Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,585   Posts: 1,545,800   Online: 1134
      
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 64
  1. #21
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,339
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    It's not just the focal length, Stone - It's the image circle. That 300 C you picked up is a wonderful lens, esp for 4x5, but is a bit cramped on
    8x10 film (usable, but not to the degree of the 360's out there). I use a 360 Fuji A myself, but it's sure a pity if Schneider doesn't do periodic
    runs of their 350/11. The only common relatively compact thing out there is the 355 G-Claron, which is a solid performer, but in a big no.3 shutter. Likewise 14-inch dagors. Many 4x5 front standards won't support the big ordinary klunker plasmats at those kind of extensions. One really needs lighter lenses in no. 1 shutters.
    E. Von, it's about none of that, it's about it being a true telephoto, (takes less then 350mm bellows draw) because my bellows only goes to 325mm... So the 350 f/11 will work for me.
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,451
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    E. Von, it's about none of that, it's about it being a true telephoto, (takes less then 350mm bellows draw) because my bellows only goes to 325mm... So the 350 f/11 will work for me.
    It's not a telephoto, true or otherwise. It does however come with a short extension tube that may allow it to focus as close as say 15-20 feet with your bellows.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,604
    It might work at infinity, but without an even longer tophat extension, you'd probably have to rack out your base tilts both front and back to get enough draw for typical usage, or might have to resort to both tricks at the same time. Still ... if you can get your hands on one of these,
    good idea.

  4. #24
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,339
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    It's not a telephoto, true or otherwise. It does however come with a short extension tube that may allow it to focus as close as say 15-20 feet with your bellows.
    Why isn't it a true telephoto? I thought having shorter than focal length draw meant the node was far enough to be a true telephoto. I also think my fujinon 300mm f/8.5 C is a telephoto.
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,408
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    E. Von, it's about none of that, it's about it being a true telephoto, (takes less then 350mm bellows draw) because my bellows only goes to 325mm... So the 350 f/11 will work for me.
    Look here: https://www.schneideroptics.com/ecom...D=165&IID=7059, click on mechanical drawing.

    Data trumps marketing propaganda. It needs the tube accessory to be usable closer than infinity on your camera.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,451
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Why isn't it a true telephoto? I thought having shorter than focal length draw meant the node was far enough to be a true telephoto. I also think my fujinon 300mm f/8.5 C is a telephoto.
    Wow.

  7. #27
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,339
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Wow.
    Why? It's bellows draw is less than 280mm .... Why is that a WOW...
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  8. #28
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,339
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm View Post
    Look here: https://www.schneideroptics.com/ecom...D=165&IID=7059, click on mechanical drawing.

    Data trumps marketing propaganda. It needs the tube accessory to be usable closer than infinity on your camera.
    327 is also less than 350...I'm still confused...
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,451
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Why? It's bellows draw is less than 280mm .... Why is that a WOW...
    Because you are not distinguishing between flange focal distance, focal length, and bellows draw.

    Flange focal distance is the distance from the rear mounting surface of the lens (shutter in these cases) to the film plane, it is shorter than the focal length in the case of most all large format lenses.
    The bellows draw is just that - then you add the distance between the front of the lensboard and the optical node of the lens, unless the lens is telephoto or retrofocus (some WA LF lenses are somewhat retro-) and you come up with a number very close the the exact focal length of the lens.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,408
    Stone, there's telephoto and there's telephoto. The usual definition of a telephoto lens is a lens a front positive lens group and a rear negative lens group. These lenses have back focus or flange-to-film distance shorter than focal length. Many of the 6/4 double Gauss lenses sold as normal lenses on 35 mm still cameras are slightly telephoto, i.e., have back focus or flange-to-film distance slightly shorter than focal length; this is why when 35 mm SLRs first became popular many were offered with 58 mm "normal" lenses. That's the Apo-Tele-Xenar too. Telephoto, but not very. According to S. F. Ray, Apo-Tele-Xenars have telephoto powers (distance from front vertex to film at infinity/focal length) around 0.92. And as you can see, Schneider claims flange-to-film distance of 327.3 mm, back focus of 312 mm. Not that telephoto.

    There are telephoto lenses with back focus much shorter than focal length. The 12"/4 TTH telephoto sold for F95, F134 and F139 aerial cameras is an obscure lens that, according to the VM, just covers 4x5. I have one, sometimes use it on a 2x3 Speed Graphic. It is a fat thing, has to be mounted entirely in front of the camera's tiny front standard. It makes infinity with the front standard inside the box; I estimate its back focus as around 85 mm.

    As I said, there's telephoto and there's telephoto. As others have said, there's no doubt that the 350/11 Apo-Tele-Xenar is a very good lens.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin