Barnack medium telephoto work: great Photogs; your photos

[karlin]

I have an old elmar 90 from the 1930's. I love it.

iiif
elmar 90
trix


img320 by ophir segal, on Flickr

 

[bluesun267]

The term "long focus" for any lens is a new one to me

 

[Phil_F_NM]

The term "long focus" for any lens is a new one to me

"Telephoto" has come to be understood as anything longer than a normal, but to be correct, it actually means the physical length of the lens itself is shorter than the focal length. So if you had a Canon 100mm rangefinder lens, it is a long focus or long focal length lens, not a telephoto, because the actual focal length or optical center of the lens is within the lens itself, about 100mm away from the film plane. In a telephoto lens, the optical center is moved in front of the lens, making it telecentric, and allowing the lens to be shorter.

So really, there are few, if any "telephoto" lenses made for the LTM mount, so none of the prominent photographers out there used them.

Phil Forrest

 

[maryland_fotos]

Here's a couple examples with a Leica II and Nikkor 10.5cm f 2.5 PC

000232200025 by Maryland Photos, on Flickr

Smiles by Maryland Photos, on Flickr

 

[David Murphy]

Ok, I know this is cheating a little bit since this was taken with a Kilfitt 400/5.6, but using a Sears Tower 48, which is a Barnack - but it's fun to see what such retro tech is capable of! This was taken tripod mounted at 1/200, F5.6, using Kodak Gold 200. There were a few scanning issues yet to solve (I was using a new scanner and not quite familiar with its quirks at that time).

moon-killfit400nnf5.6 by davidociwedu, on Flickr​

 

[maryland_fotos]

That is impressive attempting such a shot with a barnack. I have been mulling taking astro pics with colour film (although with a Nikon F5). At 1/200s the moon moves quite a bit in a 400mm frame. But the bigger challenge is the noise. Is that level of noise apparent in the negative, or is it a scanning artifact.

 

[David Murphy]

That is impressive attempting such a shot with a barnack. I have been mulling taking astro pics with colour film (although with a Nikon F5). At 1/200s the moon moves quite a bit in a 400mm frame. But the bigger challenge is the noise. Is that level of noise apparent in the negative, or is it a scanning artifact.

I think the noise is at least partly a scanning artifact. The scanner I used for that negative often requires overscanning to beat down it's "read noise" (electronic noise) and I didn't use it on that scan. I have a newer scanner which is cleaner and faster in that regard, so I'll try rescanning those negatives, or maybe shoot some more. A shutter speed of 1/200 will easily freeze the Moon's apparent motion with a 400mm focal length lens, but of course at somewhat longer exposures equatorial tracking is certainly desirable. Also the focus was not quite perfect as there was a slight interference in seating the Leica copy on the Kilfitt reflex housing (designed for true Leica bodies). I can remediate this the next time as well.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

"Telephoto" has come to be understood as anything longer than a normal, but to be correct, it actually means the physical length of the lens itself is shorter than the focal length. So if you had a Canon 100mm rangefinder lens, it is a long focus or long focal length lens, not a telephoto, because the actual focal length or optical center of the lens is within the lens itself, about 100mm away from the film plane. In a telephoto lens, the optical center is moved in front of the lens, making it telecentric, and allowing the lens to be shorter.

So really, there are few, if any "telephoto" lenses made for the LTM mount, so none of the prominent photographers out there used them.

Phil Forrest

Thank you, Phil.

The term "long focus" for any lens is a new one to me

See here for some fundamentals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-focus_lens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephoto_lens