Long Lens Discussion / Advice

[genotypewriter]

I know a guy who specializes in ultra-telephotography and he uses Apo Nikkor lenses on a
big Toyo 810G with a Nikon body mounted on the back, and the results are superior to what he got with either dedidcated Nikon lenses or Celestron telescopes.

I'm not quite a Nikon user but I've used some of their long lenses and they aren't bad. Hearing that lenses with massive image circles are better for the same focal lengths, is a bit difficult to figure out. When you say the results are superior, is it because of the movements?

[E. von Hoegh]

I'm not quite a Nikon user but I've used some of their long lenses and they aren't bad. Hearing that lenses with massive image circles are better for the same focal lengths, is a bit difficult to figure out. When you say the results are superior, is it because of the movements?

No. It's because the Apo Nikkors are better lenses. They don't have "massive" image circles if you look at their angle of coverage specs, the large image circle is a function of the long focal length. The lenses cover 35 to 45 degrees.

Also, the Nikkor lenses for 35mm are telephoto designs, there are tradeoffs.

[genotypewriter]

No. It's because the Apo Nikkors are better lenses.

I guess they can have better correction since they're relatively slow at around f/9.

They don't have "massive" image circles if you look at their angle of coverage specs, the large image circle is a function of the long focal length. The lenses cover 35 to 45 degrees.

I meant "massive" when compared to 35mm tele lenses.

They certainly sound interesting, if diffraction doesn't get in the way.

Also, the Nikkor lenses for 35mm are telephoto designs, there are tradeoffs.

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't all the telephoto vs. non-telephoto pros and cons established when the format size is the same? My Canon 200/2 tele on 35mm is sharper and cleaner at f/2 than my Xenotar 150 is at 2.8 (same central area) and the Xenotar 150 is considered one of the sharpest on LF.

[E. von Hoegh]

I guess they can have better correction since they're relatively slow at around f/9.

They're f:9 because they have better correction. Same reason they have less coverage.


I meant "massive" when compared to 35mm tele lenses.

They certainly sound interesting, if diffraction doesn't get in the way.

Diffraction is the same for all lenses.


Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't all the telephoto vs. non-telephoto pros and cons established when the format size is the same? My Canon 200/2 tele on 35mm is sharper and cleaner at f/2 than my Xenotar 150 is at 2.8 (same central area) and the Xenotar 150 is considered one of the sharpest on LF.

I don't have any experience with Canon lenses, the newer teles with low dispersion glass are very good though. Same with the Xenotar, no experience.I never heard it was particularly sharp, or otherwise.

[adam satushek]

So it sounds like I need to do some research on barrel and process lenses...in the 600, 800, and 1200mm range, and preferably multicoated ones. Also, need to research Sinar copal shutters. Seems like the cheapest option.

Is it the general consensus that standard lenses are sharper than telephoto designed ones? In terms of what will cover 8x10 and allow for decent movements?

[Jim Becia]

Adam,

I use a Fuji 600C on my Ebony RW8x10. This is a double extension camera, so by the time I rack out the bellows, it is out there and prone to wind. That being said, I have had virtually no bad images from vibration of the copal 3 shutter or the wind as long as I take my time and work carefully. I find it a great lens with the 8x10, I only wish my arms were about two inches longer! I have never used a "telephoto" design but I do know that I like the perspective of the Fuji 600C and it is one sharp lens. Jim

[Drew Wiley]

A long Apo Nikkor will still throw a huge image circle, so it needs to be very well shaded
for smaller formats (incl 4X5); but in such cases you are using only the center of the lens,
and they're damn well corrected to begin with.

[adam satushek]

Adam,

I use a Fuji 600C on my Ebony RW8x10. This is a double extension camera, so by the time I rack out the bellows, it is out there and prone to wind. That being said, I have had virtually no bad images from vibration of the copal 3 shutter or the wind as long as I take my time and work carefully. I find it a great lens with the 8x10, I only wish my arms were about two inches longer! I have never used a "telephoto" design but I do know that I like the perspective of the Fuji 600C and it is one sharp lens. Jim

Thanks Jim, yeah I have been looking at that lens and it seems like a great option. And I could hold off on the Sinar shutter at least until I decide if I need something longer or not.

Yeah and thanks again Drew, I currently use a second Sinar bellows as a compendium shade, but have considered snagging a Sinar bellows mask 2 to use in addition the the bellows and my multipurpose standard, seems like it could be a good idea. The only problem will being able to reach all the way up there to adjust the flaps while viewing the GG....but I guess that is a decent problem to have.

Thanks!

[Drew Wiley]

Jim - using something like a 600C on a relatively solid 8X10 wooden folder is a completely different ballgame than using it at the end of a long monorail extension with the front std
itself up on rods. And this particular lens is exceptionally light for its focal lengths. Some 3
shutters are worse than others in this respect. And with 4X5 you obviously need more
enlargement than 8X10. Even with my 8X10 Phillips, which is reknowned for its stability,
I need to be very carful with wind with a 600mm extension. Your Ebony is also at the top
of the food chain for stability. With Sinar, you'd need the P system plus two rail clamps
to get that kind of stability, but you'd be up to some serious weight at that point.

[Hermes07]

So it sounds like I need to do some research on barrel and process lenses...in the 600, 800, and 1200mm range, and preferably multicoated ones. Also, need to research Sinar copal shutters. Seems like the cheapest option.

Is it the general consensus that standard lenses are sharper than telephoto designed ones? In terms of what will cover 8x10 and allow for decent movements?

I wouldn't get too caught up in multicoating. As far as I know (and someone will probably correct me here), the only process lenses that were multicoated were the latest APO Ronars. I use some monster process lenses from the thirties that are completely uncoated and the quality is still superb. A coated lens like a Red Dot Artar or an APO Nikkor will certainly not let you down.

I think telephoto lenses are being underestimated a bit also. Perhaps the Nikkors / Fujinons don't give you much of an image circle but that's not necessarily the case with all telephotos. I have a Dallmeyer 1500mm f/8 that I shoot 16x20 with comfortably, even though it is listed as a lens for 8x10. If you're working near the infinity side of things rather than the 1:1 side, I wouldn't hesitate to reach for a tele lens. Length/weight and the hindrance to using movements with the front standard are the biggest negatives for telephoto lenses in my book.