Off the beaten path: 35mm telephoto lenses adapted to 645

[MMfoto]

I've occasionally seen 300mm and longer lenses designed for 135 that have been adapted to 6x4.5. These are mostly vintage lenses. Are there any modern (late 70's and newer) 300mm to 600mm lenses that are known to have extra large image circles? Or, true telephoto lenses that don't cover larger formats but might if the lens head was adapted to a wider aperture barrel? I'm interested for covering the whole film area at middle distances for portraits, and covering a cropped 2:1 (6x3 cm) area at infinity. The existing options are gargantuan, and I don't mind some light falloff and softer edges.

I'm aware of most of the existing medium format options. I have the Mamiya APO 200/2.8. The 300/2.8 is interesting. But I'm curious about some of these 300, 400, and 600mm f/4 lenses from Canon and Nikon, etc.

 

[Ian Grant]

The Schneider 360mm f5.5 Tele Xenar is a lens that covers 7"x5" it was also sold for MF cameras and 35mm. The CZJ 300mm f4 Sonaar was sold for 6x6 and was also sold for 35mm cameras, There will be many others.

Ian

 

[MMfoto]

The Schneider option is interesting. Their lenses from that age seem to have enormous image circles.

The one I'm most curious about is the Ai-S Nikkor 600/4 IF ED. It looks like all of the optical elements are forward of the tube behind the helicoid. It looks like that tube section could be replace and only the aperture would be lost, which could be replaced or omitted, while retianing the focus helicoid. But would require tearing one down to see if the tube itself is vignetting the image circle much.

 

[DavidRM]

Look at the Novoflex Schnellschussobjektiv. There were different heads, from 200mm to 640mm. All relatively simple, most are 2-lens achromats. So not the most modern designs, but good enough for long focal lengths and with big circles of illumination. Would be up to you to see if sharpness etc. is good enough off-center. Some were even made for 6x6. But the modular construction should make them pretty easy to adapt to any camera with built-in shutter. They are also pretty cheap.

 

[xkaes]

You're very unlikely to find any lenses that were designed for the 35mm format that will even come close to covering any 120 format -- except for shift & tilt lenses that are designed with larger image circles. Manufacturers have to keep the costs of their lenses low because of competition. Creating larger image circles is not cheap.

 

[itsdoable]

The early Nikkor 4/135 for 35mm was also used on the Bronica S. I have a Leitz Telyt 4/200 that is modified for Hasselblad V. And the Pentacon 4/300 was sold for both 35mm and 6x6. There are several others that can be used for both 35mm and 6x6.

The issue with 35mm long lenses is the mount and tube are small, and the nodal point is a long ways from the focal plane, so the tube causes vignetting. The Nikkor 4/135 was repackaged for Bronica. The Leitz Telyt 4/200 was for use on a visoflex, so the optics are separate from the tube. The Pentacon 4/300 was built for 6x6, so the 35mm version was just very big.

The optics for many long lenses for 35mm cover 6x6, but you usually need to re-package them into a larger barrel to allow the image circle to reach the film. IF lenses less so becasue the internal focus element and compensator are the limiting factors on image circle.

 

[MMfoto]

The early Nikkor 4/135 for 35mm was also used on the Bronica S. I have a Leitz Telyt 4/200 that is modified for Hasselblad V. And the Pentacon 4/300 was sold for both 35mm and 6x6. There are several others that can be used for both 35mm and 6x6.

The issue with 35mm long lenses is the mount and tube are small, and the nodal point is a long ways from the focal plane, so the tube causes vignetting. The Nikkor 4/135 was repackaged for Bronica. The Leitz Telyt 4/200 was for use on a visoflex, so the optics are separate from the tube. The Pentacon 4/300 was built for 6x6, so the 35mm version was just very big.

The optics for many long lenses for 35mm cover 6x6, but you usually need to re-package them into a larger barrel to allow the image circle to reach the film. IF lenses less so becasue the internal focus element and compensator are the limiting factors on image circle.

Your username certainly checks out!

Very interesting abou the Bronica Nikkor. I assumed that was an entirely different version of the 135.

How does your 200mm Telyt do on the Hasselblad?

I have the Pentacon 300mm, old and new, Zeiss and Meyer versions. They really are all beasts, especially the Meyer and the old version of the Zeiss. Huge image circles, even for 6x6 lenses.

Thanks for the tip about internal focus. That makes a lot of sense.

