600mm/24" for 11x14

Discussion in 'Ultra Large Format Cameras and Accessories' started by Mike A, Jun 22, 2006.

  1. Mike A

    Mike A Member

    Messages:
    324
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    Yorkville, I
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    Can I get a few recomendation's for a lens in the 600mm range for my 11x14.

    I'll be using it for landscape and various forms of architecture. A shutter will probaly not be a necessity due to the light I usualy shoot in, I'm not overly concerned about weight but I would like the largest coverage possible.

    Thanks,
    Mike A
     
  2. pelerin

    pelerin Member

    Messages:
    343
    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    600mm apo-nikkor would fit the bill nicely.
    Celac.
     
  3. Donsta

    Donsta Member

    Messages:
    145
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    24 inch RD Artar is an inexpensive option which shouldn't be too difficult to find. If you needed a shutter, the Fujinon 600mm C is an excellent option too.
     
  4. jimgalli

    jimgalli Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,571
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Tonopah Neva
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    Uncommon but fabulous is the Voigtlander APO Skopar f9. Heliar design and just gorgeous. Coated of course.
     
  5. TheFlyingCamera

    TheFlyingCamera Membership Council Council

    Messages:
    9,546
    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Location:
    Washington DC
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  6. jp80874

    jp80874 Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,494
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Location:
    Bath, OH 442
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    Mike,

    As you know I am pretty new to ULF, about 14 sheets of 7x17 shot and developed. I have used a Fuji 600mm C rarely on my 8x10 the two years I have owned it. I have been pleased with my results, but would hardly call it a test. Following is commentary on your question that I found valuable. Hope it is the same for you. I am certainly concerned about what Bill Glickman says. I have no experience with him and would like to know more about how he came to those conclusions. Maybe he will respond or we can contact him. Hope this is useful. I’ve included URLs at the end of each section so you can read the whole thread if you wish. Good luck. I am interested to know what you decided. You are certainly welcome to try my 600mm Fuji C when we get together. On the other hand Dick Arnetz has the least costly solution.

    John Powers

    Sandy King , jan 20, 2003; 02:45 p.m.
    There was a symmetrical Apo-Nikkor lens but this was the f/11 design, similar to the G-Claron wide-angle. The f/9 Apo-Nikkor, which is by far the most common lens that we see with this name, is not of the same design as the Artar and G-Claron. It is a modified tessar design, with five elements in three groups, unlike the common tessar which consists of four elements in three groups, and is decidedly non-symmetrical. The Artar and Apo-Ronar, on the other hand, consist of four elements in four groups and are almost, if not perfectly, symmetrical.
    I have three large format Nikkors, a 420mm Apo-Nikkor, a 600mm Apo-Nikkor, and a 450mm Nikkor-M. The performance of these lenses in terms of coverage is so different that I strongly believe they are not of similar design. All three have a very large circle of illumination but the Nikkor-M is the only one of the three that improves substantially all the way to the edge of the field when stopped down to f/45 or f/64. The other two improve some but performance at the edges is not good enough even when the goal is contact printing. For example, I regularly use the 450mm Nikkor-M as a wide angle for the 20X24 format, stopped down to f/45 or more, while the 600mm Apo-Nikkor does not come close to providing acceptable coverage this format, even when stopped down.
    To the best of my knowledge the Nikkor-M is a true tessar design, in contrast to the Apo-Nikkor. I am not familiar with the 450mm Apo-Nikkor and it is possible that it is similar in design to the newer Nikkor-M. You could perhaps figure out the design by looking at the lens and counting the number of elements.
    Sandy King http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004O81

    Paul Schilliger
    is the Fujinon 600mm C f11,5 sharp and good?
    Something interesting that I learned recently about Fuji lenses is that Fuji use s only separate elements in their lens design, no glue is used. This results in more vibrant and sharp images. I h ad made some lens testing between Fujinon C and Apo-Ronar sometimes ago and I saw that Fujinons are virtually free from any chromatic aberration (as well as other aberrations). This does however not concern the Fujinon T series.

    Bill Glickman
    is the Fujinon 600mm C f11,5 sharp and good?
    I have been using this lens for the past 2 years. The lens is excellent provided you follow a few basic premises... You must stabilize the camera, as camera shake is quite often confused with soft lenses. Secondly, you can not use this lens wider than f22, but f32 is preferred and f45 is still equal or better than f22. It is only optimized at these apt. f16 produces terrible results in my experience, so its a very very slow lens. It's quite compact considering its fl.
    http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=4988

    kthalmann 11-07-2005, 01:00 PM
    I'm considering moving up to 7x17 and have a question about lenses longer than 600mm/24" on this format. This is not the typical question about what lenses are available (I am familiar with the options) and how much they cover. It is a question about actual usage. Specifically, for all you 7x17 shooters, do you use a lens longer than 600mm/24" on this format. And if so, how often?

    The reason I ask, is maximum bellows draw is one of the main considerations when purchasing a 7x17 camera. For me personally, camera weight is also an issue. I realize no 7x17 is going to be ultralight, but I'm not eager to carry more weight than necessary unless I really need it. I already own a 600mm Fujinon C, which is longer than normal on 7x17. If that ends up as my longest lens for 7x17, I can get by with a lightweight camera with a fairly short bellows. For anything longer, I start to get into heavier, bulkier, more expensive cameras and bigger and bulkier lenses that need a sturdy front standard to support them at full extension.

    Sanking 11-07-2005, 02:55 PM
    Kerry,
    I have a 30" Red Dot Artar but don't use it very much in this part (southeast USA) of the world. When I travel in the west, with large vistas, I tend to use it a lot more, both with 7X17 and 12X20. I also owned a 42" Red Dot Artar in a Compound #5 but it was really too heavy for my cameras (7X17 and 12X20 Canhams) and I rarely took it out of the case it so I sold it to a friend who hopefully will make better use of it.

    By and large most ULF users tend to prefer the aesthetics of wide angles. This has many practical advantages advantages as well since depth of field is such a difficult issue with longer lenses. The longest lens that Dick Arentz uses on his 12X20 F&S is a 450mm Nikkor.

    Sandy
    http://www.apug.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-21263.html
     
  7. Mike A

    Mike A Member

    Messages:
    324
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    Yorkville, I
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    Thanks John very informative, I'll give you a shout when I get my mind made up and a few more dollars hidden in the coffee can.

    Mike
     
  8. John Kasaian

    John Kasaian Member

    Messages:
    1,030
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2002
    Another vote for the 24" Artar.
     
  9. User Removed

    User Removed Guest

    Messages:
    1,298
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Shooter:
    Plastic Cameras
    I've been using my friends Fujinon-C 600mm lens on my 11x14 camera for the past week and absolutly feel in love with it. I highly suggest this lens, over all others that were said. I had a APO-Germonar 600mm and returned it because I did not like it.

    The Fujinon-C 600mm is a rather rare lens to find use, but they run about 1,400 brand new. They are only going to go up in price as well.

    Last month I saw a beat-up old Fujinon-C 600mm lens sell on Ebay for pennies cheeper then it is new. It was not mint and was also in a old dirty shutter.

    So...you know what lens my vote goes for. I'm going to pick one up for myself as soon as I can afford it.
     
  10. Curt

    Curt Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,560
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Location:
    Pacific Nort
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    How much bellows do you have on your camera?

    Curt
     
  11. sanking

    sanking Member

    Messages:
    4,813
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Location:
    Greenville,
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    BTW, I am going to offer for sell my 600mm Fujinon-C on ebay soon, unless someone here is interested. I lost my mind and bought a 550mm XXL and won't really need the Fujinon any more.

    It is a great lens, in Mint condition in a black Copal #3 shutter working perfectly. Multi-coated and covers 12X20 with lots of movement. Contact me if interested.

    Sandy
     
  12. Michael Mutmansky

    Michael Mutmansky Member

    Messages:
    345
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Sacramento
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    Sandy,

    You didn't lose you mind, but possibly most of your marbles.

    The 550XXL is a large lens, so for real light travel, a 600C may still be worthwhile to have in the stable. Depending on the format you are using, you may never really need the awesome coverage of the 550XXL on the smaller ULF formats. For your large camera, the 550XXL is the way to go, but for 7x17, it's a bit harder to justify because it has so much extra coverage. It's not unlike using a 150 or 210 SS XL on 4x5 (which some people do, BTW).

