cameron_ertman Posted September 24, 1999 Share Posted September 24, 1999 Andreas Fieninger once made an extreme telephoto lense for his camera. His objective was to shoot an extremely compressed image of the New York skyline. I am also interested in compressed effects. I know that there are adapters for hooking 35mm cameras to telescopes, and spotting scopes. Is there any such adapter for medium format cameras? I use Hasselblad equipment, and mainly, black and white film. Thank you in advance for any help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameron_ertman Posted September 24, 1999 Author Share Posted September 24, 1999 Yes, I can usually spell(lense should read lens)!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_hughes Posted September 24, 1999 Share Posted September 24, 1999 Some telescopes can be adapted for use on cameras, but they generally do not give very good results--they cannot be stopped down, and, of course, they do not have shutters, which, unless you have a focal-plane model, would be a serious problem. You would be *much* better off with a telephoto lens made specifically for the Hasselblad, as expensive as it might be. If you are determined, check out the ads in amateur astronomy magazines, such as Sky & Telescope. They might help you track down a suitable adapter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_rasmussen Posted September 25, 1999 Share Posted September 25, 1999 I looked into this several years ago for my Pentax 6x7. I called a number of refractor telescope producers and they said that the image circle was too small to fill the frame, that is unless I was interested in their 5 inch model and that was super expensive. I also looked into using the famous Ritchey-Chretien Cassegrain, with its two aspherical mirrors. It can be done, but again, very expensive. I have seen pictures shot with both Celestron Schmidts and large refractors using the Pentax 67 but no other MF camera. Meade and Celestron might be good places to start looking/calling. SR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_drew3 Posted September 27, 1999 Share Posted September 27, 1999 Several ways to do this, but not great results unless great effort and some expense are applied. Hasselblad adapters are available at a pricey cost and you wait if not in stock. Most small telescopes adapt readily to 35mm, but MF would require a 2 inch focus tube to even get close to covering the format. It'$ not unusual to find 2" or 4" diameter adapters for MF cameras on telescopes, however. www.lumicon.com and others offer adapters at $300 US to start. I've seen AstroPhysics out of Rockford IL offer adapters for Hasselblad at under $1000 to fit their beautifully made astrographs. Pentax 67 adapters usually are less, why - I don't know. Properly made telescopes do image astronomical objects nicely, whereas photographic telephotos usually are expected to have higher resolution and contrast because we are dealing with film versus human eye. Usually astronomers are using MF cameras to get more image on bigger film compared to 35mm. Working with multiple 6x7cm or 6x6cm images of the same object photographed over time are then sandwiched and printed. Gonzo resolution and color! For your skyline idea, I'm not so sure a telescope would be a good choice. But then, I'm sure you've thought of trying a more conventional approach and then scrunched in Photoshop or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominique_cesari Posted September 29, 1999 Share Posted September 29, 1999 Lumicon solds adapter for Hasselblad (and some other MF) to fit on their giant easy-guider, which mounts on 11 and 14 inches telescopes (Meade or Celestron). Most users in astronomy use Pentax 6x7 because it is inexpensive, has a shutter (mechanical as far as I know) and therefore adaptators exist. With a small diameter of focusing unit, (like 8 inches telescopes ) you will not cover all the frame of 6x6. Spotting scopes will give a center round. If you use reflectors like the Schmidt Cassegrain I mentionned, you also will have to operate with a field flattener. That said, I find hard enough to have clear pictures with a 350 mm and 2x converter (long exposures, vibrations ...) to avoid telescopes for conventionnal pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_drew3 Posted September 29, 1999 Share Posted September 29, 1999 Dominique's pointers are good. I had forgotten some of the details. Here is another detail: camera & lens support(s) with probable counter balancing weights. Depending on your 'scope, a second tripod may be necessary. Calm days are a plus! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1ev Posted November 3, 2000 Share Posted November 3, 2000 <body>This question interested me also and specially for medium format. Imade some tests with spotting scopes in 35 mm and the results where disappointing:vignetting, very soft image and low contrast. But I think I found a nicerefractor for medium format: The Takahashi FSQ-106. It's a 530 mm f5 fourelements (2 made out of fluorite) and with built in field flatterer. Ithas a 4" focuser and can even illuminate a 4x5 with some vignetting. Ihadn't the possibility to try it now, but all reports from many high demandingastrophotographer agree about the excellent optic. I also think it's theonly affordable (<10'000$) and transportable (<30 kg) telescope capablefor 6x7 without vignetting. The FSQ is about 3'500$ and weight 6 kg.<p>Here a few interesting info about the scope:<p><a href="http://www.skypub.com/resources/testreports/telescopes/0004takfsq.html">Testreview</a> from Sky & Telescope<p>Info at Anacorte <a href="http://www.buytelescopes.com/product_details.asp?pNumber=1971#moreInfo">here</a>and <a href="http://63.169.124.2/Takahashi/takahashi_fsq_106.htm">here</a>.