Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,568   Posts: 1,545,435   Online: 1065
      
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 64
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,447
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    327 is also less than 350...I'm still confused...
    It means the optical node of the lens is 23mm in front of the rear mounting surface of the shutter. That's all.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    The highest state
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,917
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    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.
    It does not come with it, you have to order it separately, about $85 I think. I know I can get down to about 8 feet and change at full extension of the bellows on the 45N2, 395mm.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,601
    That 300C lens you have isn't telephoto at all, Stone. It's a four-element airspaced dialyte optimized for use at inifinity, just like the entire C
    series. And you need 300mm of bellows extension at infinity focus, and more closer up. The 350/11 Schneider marginally fits into a telephoto category, but not by the typical definition of that term - it's just very slightly "telephoto".

  4. #34
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,338
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    That 300C lens you have isn't telephoto at all, Stone. It's a four-element airspaced dialyte optimized for use at inifinity, just like the entire C
    series. And you need 300mm of bellows extension at infinity focus, and more closer up. The 350/11 Schneider marginally fits into a telephoto category, but not by the typical definition of that term - it's just very slightly "telephoto".
    I don't know what it says on paper, but what you're saying doesn't line up with what I'm capable of using it for, I just used it on the scene that was a 50 feet away, and I wasn't even half way to the total distance my bellows extend (which is 325mm) so... I don't know what to say except you're incorrect...my bellows were extended to 284 inches... Infinity was less than that.
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,407
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    I don't know what it says on paper, but what you're saying doesn't line up with what I'm capable of using it for, I just used it on the scene that was a 50 feet away, and I wasn't even half way to the total distance my bellows extend (which is 325mm) so... I don't know what to say except you're incorrect...my bellows were extended to 284 inches... Infinity was less than that.
    Drew, Stone has the advantage on us, he has the lens and can measure. What he reports isn't, as I understand what he said, exactly consistent with the 300 C's published flange-focal distance (see http://www.ebonycamera.com/articles/lenses.html, 282.3 mm) but the published distance is usefully shorter than 325 mm.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,601
    What on earth have you been smokin' this time, Stone? I'll overlook your substitution of inches for millimeters. But the close the subject matter, the longer the extension you'll need beyond the nodal focal length. And when I state that this series of lenses is optimized for infinity,it doesn't imply any degredation of performance at relatively close range. Once you start heading into macro territory, however, there are better choices. Lots of the Fuji brochures are full of typos. But in general, lenses don't always exactly equate to their marketed NOMINAL focal
    lengths. There's nothing telephoto-design about the C series at all. I shoot them all the time myself.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,601
    ... and you're certain you purchased a 300C? "C" stands for "compact". These are lightweight little flat things, with just four lens elements.
    They did make a 300T (true telephoto) as well, which is distinctly more tube-shaped. And their 360T is not shabby at all, though not equal
    to something like a 360A in terms of image circle, close-range performance, or sheer sharpness.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,601
    OOps, sorry... my own typo this time. Fuji's true teles ran 300,400, and 600. It was Schneider who once had a 360 true tele, poorly color-corrected, then an improved expensive version, both prior to the semi-tele 350.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,601
    OK.. so I just checked an official Fuji brochure/data sheet. The 300C has a flange focal length of 282 mm - which simply is simply rounded to
    300mm for marketing. That hardly qualifies it as even remotely telephoto. Better make sure you're not using a Rubbermaid tape rule, Stone ... you know, those things you just stretch to get the marks wherever you want them.

  10. #40
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,338
    Images
    225
    Sorry about the inches thing, the 284 came from me converting "11.2 inches" into mm ... It could have been 11.1 or 11.3, it was dark and I didn't need it to be EXACT to calculate for exposure with reciprocity, just that it was slightly past 11 inches...

    And the distance to subject wasn't exact either, but I know the difference between 25 feet, 50 feet, 100 feet infinity... And it was certainly in the 50 foot range... Someone who owns this I THINK told me it would focus to like 16 feet on my camera (which they own a copy of both) but I want to try it out myself soon, just keep shooting at night and prefer longer night images.

    And yes I'm sure Drew...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1387344476.512256.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	116.9 KB 
ID:	78594
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

Page 4 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