    That said, I would recommend to Mike that the 600C is possibly the best lightweight option out there, especially if having the lens in a shutter is desired. I wouldn't be without it when in the field with the 7x17.


    ---Michael
     
  13. Mike A

    Mike A Member

    Messages:
    324
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    Yorkville, I
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    I'm resigned to the Fuji everyone that uses it seems to like it. Although I have my eye on a rodenstock Ronar for sale but I think this beast is way to big.
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. argus

    argus Member

    Messages:
    2,146
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Up to 480mm the APO Ronars are quite compact and light lenses, less than 1Kg. Anything bigger is way too heavy.

    G
     
  16. sanking

    sanking Member

    Messages:
    4,813
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Location:
    Greenville,
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Michael,

    Yes, I did have to use up a lot of marbles to get the 550 mm XXL. So many of them that I feel compelled to sell off a bit of equipment, including the 600mm Fujinon-C. It is a great lens but I still have a 450 Nikkor M and a 750 mm Red Dot Artar so I should be able to do without it.

    BTW, I had another look at your article on the 550 XXL in View Camera. Where did you get the information about the adjustment of the Dagor design to give better coverage on the corners? Is this information that Schneider has published somewhere or did you obtain it directly by disucssion with Schneider? If the information is available somewhere on the net please direct me to it.

    Sandy
     
  17. Michael Mutmansky

    Michael Mutmansky Member

    Messages:
    345
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Sacramento
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    Sandy,

    The information came from an engineer at Schneider. From my understanding, they basically revisited the optical formula and cell spacing to improve performance across the field.

    As you know, it is possible with some (possibly many) optical formulas to improve center performance at the expense of corner performance and vice-versa. This is essentially my understanding of at least part of what they did. They also have much more precise grinding and centering capabilities now, which should show up in improved performance as well, in addition to improved sample-to-sample consistancy.

    It's possible that many older Dagors were geared toward center performance due to the requirements of the lenses in their original design intent. The XXL is intended for what you will be using it for, so they probably did not compromise the corners in favor of the center.

    This is exactly what happened with the G Claron line about a decade ago. I was told that Schneider made a decision to adjust the spacing of the shutter mounted G Clarons to improve corner sharpness in response to the use of these lenses by ULF shooters. They recognized that the in-shutter lenses were not being used for copy work and that the center performance is much less important at the very high level it was performing, while the corners were more important to be improved, so they made the change.

    There may be an oblique reference to the optical changes in the brochure that Schneider has on their site. I don't recall what it says, but I think there might have been a reference to the corner performance.

    Here's a hint on the lens, use it in stealth mode... the brass barrel pieces are a spun or machined cowling that is screwed onto the real barrel, which is black. You can probably lose a pound and a half or more by removing the brass pieces and using it without them. As far as I'm concerned, the brass seems a little out of place on a modern camera, unless it has a bordello-red bellows. It's a bit too showy for my taste.


    ---Michael
     
  18. sanking

    sanking Member

    Messages:
    4,813
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Location:
    Greenville,
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Michael,

    Thanks for the information. Do you know if Schnider has posted a cross section of the 550 XXL. I did not even know it was a modified Dagor design until I read your article in View Camera.

    That sounds like good news about the brass. I was thinking that the appearance of the lens was a little too retro. Glad to know I have the option of removing the brass and reducing the weight.

    Sandy
     
  19. Michael Mutmansky

    Michael Mutmansky Member

    Messages:
    345
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Sacramento
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
  20. sanking

    sanking Member

    Messages:
    4,813
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Location:
    Greenville,
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Michael,

    Thanks for the link.

    And BTW, I found your article in VC very interesting and informative. I had pretty much decided that this lens was not really something that would add much to my work with ULF, but some of your explanations and examples caused me to see otherwise.
     
  21. Michael Mutmansky

    Michael Mutmansky Member

    Messages:
    345
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Sacramento
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    Sandy,

    I hope that this lens is the start of a whole line. I could certainly see a 210 and 300mm lenses fitting in nicely, and there are many, many people out there that would be able to take advantage of lenses in these focal lengths, from 8x10 on up.

