Schneider 350mm F/11 Apo-Tele-Xenar....

[StoneNYC]

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.

 

[Dan Fromm]

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/ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=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.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

 

[StoneNYC]

Wow.

Why? It's bellows draw is less than 280mm .... Why is that a WOW...

 

[StoneNYC]

Look here: https://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=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...

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

 

[Dan Fromm]

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.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

 

[PKM-25]

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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".

 

[StoneNYC]

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.

 

[Dan Fromm]

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 Dead Link Removed, 282.3 mm) but the published distance is usefully shorter than 325 mm.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

... 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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[StoneNYC]

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...

 

[DREW WILEY]

So Stone, what you learned is just what I said. As you approach infinity, you're getting close to that published 282mm flange focal length,
depending on exactly how you measure things. And that has simply been rounded to 300mm for marketing purposes, something common with
lens manufacturers. Closer up, you'll need more bellows extension. It's still a standard dialyte design and not a telephoto in any sense. But it is a damn nice lens.

 

[StoneNYC]

So Stone, what you learned is just what I said. As you approach infinity, you're getting close to that published 282mm flange focal length,
depending on exactly how you measure things. And that has simply been rounded to 300mm for marketing purposes, something common with
lens manufacturers. Closer up, you'll need more bellows extension. It's still a standard dialyte design and not a telephoto in any sense. But it is a damn nice lens.

You aggravate me....

Here... Cause I actually back my shit up....

Closest I could focus... See image and circle of area in focus



Ground glass... Reversed for easy viewing...



Ruler....



Close up...



That's damn close....

 

[StoneNYC]

Second... At infinity...



GG (reversed for easy viewing)



Ruler...



Close up



Ok??

10 inches at infinity....exactly 254mm....

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Give up, Stone. It's been explained to you several times by several people. Your measurement appears inaccurate, BTW. You should measure from the front of the lensboard -without the lens - to the inside surface of the GG. This measurement would giive you the flange focus, not the focal length. You need to look up and understand the difference between these two terms, you will then be less confused. Drew might refresh his memory as well...

 

[Alan Gales]

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.

Oh Drew, you're talking about one of those rulers men use to measure Mr. Happy.

 

[DREW WILEY]

In this case the difference between the nodal point and the flange is relatively minor, so even measuring from the lensboard to the film plane
should make it apparent that telephoto design is not in fact in play. And that's all that this nonsense is about. The official specs are published;
so Stone should argue with Fuji and not us. But a floppy cloth tape????

 

[E. von Hoegh]

In this case the difference between the nodal point and the flange is relatively minor, so even measuring from the lensboard to the film plane
should make it apparent that telephoto design is not in fact in play. And that's all that this nonsense is about. The official specs are published;
so Stone should argue with Fuji and not us. But a floppy cloth tape????

But still, the distinction is important. Stone would rather argue than learn what flange focus, focal length, and telephoto mean.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I just didn't want to confuse him with yet another detail. Maybe I was a little too quick on the draw with that cloth tape comment too, but that's inevitable since right at this moment my head is eighteen inches from a whole cabinet of Starrett machinist's rules (which I happen to sell here, among many other especially nice tools- my office is literally a vault).