Long Lens Discussion / Advice

[adam satushek]

Hi all, I have been running into an issue recently where I find myself needing longer and longer lenses to get the framing and spatial relationships I want. I’m just wondering if anyone else has had this happen? I know there was a fairly recent thread questioning whether preferring longer lenses is a function of aging which I found interesting. At the moment I was unable to locate it. I also wanted a conversation that was geared toward the practicality of shooting long lenses in the field and opinions on the specific long lenses that people use and prefer. Also, how long of lenses you all are able to shoot successfully in the field?

Just a bit of background, my first 4x5 had a 5 ½ inch lens, it was great and I didn’t feel like I needed anything else. When I upgraded my camera I got a 135mm and again thought that was all I’d ever need….however after a while I ended up with a 90mm and 210mm which both saw lots of use. This was a very nice kit and again I thought I was set for life. However, I got a 300mm because I got and 8x10 and needed a lens that would cover….I still shot mostly 4x5 at the time, and ended up using the 300mm on 4x5 quite a bit. Eventually, I revamped my 4x5 lens kit, which is now 90mm, 120mm, 150mm, 210mm, 300mm, and 450mm.
The thing that confuses me is that every time I get a longer lens my lens use shifts toward the longer end of my range, to the point where I seem to use the 90mm like once or twice a year at the most, and use my 210mm, 300mm, and 450mm all the time. And I have been running into situations recently where I cannot physically get close enough, or if I can the composition is ruined because the spatial relationships change too much, even with the 450mm. And since I have been shifting more and more to 8x10 this tendency for longer lenses is compounded. I feel like I could really use a 600mm/800mm convertible, and something like a 1200mm, and that I would use them all the time on 4x5 and 8x10. Now those lenses are not only ridiculously expensive (which eliminates them as possibilities for now), but also even in telephoto design require a lot of extension, and since I shoot in the field this is a potential issue.

Sorry for the long post, but to summarize….

Do others find themselves requiring longer and longer lenses to get the compositions they see?

And if so, what long and or telephoto lenses that cover 8x10 with some movements do you recommend for use in the field?

Lastly, how do you mitigate the ‘sail’ effect of 8x10 bellows at extension in the wind? I have a pretty solid setup…but still worry about this. I have heard of the umbrella trick and need to get one to try it out…I really wish I had had one this last Saturday.

Anyway…sorry again for the long post…and I apologize if this has all been covered to death before.

[Daniel Stone]

I'm at the airport righty now and responding from my phone, so please excuse any misspellings .

I've found that having a very stable, heavy platform to shoot from which to shoot greatly helps with wettability when using longer lenses. Personally I decided to change cameras when I find my artistic vision required the use of longer lenses. I used to use a Kodak Master 8x10(KMV), but when used at full extension (~30in or so), I found it want the most stable of platforms in even slightly breezy conditions. I now use a Calumet C-1(the black beast I call it ), and despite it bring heavy, an d not as ” pretty” as a Deardorff or KMV, I think it much more stable.

Now onto lenses:

Personally, I use both a 24” Red-Dot Artar and a 30” of the same type. Both are extremely sharp, and render subtle details with great clarity and tremendous sharpness. Both cover 8x10 with gobs of movement potential in all directions. More than my camera has capable to it! I contact print 8x10 b/w and drum scan my 8x10 transparencies, and to put it bluntly, I've found lens ”nirvana” now .

There is lots of more information available here in the prior threads, so happy reading!

Dan

[Drew Wiley]

The mechanical problem with very long view lenses is that they can get pretty heavy and
have large vibration-prone shutters. You might need two tripods to support your rig, or one
very heavy one with a struts with two rail mounts, in case you use a monorail camera.
I like working with the Fuji 450C when I need reach with the 4X5. It doubles as my "normal"
lens with 8x10. But the longest thing I currently have for 8x10 is the 600C. When you get
way out there, intervening atmospheric effects often blunt the advantage of the bigger
format, and it's faster and cheaper to use 4X5. I have always liked a long perspective.

[adam satushek]

Thanks Daniel and Drew for your responses thus far! For the record, my setup is fairy solid, its an F2 (8x10 and 4x5) on a Gitzo giant that weighs almost 20lbs. That being said, even slight breezes make me nervous.... even with just the 450mm on 8x10, its do able but I feel like I have to be very careful. That's a very good point about atmospheric effects.....I hadn't thought about that.