    Frankly, I'm surprised a Chinese manufacturer has not jumped on board with a reintroduction of WA Dagor designs to meet the LF/ULF market, especially considering the very high value the Zeiss WA dagors go for on ebay. Maybe someone should talk Arax into making a batch of Computars or something similar.


    ---Michael
     
  22. Ole

    Ole Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    9,281
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Location:
    Bergen, Norw
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    I'm a happy owner of a 210mm Angulon, and would be very happy if someone were to make a 300mm version. I wouldn't even mind if they dropped the aperture to f:9 to make it fit in a (standard) shutter.

    On the other hand: With contact prints being the end result, even a 300mm WA Aplanat would work great for 12x16". At least my 150mm covers 9.5x12"...
     
  23. sanking

    sanking Member

    Messages:
    4,813
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Location:
    Greenville,
    Shooter:
    Large Format

    Michael,

    Actually, there is a person who has made contact at the engineering level with Rodenstock in an effort to get them to look at the feasibility of producing a lens similar to the Computar. Talking to Arax might be a better idea as they would probably have more incentive to produce a lens of this type.

    BTW, I sure would like to do a comparison test of the Zeiss WA Dagor and the Computar. Anyone out there willing to entrust your precious WA Dagor to me in either 8.25", 9.5", 10.75" or 12" focal length a couple of weeks to do the tests?

    Sandy
     
  24. Michael Mutmansky

    Michael Mutmansky Member

    Messages:
    345
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Sacramento
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    Sandy,

    The Zeiss WA dagors will cover more than the Computar, if the 150mm version is any indication. The computar will maybe hit the corners of 8x10, but the Zeiss will cover 10x12 with a little room. I can't say how the performance is for them because I haven't use them. Longer focal lenghts will probably vary in coverage.

    The Computars suffer from field curvature terribly in the outer limits of coverage, but I suspect that a slight modification to the design could correct that nicely and make a great design for ULF shooters. It's possible to have good sharpness out towards the edges with these lenses, but not at the same time as the center.

    I think Rodenstock would probably be the last company I'd be talking to about something like this. Too big. I'd be working on an eastern european or asian company that is much smaller. I used to think Cooke might be a good match, but they aren't interested unless it's a multi-kilobuck lens.

    Sure would be nice to have some options.
     
  25. Mike A

    Mike A Member

    Messages:
    324
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    Yorkville, I
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    I was just considering my choices in the 300mm range for 11x14 since my 305 Claron does not always give me the movement I would like. My conclusion is for a quality lens in excellent to mint condition I'm looking at a subtantial investment.

    Investing in said lens isn't as cut and dry as picking the one I need in 600mm. With wide angle vintage lenses there are many variables it seems, the year it was made, the company that made the lens at that certain time period and than changed names and ellement combonations........its enough to make the pope say *&#!!!

    I've wondered aloud why they don't make an, oh lets say 300XL with loads of movement, mind you this is just a laymen babbleing to himself as I vignett another neg. I don't mind gett'n off my wallet for a piece of equiptment that I know will work and is a quality instrument, I just hate to roll the dice on a shiny antique that cost that much.
     
  26. roodpe

    roodpe Member

    Messages:
    61
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format

    Michael,

    The Zeiss 150mm f9 dagor would not cover 10x12 based on my experience with other focal lengths of this design. The 180mm covers 8x10 with movement and probably 10x12 based on the range of movements I get. I have a 75mm version that just makes 4x5 stopped down so I would assume the 150mm just covers 8x10. My 210mm covers 11x14. Maybe there is some variance between lenses and some cover more than others.

    I do agree with you and Sandy that there is a market for this design. I would suggest that if you are serious about pursuing a manufacturer, then you're best bet would be Cooke Optics. I talked with their lens designer a little over a year ago and he said they were looking at the possibility of reintroducing modern designs of their wide angle series VIIb. He told me they used modern coatings and exotic glass (lanthanum) for the new triple covertible lens. I am sure they could surpass the performance of the f9 dagors with a modern re-design of the VIIb. I can't remember their designers name but I am sure this could be brought to Barbara Lowry's attention to see if they have any interest.

    Peter