Hi FG,
For portrait length, I have a 500mm f:6.9 with an 880mm image circle.
The next option is 335mm f:5.6 with a 510mm circle.
I'd consider 335mm to be too short for portrait work, but that's your choice.
Reinhold
Here's a summary of my current offerings, plus a drawing of the general configuration:
The old rule of thumb when developing film was that one 8x10 film was the equivalent to one 36 exposure roll of 35mm film. A lazy parallelism would be that one 20x24 would equal six 35 exposure rolls of 35mm film. Izzat close enuff, or are you going to force me into breaking out my slide rule?... (If I can find it...)
Reinhold
Hello Kurt,
Some time ago, I made a drawing which extrapolates the data in a nomograph I found in a Kodak Technical Handbook.
Using the traditioal rule of thumb which suggest that a "normal" lens focal length is about the same as the diagonal of the film, a "normal" lens for 11x14 would be about 450mm.
By the Kodak data, 450mm would be considered a "short normal" (120mm on a 4x5).
I use a 450 on my 8x20 Canham as a "short normal" lens. (8x20 diagonal is the same as 11x14)
By Kodak, 600mm is closer to a tru "normal" for 11x14 and 8x20. (165mm on a 4x5)
I use a 600mm on my 8x20 as a "normal normal" lens.
By Kodak data, "moderate telephoto" would be in the 760 to 850mm range. (200~210mm on a 4x5)
I use a 760mm Rodenstock Apo-Ronar as my "moderate telephoto" lens on my 8x20.
My .pdf graphic may be a bit hard to read, I made the lines and text too small, but here it is four your edification...
Oh, and if you're asking if I have a lens for sale, that 760 Apo-Ronar is available here:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Reinhold
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?