Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Ultra Large Format Cameras and Accessories' started by Dave Wooten, Oct 28, 2007.
Any experience with the longer Artars?
32 inch and 48 inch or others?
The title has no bearing on the context
Probably great process lenses but while use-able as taking lenses they won't be as good as the manufacturers prime lenses until well stopped down, they are flat field lenses.
'art' has been used as jargon for artars (like wooly). I have a 19 inch red dot which I use as a taking lens and have found it to be excellent on the 8 x 10. Often I like the "look" better than that of my modern 450 Fugi C. Can t afford the Fine Art XXL lens , so thought maybe a long artar would suffice...need to cover 14 x 17.
The coverage of Artars is considered to be about 50 degrees or so at f/16 or f22. However, the image circle is quite a bit larger so if you stop down to f/45 or f/64 you should get acceptable performance for contact printing with a 24" Artar with the 14X17 format. With an Artar of 30" or more you should have more than enough for 14X17, even with some movements.
My quick and dirty rule of thumb has been that an Artars coverage will be just slightly larger in diameter than its focal length.
Problem is there is very little in the way of "prime" lenses in these focal lengths. In fact, there's nothing in "primes" longer than 550mm - assuming you consider the 550mm Fine Art XXL a prime. For modern plasmats, there's nothing longer than 480mm.
The only modern lenses this long are the Nikkor 600/800/1200 T-ED and Schneider 600/800 APO Tele-Xenar telephoto sets - which have a lot less coverage than non-telephoto designs of the same focal length - and the 600mm Fujinon C and 1100mm Schneider Fine Art XXL , which both happen to be Artar-type designs.
Even though they were optimized for 1:1, the Artars perform very, very well at infinity. Late shutter mounted Artars were even factory adjusted for smaller reproduction ratios (up to 20:1, depending on the focal length - the same as most modern "prime" lenses).
I was lucky enough to recently acquire a late model 42" Red Dot Artar in exceptional condition for about 15% of what a new 1100mm Fine Art XL would cost. I doubt if I'll be able to tell any difference in 14x17 contact prints - at least not $4000 worth.
nd in the 42" focal length the coverage is "more than I'll ever need". Even if I use the very conservative 46 degrees of coverage, the image circle comes out to over 900mm in the 42" focal length. That's enough to cover 20x24 with over 100mm to spare - and that's a conservative figure or this lens.
I guess it's one more to keep my eye out for then for this camera:
Right now, the 306 Componon covers 16x20, but my choices are pretty slim for 20x24 (which is why I haven't made a 20x24 back yet.)
That is a nice efficient design! congrats....I do nt see how the center extension board moves forward?
the focusing stage is leadscrew driver, similar to the Cahminox, though using full extension drawer slides instead of $$$$$ linear bearings, it's a scaled up design of my 8x10 field camera, more info here:
One thing about it, It sure does make my C1 look like a small 4x5!!!
Thanks, neat ideas, I had missed that post.
Of course you right but then one thing you can do now with the internet is find like minded people fairly easily.
It's interesting to see comments about the production runs of the recent Cooke LF lenses, and then remember Wisner & Golden Busch had lenses specially made too elsewhere.
Yes the Schneider Fine Art lenses are very expensive, but 50% of that is the dealers mark-up, and a few more percent is Schneider's sales & marketing costs.
So just as ULF users approach Ilford & Kodak for film it would be possible to approach a lens manufacturer to get a new ULF lens manufactured preferably based on one of their previous designs. It's a thought but Wisner etc managed it.
Ian, Michael Kadillak (spelling?) has been working along those lines, so far with no results fit to share. From which I conclude that although approach may be possible, a successful outcome -- a small run of affordable lenses that are good enough -- isn't easily obtained.
Rolyn Optics has some interesting offerings, with names that suggest they bought the designs from some of the demised European optics houses (Wray, Dallmeyer, Boyer). Their 'Copy' and 'Process' lenses include what must be dialytes (Apo-Ronars, Apo-Artars) but also lenses that may be Dagor clones.
I don't know what their minimum order would be, but if anyone is serious about 'getting a batch made to order' they would be worth contacting.
Struan, the relevant line though is "We handle several manufacturer's lines" which indicates they are agents.
My point earlier was that Cooke were producing lenses in double figure runs, rather than hundreds, its easier to get 80 or 90 like minded people together than a few hundred.
They do all sorts of stuff, and are more than just re-sellers. It's possible they just bought up the warehouse stock when Dallmeyer et al folded (in which case they may sell you a single lens but it's more likely they bought the rights to the designs and will farm out the manufacture when they get a suitable order.
I'm not interested enough to email them and find out. But then I lucked into a 19" Dagor at a stupidly-low price
PS: the point is, they will handle the management of the manufacture and testing of the lenses. In fact, that is exactly what they are good at.
Struan, Rolyn is a distributor, not a manufacturer. They have some "new old stock" lenses on hand, but not all of the ones listed on their site.
I've discussed buying a few Boyer lenses from Rolyn with John Ross, their president and, I think, owner, never did because the prices he quoted were far too high. If you try to buy from Rolyn, good luck.
I don't know when Wray qnd Dallmeyer folded, Boyer closed in 1982.
A nice/cheaper alternative to a 24" Artar is a 21 1/4" Ektanon. I have one in shutter and it actually has more coverage than the 24" Artar. It is razor sharp ( speaking in terms of a contact print of course)
That is a very correct statement Dan. The design is obtainable but domestic manufacture and proper assembly for a small lens offering I concluded was financially beyond the ULF market's ability to sustain production. Cutting corners to let the numbers work would compromise to many critical variables. Simple economics. After I finish the next TMY sheet film deal I want to investigate the Chinese option since that could be much more cost effective. Personally I would love to be able to say Made in the USA with a produced ULF lens, but when many of these home grown optical specialty companies are working with the government and our tax dollars it is a long hard pull all the way.
Robert, I have one also. Great lens for the 8x20. What shutter is yours in? Thanks.
Erie, very nice simple design. Gives me some ideas for the 11x14 I'm building. KISS is a good way to go. My next venture is to build my own bellows. Need to find the proper material and make a new one for my 5x7 and 8x10 cameras first and then I'll be ready for the 11x14. Do you use anything special. Thanks.
....Jim mine is in an Ilex 5
Robert, thanks. I thought that might be the one. Do you know if it is a direct fit. I think it is but I'm not sure.
Jim, I had Grimes mount it. It looks as though there are machined aluminum adapters on both elements. If you like I can photograph them and send it to you.
Robert, thanks for the offer but I don't have a shutter yet. More curious than anything. Thanks.