[Drew Wiley]

Adam - my F2 setup did wonderful with up to 450, but not with the 600C in terms of
handling vibrations. I've reconfigured my system with Norma components, but have yet to
test it with the 600. Here on the coast the wind is incessant much of the year. I've even
had my entire 8x10 with big Ries tripod lifted up and tossed by gusts (luckily, I caught the
camera before it landed!). I just get good at timing the shots. Hard winds this past weekend up on the ridges, but all my long shots look very crisp after dev. It helps to have
a really solid tripod like the Ries, and I never use a tripod head for this kind of work - the
camera bed or Sinar rail mount - whatever - goes right onto the tripod platform. Wish I had
the extra money to put some of my long Apo-Nikkors in shutter. With the 4x5 Sinar setup
I use a Horseman 28 inch bellows - no need for an intermediate support.

[Hermes07]

First of all, if the compositions you want really require long lenses then don't try to talk yourself out of it on paper - there's always a way to make it happen and the only way to tell if it's workable and worth the sacrifices for you is to try it. My preference is for very long lenses/compressed views, and if one day I decide they are too inconvenient, I will switch to a smaller format rather than use too short a lens.

You shoot with a Sinar which is a very good start - Obviously you can add as many rails, intermediate standards and bellows extensions as you want. You can also use the Sinar Copal shutter which opens up a lot of doors in terms of lens choice.
I have quite a bit of experience with shooting the longest lenses on Sinars and believe me, you want to be using two tripods. I don't shoot on mountain tops so I can't tell you how the rig hold up under extreme winds, but the occasions I've used my Norma or P setups outdoors they have worked well enough. I keep the bellows as tight as possible and make sure all the gears and movements are locked down before making an exposure. I've used lighting umbrellas as wind breaks a few times when the conditions have been bad and they do help.

Lens-wise, it's a pretty straight choice between using modern, telephoto lenses in shutter designed for 4x5 / 8x10, or considering the much wider range of lenses in barrel (including telephoto designs) with a behind the lens shutter. Personally I went the latter route as there are far more options and greater coverage on offer. The Red Dot Artars are excellent choices as mentioned. They will all fit onto a standard Sinar board, right up to 1200mm. There are also APO Nikkors, APO Germinars, APO Tessars, APO Ronars, e.t.c. and although I don't have experience with every single lens in all the ranges, as long as you stay away from the biggest aperture/focal-length combos (f/9 at 750mm+), I don't think you'll have too much trouble mounting them or using them with the Sinar shutter. There are also older telephoto designs which are much cheaper and will give you brighter max apertures than the modern Nikkors and Fujinons, but they tend to be front-heavy and in many cases will require you to use a second standard to support the front of the lens. There are far too many to list but if you're considering them, let me know what focal length you're after and I'll try to give you some names.

[John Kasaian]

A 19" Artar is my longest 8x10 lens and gets used quite a bit. I fear a 24" is just too heavy for the poor old girl. I often think I'd like to play with a telescope with a 4x5 attached to it for really long shots but actually doing this on my budget seems challenging at best.

[BrianShaw]

For 4x5 I stopped at 300mm and certainly won't get anything longer. I'd rather crop if I need to... or walk closer.

[Dan Fromm]

Here http://www.cnngo.com/hong-kong/play/...olidori-257129 is Robert Polidori using two Manfrotto 244N Variable Friction Magic Arms with attachments that fasten his camera's rail to two of his tripod's legs. This approach is slightly less cumbersome than using two tripods. I've shot a 2x3 Graflex RB Ser. B with a 610 Apo-Nikkor in front using a single 244N etc. with no stability problems. Used the RB's focal plane shutter on "I" and mirror slap had no or minimal effect.

[Drew Wiley]

A cheap trick, though not ideal, is a 6X9 roll film back. I experimented with a Horseman back last autumn on a very stormy long trip in the high
Sierra. With a very fine long-scale film (Efke 25), all of a sudden your
300 lens behaves like a 450 on 4X5, you 450 like a 600 etc. Less bellows
draw means less vibration and likely also a lighter lens on the front. I'm
not terribly fond of roll film because every tiny blemish in the film itself or
enlarging carrier looks like the Goodyear blimp in the sky. But when you
really want reach up in the mtns, the optical results seem better than a
telephoto, and way better than a med format SLR (much lighter wt too).