Longer lens for Technika V - suggestions please

The longest lens I currently use on my Linhof Technika V is the

Schneider 250mm Tele-Arton.

 

But being a tele lens and having a very limited image circle, I

really need to upgrade it.

 

So I feel a non-tele design may be optimal for a variety of work from

very close to infinity images. Of course my belows extension will

limit that focal length - but how much I am not 100% sure.

 

So, I'm seeking suggestions from experienced users of longer lenses

on 4x5 cameras - say of 250mm to even 300/360mm (although at 360 I

feel sure I won't have enough extension for close focusing).

 

I prefer f5.6 to f8 for focus ease reasons. I also prefer a generous

image circle so that I can use much of the camera's movements.

 

I see various Fujinon and Nikor lenses seem to have generous image

circles (useable on 5x7 and even 8x10) with quite fast apertures of

6.x and 8 etc.

 

Obviously I'd prefer a #1 or #0 shutter; but, I'm not too fussed

about size / weight but would naturally prefer a more compact design

if possible, but I would not forego too much speed or image quality

for weight/size advantage. Much more than an f8 is a turn off for me.

 

Do you feel a tele design may be better for some reason?

 

My other lenses are Schneider Symmar-S MC and Grandagon-N MC lenses

which I think are superb - so an MC lens is preferable to me.

 

Thanks for your time and help.

The older Schneider 300 mm convertible vould be good as longer lens for you as this lens was designed for 8x10 and it vill give you a very large image circle wich you wishes! However some of the older lenses are uncoated! They are relativly cheap and there is some sells on ebay time to time! But they are a bit heavy! good sharp lenses I can promise you that as Im using both the 300 and the 360mm! The 360 symmar where designed for the size of 30x40 cm. the Symmar 300 is f5.6.

To focus on infinity with a regular lens you need an extension equal to the focal length of the lens. The equation for focusing at other distances is given near the top of the Lens Tutorial: http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/lensTutorial. (If you want to be exact for a particular lens, there are some refinements, which were discussed at http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FpvG.) A rough rule of thumb: to be able to focus regular (non-telephoto) lenses to reasonably close distances, you want 20 to 25% more extension than their focal lengths.

 

B&H gives the extension of the Master Technika Classic as 400 mm (plus a little extra if you use the back). If your Technika V is the same, the rule of thumb suggests a longest regular lens of about 300 mm.

 

Some excellent, compact and light lenses near 300 mm are the 300 mm Fuji-C and Nikkor-M, and the 305 mm G-Claron. You will find more comments on these lenses in the archives. All three get excellent reviews.

 

The f5.6 plasmats will be larger and heavier.

 

I've used the 300 mm f9 Nikkor-M and I don't find the max aperture to be a problem. In a long lens, the rays are arriving to the screen nearly straight on, so the view is brighter than it would be with a normal or wide angle lens.

 

The only advantage of a telephoto design is reduced extension, allowing the lens to be used on a camera that otherwise couldn't use that focal length, or focus it as close.

Simon,

 

if you need something longer than 250mm you should look for a 360mm Tele-Xenar or Tele-Arton or a 400mm tele-lens. These are big but you will not have to pull the extension beds out so far. If you want a non-tele-design you will need every mm of extension the Technika offers. I wouldn't suggest that with a lens that comes in a Compur 3 like Symmar etc. 300mm Apo-Ronar, 300mm Nikor-M or 300mm G-Claron are a better choice and come in Compur 1, the old 360mm Apo-Ronar can be found in Compur 2. But remember 300mm isn't that much longer than 250mm. If you want to make shots in the nearer distance a 270mm G-Claron might be the best choice.

"a non-tele design may be optimal for a variety of work from very close to infinity images."

 

For very close work, try a shorter lens, not a longer one. There is a glut of Polaroid MP lenses with shutters out there. With the shorter lens you will have more than enough coverage and better DOF.

Since Simon already has some shorter focal length lenses, I don't see any reason for "very close" distance performance to be a criterion in his selection of a long lens. Unless he selects another telephoto, he isn't going to be able to focus very close, and frequently telephotos perform poorly at very close distances. For very close distances, he can use one of the lenses that he already has. He can work out how close he can focus with the equation in the Lens Tutorial.

 

Assuming a maximum extension of 400 mm, a 300 mm len can be focused to 1200 mm = 1.2 m. (The rear nodal point of a rear lens is likely to be in front of the lens board, which will allow slightly closer focusing.)

 

The Nikkor-M is multi-coated. Current Fuji-Cs are multi-coated; I don't remember if there are any single coated ones, I don't think so. All G-Clarons are single-coated. I use a 270 G-Claron and have never noticed the difference.

The longest lens I have is the Xenar 360mm in a compound shutter. It works fine with my Tec III and with the extension ring that it came with (about 20mm extension), the bellows draw isn't bad at all... even when doing close ups. The only real downfall to the Xenar's is that they aren't multi coated so you will have to be aware of flare but I always shoot with a longer than usual shade.

I've used a Technika V and a Master Technika for about 12 years. Assuming your bellows has full flexibility it will extend to just a tad beyond 15 inches (if you go that far or anywhere near it be sure to mount your camera using the tripod mount under the bed rather than the one under the back). One extra inch of extension beyond the lens focal length will allow you to focus as close as about 10 feet, which isn't bad considering the fact that you're unlikely to be using a lens this long for close-ups. So if you wanted to stretch your lens choice to the absolute limit you could use a 14 inch lens or approximately 350mm.

