300mm lens 4x5" landscape

[Two23]

That's sound great but difficult to find ...

They come up fairly regularly on ebay between $500 and $550. Looks like about two per month show up. As with all things LF, patience is rewarded.


Kent iN SD

[Drew Wiley]

It's can be difficult to keep a relatively big heavy f/5.6 clunker 300 studio plasmat from causing vibrations way out at the end of a full bellows extension of a lightweight field camera. Last thing you want outdoors, where wind itself is also a factor. Petite lenses like the 300/9 Nikkor M are prized by outdoor photographers for a good reason.

[Salmo22]

I have a Nikkor M 300mm f/9 that rides on the end of my Arca-Swiss 4x5 on a regular basis. Not only is it a small lightweight package, compared to the big Copal 3 plasmats, it is very sharp and has wonderful contrast. Even if size/weight were no issue, I think it would be hard to improve demonstrably on the images I get from my Nikkor M, Fujinon A, or Fujinon C. I don't have the Fujinon A or C in 300mm, but I know a few photographers that do and they will not part with them regardless of the money offered.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't have a Fuji 300 A either, but the 180, 240, and 360 A's, all of which have seen a lot of 4X5 action; so has the 450C. All but the 180 do double-duty in my 8x10 kit, along with a 600C. My lightweight backpacking kit, which potentially involves both regular 4X5 sheet film holders and 6X9 roll film backs, benefits from the trio of 105, 200, and 300 Nikkor M's. The 105 won't cover 4x5 film itself, so I often substitute a 125/5.6 Fuji W for my shortest focal length. I'm not into blatantly wide-angle perspectives unless it's necessary for an architectural shoot.

I'm sure not getting any younger as the seasons go by. But certain modern innovations have made it easier to keep going, including lighter view cameras and lenses, lighter tents, trekking poles, and so forth. This summer I hope to try out one of those new permethrin-treated long-sleeved T-shirts to find out if I really have more energy in soggy high altitude meadows if half my blood isn't being sucked out by the mosquitoes and horseflies like it usually is.

[grat]

Typical 300mm f5.6 Plasmat in a Copal# 3 shutter is HUGE, weights almost 3 pounds or as much as the camera.. Ya really wanna do this?

Sorry, I wasn't clear-- I personally, think it's a bad idea on either camera.

But if I were crazy enough to try it, it would be on the 45N-1. You can extend the standard out to 300mm without going too far out in front of the base plate.

[Bernice Loui]

That would be a _still not wise_.
There are those who would be tempted to push the limits by finding a way to install a 500mm f5.5 Tele Xenar in a compound#5 shutter on that 45N-1.
Possible to mount that 500mm f5.5 tele xenar on the 45N-1, likely. Useable, possible, good set up.. all in the mind of the image maker.


Bernice

Sorry, I wasn't clear-- I personally, think it's a bad idea on either camera.

But if I were crazy enough to try it, it would be on the 45N-1. You can extend the standard out to 300mm without going too far out in front of the base plate.

[Drew Wiley]

... and you would be enjoying the jiggly bouncy experience of bunji jumping right on your own camera front standard. A new definition of "moving pictures" in the mind of the image maker, perhaps?

[grat]

That would be a _still not wise_.

What part of "I [...] think it's a bad idea" wasn't clear?

There are those who would be tempted to push the limits by finding a way to install a 500mm f5.5 Tele Xenar in a compound#5 shutter on that 45N-1.
Possible to mount that 500mm f5.5 tele xenar on the 45N-1, likely. Useable, possible, good set up.. all in the mind of the image maker.

No, I'm afraid that won't work. The rear of the Tele-Xenar is 86mm, and the opening in the 45N-1's standard is only 84m...

For the sake of argument, yes, you could remove the rear cell from the shutter, mount the lens board, remove the bellows, attach the rear cell, reattach the bellows.... And then, using the extra threaded holes in the bed, you could screw in some form of Y shaped brace to hold the front of the lens and take load off the front standard, and you could get some form of mounting bar with diagonals to place across the bottom of the camera to distribute weight, and you could, in effect, bolt the Chamonix onto the lens, and engineer the load in such a way that you're really attaching the lens to the tripod.

I've got a 120-400 f/4.5 zoom for my "small format" camera that you literally attach the lens to the tripod, and mount the camera like a lens cap.

Is it a good idea? Again-- no. Would I do it for a once-in-a-lifetime shot? Maybe? But I'm unlikely to own the lens, since it would be silly to put it on such a lightweight camera.

All I was pointing out, with my original somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment, is that because of the way the 45H-1 and the 45N-1 are designed and built, you can push the limits of the 45N-1 a bit farther. The Chamonix cameras, because of their composite construction, really are fantastically strong little cameras. I haven't tried to break mine, but the base plate is reassuringly sturdy, and the rear standard is mounted on long L-shaped brackets with large knurled knobs holding them to the base plate. The front standard is made of what appears to be pretty heavy gauge anodized aluminum.

My current "long" lens is a 210mm f/5.6 Caltar-S II, and it weighs 1/3 of what the tele-xenar does-- and slightly more than 1/3 of what the camera weighs.

[Bernice Loui]

Bernice

No, I'm afraid that won't work. The rear of the Tele-Xenar is 86mm, and the opening in the 45N-1's standard is only 84m...

[Corran]

I think obviously a tophat lensboard for such a lens is an even worse idea.

I've used a big 300mm f/5.6 Plasmat on my Chamonix with no issues (here in the south with extreme wind a rarity). I definitely prefer my Nikkor-M 300mm though for my type of images/locations .