• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

benefits/drawbacks of tele lenses


Yes... but in this case I was mentioning Depth related to the spatial depiction/sense of an image, rather than DOF. The way we use perspective...
 
Last edited:
Upon due consideration, I think before I go with a 300mm tele, I'm going to try a 250mm normal lens. I'm looking at the Fujinon W 250mm f6.3. They are surprisingly cheap, unless I limit myself to the last, CM version, and even those aren't too expensive. I know there are 5.6s in similar focal lengths, but I'd like to avoid Copal 3 shutters (or any other shutters with a slow top speed) if possible.
 

You always can crop a bit to get with the 250 the same framing/perspective than with the 300, with a sharp film and that fine lens you may not notice any image quality degradation, still cropping or not cropping can be a religion matter.


abruzzi said:
but I'd like to avoid Copal 3 shutters (or any other shutters with a slow top speed) if possible.
Click to expand...

It's always nice to avoid large shutters, but "top speed" it's usually not used, and better if avoided because it's usually less exact, if not using a shutter tester to know how it works.
 
PD: One of the Tele-Xenars is not a tele design, Apo-Tele-Xenar Compact 350mm f/11 is a Dialyte.
 
Last edited:
The nice thing about the Nikon 360mm tele, is it's lighter-weight Copal 1 shutter. 360mm non-tele lenses almost invariably have Copal 3 shutters and can be very heavy. (Even a 355mm G-Claron weighs a little more than the Nikon.) Moreover, a tele's shorter flange focal length might to help reduce vibrations.
 
Well, there is an even better alternative to the 355 GC which is in a lightwt no.1 shutter - the Fuji 360 A. One of my favorite lenses for both 8X10 and 4x5. But they can be hard to find.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register