 

As a practical matter I'm not sure there are any 350mm lenses for 4x5 and even if there are I like a little more flexibility than that so the longest lens I use is a 300mm Nikon in a Copal 1 shutter, a very small (for its focal length), very nice lens. While you probably won't be doing close-ups with a long lens there still are occasions when you want to include something close to the camera in the foreground so it's nice to have a little more than one inch of margin. The Nikon is an F9 but with a lens in the 300mm and up range the size of the maximum aperture isn't critical, you'll get plenty of light on the ground glass with a 300mm or longer F9 lens. The Nikon is multi-coated but I've used quite a few single and even uncoated lenses and the coating really isn't a big deal with 4x5. Multicoating was big breakthrough in 35mm because it allowed lens designers to make zoom lenses (which require a bunch of glass to air surfaces) but for 4x5 I haven't found multicoating to be especially important. If you're willing to accept single coating then the 305mm F9 G Claron would become an option and it might be less expensive than the Nikon (which may only be available used now that Nikon is getting out of the film camera business).

 

A tele design is better only if the longest normal lens you can use isn't long enough for you. Then a 400mm or longer tele becomes an option. I used a 400mm Fuji tele and it did a pretty good job I thought. Of course that particular lens new is quite expensive, I believe I paid about $1200 for mine seven or eight years ago.

The Rodenstock Apo-Ronar 300mm/9 is a popular choice for the Technika. It is quite small and gives very good results with 4x5" without stopping down much. It will give you a very sharp image up to 5x7" so there is room for camera movements. It will illuminate much larger than 5x7".

 

Newer Apo-Ronars have Multi-Coating. The lens is discontinued, but not so hard to find. A lot of them were made.

I might add that the 6-element Gauss-type lenses like the (Apo-)Symmar and (Apo-)Sironar in the 300mm focal length are quite a severe chunk of glass and overkill for 4x5". They are designed for 8x10" cameras as you know. I don't think you would want to carry that around with your Technika.

 

The Apo-Ronar or Apo-Artar lenses will give you practically the same performance for 4x5" but as far as I know, are small enough so you can close the camera while the lens is in place.

Simon, how are you going to support you camera with a 360mm

lens, so that it does not vibrate during the exposure?

You will find out that it is a more important question than that

related to the long focal lens!

Many thanks to all of you for you fantastic responses - so much to take in and so many excellent suggestions for me to look at closely to decide on a "longer lens"!

 

So, I'll read this properly tonight and let you know what conclusion I come to.

 

I'm as ever very grateful to the LF forum members who always reply with such knowledgeable responses and a wealth of experience so constructively provided - I make this point because I shoot MF and 35mm and sometimes those forums' responses are unfortunately punctuated by the occasional acidic comment. Never here from my experience.

 

Specifically, I'm grateful for the "classic" older lens options suggested as well as the more current options suggested. The comment about stability is very much in my focus - I use (when the occasion makes it an issue) a very heavy and beautifuly balanced braced Manfrotto tripod and the head I always use whatever tripod I take is the robust geared 410 Manfrotto.

 

Maybe my conclusion will be to get the faster older lens although single coated and use it with a hood for use when weight is not an issue (and maybe a benefit in B&W as such lenses so often give beautifully graduated tones and lower contrast); and get the modern slower MC lens option when weight and size are an issue (and colour benefits from more contrast) - possibly the best of both worlds

 

Stay tuned and thanks again.

i use Fujinon Tele 400mm f8 on Master 2000, it's OK and has reach the limit of bellow. Of course, Tele 600mm can still be used but won't ve any much bellow extension left.

Since Simon asked for lenses up to 360 mm, I looked at the telephotos. It surprised me that the coverage wasn't that much better than his 250 mm telephoto. I guessed (incorrectly) that they would have about the same angular coverage and thus a circle of coverage proportionally larger from the longer focal length.

 

Schneider specs the 250 mm Tele-Arton to cover 41.6 degrees / 190 mm diameter (http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/large_format_lenses/tele-arton/). Nikon specs their 360 mm Nikkor-T to cover 33 degrees / 210 mm diameter. Fuji their 400 mm telephoto to cover 31 degrees / 220 mm diameter. The increase in diameter of coverage is useful, but not that large.

 

Both of these would focus to reasonable distances. The 360 Nikkor-T has a Flange Focal distance of 261 mm, the 400 mm Fuji a FFD of 252 mm.

 

 

P.S. The Symmars, Sironars, Nikkor-Ws, Fuji-Ws, etc. are plasmat type designs. Double-gauss derivatives are less common in LF lenses: Planars and Xenotars. See A History of the Photographic Lens by Rudolf Kingslake.

Many thanks to you all again. I carefully read everyone's comments - they are a huge help. Now I'll look around for various versions and try a few out and buy one.

 

Michael as always you've really helped a great deal. Re my Tele-Arton, I personally think the coverage is more like 170mm - only just enough for 4x5. When I've shot with a 6x12 roll film back I can only get a mm or two in movements! Serious limitation as 90% of the images I make need some movement even if minor. Otherwise it's a very nice lens (and a "like new" example) so I'll keep it anyway at this stage.

 

I'll start trying to find Fuji versions from 300-360 bearing in mind the bellows limitations - likely to end up buying 300mm. I like fuji's "German-like" tonality and imaging very much - for me the closest to the Leica, Schneider, Rodenstock and Zeiss traits that I prefer and are now my 35, MF and LF optics.

 

As one poster commented the German lens offerings at this focal length are limited.

 

Others' tips for me to consider are gratefully acknowledged. And I'll read Michael's links too.

 

Regards to all - take more pictures!