 

[MMfoto]

You're very unlikely to find any lenses that were designed for the 35mm format that will even come close to covering any 120 format -- except for shift & tilt lenses that are designed with larger image circles. Manufacturers have to keep the costs of their lenses low because of competition. Creating larger image circles is not cheap.

I don't know, and you could be right. But I always thought oversized image circles were actually a sort of cost saving measure. I *believe* it's easier to make a large image circle and then just crop out the central sweet spot for a small format than it is to make an optic that is uniform across the entire imaging area. But I'm no expert.

 

[MMfoto]

Look at the Novoflex Schnellschussobjektiv. There were different heads, from 200mm to 640mm. All relatively simple, most are 2-lens achromats. So not the most modern designs, but good enough for long focal lengths and with big circles of illumination. Would be up to you to see if sharpness etc. is good enough off-center. Some were even made for 6x6. But the modular construction should make them pretty easy to adapt to any camera with built-in shutter. They are also pretty cheap.

I will! Good idea. The Novoflex along with the Scheider f5.5 lenses mentioned above are not too expensive to give a try. Definitely not modern designs, but interesting and worth a look.

 

[reddesert]

The early Nikkor 4/135 for 35mm was also used on the Bronica S.

I'm not here to disagree that long lenses for 35mm can cover 6x4.5 - it would depend on the lens design and the baffling. However, I feel like discussing this aspect. I have seen a few versions of this 35mm-Nikkor 135 to Bronica-S-Nikkor 135 claim, that seem dubious. Your version is slightly different, so I wonder if there's some different evidence or different lenses being discussed.

There was a Nikkor-Q 135mm/4 lens for rangefinders: https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/RF-Nikkor/RF135mm/index.htm
This lens is quite rare and was replaced by a Nikkor-Q 135/3.5: https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/RF-Nikkor/RF135mm/index1.htm
The rangefinder 135/3.5 is known to be a Sonnar type lens, and I suspect the 135/4 was also, but I've never seen one of the f/4. mir.com.my has a lens diagram of the 135/3.5, source unstated, first figure below.

There was also a Nikkor-Q 135/3.5 for the Bronica S, S2, etc. This lens is clearly a 4-element Tessar from the lens diagram, second figure below which I've reproduced below from some Bronica S literature. This makes sense for covering 6x6, because the Tessar-based design usually has somewhat more coverage than a Sonnar design at the same focal length. That's one reason we typically see Sonnars used for short-ish telephotos and the occasional 50mm rangefinder lens on 35mm (probably not good for a 50mm SLR lens due to mirror clearance).

So, I don't think the design was re-used, unless there is some earlier 135mm for Bronica that I don't know about. I also have had both of these 135/3.5 lenses (they are easy to find) and IIRC the glass elements and reflections are clearly different. That said, if you could dismount the rangefinder 135 mm lens head from the mount and hold it in front of a 645 camera, it might cover the format at least adequately for portraits. Covering 6x4.5 (about 70mm diagonal) is not a huge ask for a 135mm lens.

Rangefinder lens, above.

Bronica S 6x6 lens, above.

 

[abruzzi]

The Nikkor-Q 25cm ƒ4 built for the 6x6 Bronica line (S, S2, S2A, EC, EC-TL, etc.) came from a LTM lens Nikkor made. I don't know how good it is on a 35mm frame, but its considered one of the worst MF lenses made, unless you like swirly bokeh.

The Unique Nikon Nikkor-Q 25CM f/4 for Bronica S2/S2A

Most people will never see, hold, or use the Bronica S2A's Nikon Nikkor-Q 25CM f/4 lens. In fact, Tony Hilton's authoritative Bronica S2A book "Bronica: The Early History and Definitive Collector's Guide" lists only five known copies.

emulsive.org

 

[xkaes]

I don't know, and you could be right. But I always thought oversized image circles were actually a sort of cost saving measure. I *believe* it's easier to make a large image circle and then just crop out the central sweet spot for a small format than it is to make an optic that is uniform across the entire imaging area. But I'm no expert.

You bring up an important point. Any lens can be made to have a larger image circle -- but it costs more because more glass has to be used. The other problem is that the image quality drops off the farther away from the lens axis. So you might find a 35mm lens that covers a 120 film format, but the quality of the edges of the image might be worthless. Compare the prices of a regular 28mm f2.8 to a 28mm f2.8 T&S (which is designed to have a larger image circle). That will tell you everything.

It's the same thing with large format lenses that are designed to cover different film sizes. You can find a Fujinon 125mm lens designed to cover 4x5 film, and another designed to cover 8x10 film (because it has a larger image circle). The latter will cost you four times as much.