<p>Special adapter exist from Takahashi for the Pentax P67II.<p>Colin<br> </body> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameron_ertman Posted November 3, 2000 Author Share Posted November 3, 2000 Thank you for the responses. In the end, I went with a used Hasselblad 500mm APO, and a couple of converters. I can get a fairly extreme telephoto effect when I combine the 500mm with the 1.4X plus the 2X converter from Hasselblad (I end up with a 1400mm F22 lens). This is quite a slow combination; however, I can offset that speed with faster film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_goldfarb Posted November 3, 2000 Share Posted November 3, 2000 I wonder if it might not be better to use a large format lens on a custom barrel with a bellows (maybe something like a Novoflex, which has ready made adapters for the camera end, and a screw mount at the lens end) for focusing for this purpose--something like the Nikkor 1200mm T-ED or even a big process lens (Goerz Artars go up to 42" I think)--rather than piling up teleconverters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameron_ertman Posted November 4, 2000 Author Share Posted November 4, 2000 David, I would imagine that the quality would be better with that combination; however, it's going to end up pretty long. One thing nice about the APO lens is that it has internal focusing so that the length of the lens remains constant throughout its focusing range. The lens also has a tripod mount which allowed me to make a special, solid plate that attaches to the lens, and camera making the whole outfit quite solid. You could definitely get a longer lens by going with the other outfit, which would make for some interesting super tele-effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1ev Posted November 4, 2000 Share Posted November 4, 2000 If you want to reach ultra long tele, you can also use a good (or very good) refractor and eyepiece projection, giving you almost unlimited possibilities. I've seen a picture of the moon taken with the Takahashi FSQ-106 and eyepiece projection (also special eyepiece from Takahashi) made with a pentax P67. The configuration was something like 5000 mm f45 and the picture just blows my mind with its sharpness and details, no color shift or error at the border of the moon. I think with good technique it could give good results for terrestrial use. A 5000 mm must give some interesting flat perspective. Colin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
struan_gray Posted November 6, 2000 Share Posted November 6, 2000 I have an antique Zeiss wide-field refractor (off the top of my head: a 1000 mm f8) and have played around with an 18" Wray process lens on a cardboard tube. The Zeiss is better for eyepeice projection, in which the lens is essentially only used on-axis where it is diffraction limited wide-open and, despite its age, is well-corrected for longitudinal colour. When used in prime focus (i.e. no eyepiece) the process lens is much better because it has a flat field. I would expect the same relationship between process lenses and astronomical objectives to hold true with modern lenses since their design parameters haven't changed much. You can get an excellent long process lens on the used market for a couple of hundred dollars, a good wide field refractor will cost you at least a couple of thousand, so the cheapest way into MF long lens work is a process lens on a drainpipe. Exposures will be long enough that you can use a hat, lenscap or your Hasselblad's auxiliary shutter to control the exposure. That said, the telescope has one further advantage in that the tubular structure is already aligned so that the lenses and the film plane are all perpendicular to the optic axis - with a homemade jury rig this can be hard and frustrating to achieve. In practice the camera support is almost as important as the lens. A good telescope mount or the sort of fluid head used for video work is better than most photographic heads, which can flex badly with the large torques created by the long lever arm of the telescope tube. Cheap solutions with good vibration performance include bean bags or a wide-diameter PVC pipe with a pair of V-notches cut in the end. Did anyone else see the wonderful photo used in an advert in a recent Economist? It showed three photographers with monster lenses: one had a 35 mm with what what I guessed was a Novoflex follow-focus lens; the second had a Hasselblad with a 500mm; and the third put the others to shame with a gi-stonking 4x5 camera with what looked like a rocket launcher on the front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tak_ming_leung Posted October 17, 2001 Share Posted October 17, 2001 I once used a Pentax 67 body coupled with a Borg (a Japanese manufacturer of refractor telescopes for astronomical purposes) 125mm/6.4 ED refractor to shoot the Statue of Liberty from the south side of Manhattan with some interesting results. The combo does need very solid support but it worked surprisingly well in my project. The Borg optics are well-corrected and provide 6X7 cm coverage with little vignetting. Images through the telescope appear upside down, of course. I bought the telescope in Japan for around $2100 new, which is not too bad of a deal considering it now serves as a dual-purpose instrument for me day and night. My Japanese friends have also used Pentax SDHF series ED refractors and astrographs to shoot distant landscapes. Also come to mind are Takahashi FSQ Fluorite refractor (as mentioned above), Takahashi FCT-series refractors and some AstroPhysics APO refractors. The most cost-effective solution appears to be the Borgs though IMHO. Frank Leung Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now