 400mm f/5.6 apo-tele-xenar (the newer one) and a Nikon 500mm f/11 telephoto. These are all recent, modern lenses and none of these have disappointed me in any way in terms of optical performance. They’re actually sharper than a few of my normal lenses.
That said, where they primarily differ is the is the maximum aperture for focusing—f/11 on the Nikon 500 is okay, not great for composing and focusing—and the size of the image circles. Image circles tend to be smaller and more restricted in the telephoto design, so you’re not going to have a lot of camera movements available. (My Schneider 400 is an exception. Very bright, pretty good movements available.) There is some funkiness as well if you like front lens swings and tilts, also due to the telephoto design. Those are the major tradeoffs. But image quality and sharpness and is not one of them!
I’d be glad to relate some observations and experiences via PM if you’d like.
The telephoto design lens is often larger than the APO process lens due to the optics required to reduce the back focal length required for a camera with limited extension and bellows, which is the telephoto design LF lens primary advantage and trade-off.
The APO (four element dialyte) process lens has limited image circle, small full aperture but extremely good optical performance about f16 and smaller. Trade off being, the camera must support the extension and bellows required for the focal length used on camera.
Then we have larger full aperture tessar type lenses. They can have good performance at full aperture improves lots two f-stops down and begins to degrade once stopped down past f22. They often have GOOD out of focus rendition and can have excellent contrast rendition in ways other lens designs do not. Image circle is larger than the APO dialyte and telephoto design LF lens, but not as large an image circle as a modern Plasmat, but lots smaller.
The Dagor (Dagor stops at 12" the lens set. as a 12" Dagor easily covers 8x10 and more) is another older than Century lens formulation that has stood the test of time and image makers. IMO, one of the most enduring LF lens designs of all time for many good reasons.
Keep in mind the f22 optical performance equalizer.... Higher contrast rendition is a preference not a given better optical performance advantage, same applies to lower contrast lenses.
And.. the Sorta-Focus Rodenstock Imagon.. strainer disc can be used open or closed or no strainer disc depending on the degree of image softness to meet the print image goal.
They all have their distinct personalities, problems, strengths, bad, excellent and .... all going back to what the image goals are and what the camera can support for lenses.
Top row left to right:
360mm f4.5 Schneider Xenar (Tessar), 13-1/2" f4.5 Cooke Aviar, 360mm H5.8 Rodenstock Imagon.
Bottom row, left to right.
360mm f5.5 Schneider Tele Xenar (arca swiss 6x9 lens board), 14" f6.3 Kodak Commercial Ektar, 14" f9 Goerz APO artar.
Guess which lens of this group is most often used? Exception is the 360mm Tele Xenar as it is used on the Arca Swiss 6x9 mini view camera.
All others are used in a Sinar camera system with a Sinar shutter, with no camera extension or bellows limitations in any way.
Bernice
Guess, 360mm f4.6 Schneider Xenar
as you use movements on 5X7
I just started using 240mm f4.5 Xenar with 5X7 slider and Packard, no movements for people
Tin Can
Another example.
500mm f5.5 Schneider Tele Xenar -vs- 485mm f9 Rodenstock APO ronar. Note the size difference.
Bernice
f4.6, type, now fixed, f4.5.
240mm f4.5 Xenar does GOOD on 5x7. This or a 10" f6.3 Commercial Ektar is often used on the 5x7 Norma.
Bernice
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks