Red dot artar coverage

Discussion in 'Large Format Cameras and Accessories' started by bherg, Aug 21, 2006.

  1. bherg

    bherg Member

    Messages:
    89
    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Location:
    sweden
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Hello,

    I know i could google this question, like all other questions. But i seem to find a little to much diffrent answers than i want.

    Would a 16,5 inch Goerz Apochromat Red Dot Artar 9,5 cover 11x14? the add says it will cover 8x10 but i have heard that it should cover 11x14 is this correct? I was thinking that it would be a nice normal length lens.

    Cheers Johannes
     
  2. df cardwell

    df cardwell Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,341
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Location:
    Dearborn,Mic
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The 420 / 16 1/2 will not be usable on 11x14, wide open at infinity.

    Get closer, and stop down, and yes, it will work.

    A 480 / 19 " will be OK, wide open, at infinity.
     
  3. climbabout

    climbabout Member

    Messages:
    225
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Fairfield Co
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    According to the goerz info I have that lens throws a 420mm image circle good for 9x12.
    Climbabout
     
  4. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Member

    Messages:
    4,913
    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Location:
    Northern Aqu
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    You probably speak from experience, while I speak only from general principles, but shouldn't it cover 11 x 14 in even at infinity when stopped WAY down (f/64 or so)?

    I have no wish to argue with someone who almost certainly knows more than I about this but I should be olbliged if you would give me your opinion/ share your knowledge about this -- the more so as I am anout to fire up my 12x15 Gandolfi for the first time. Th4e 300/9 Nikkor just covers, with no movement, by about f/32.

    Cheers,

    Roger
     
  5. MarkS

    MarkS Member

    Messages:
    73
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    The Artar lenses are supposed to cover only 46 degrees. I wouldn't guess that a 420mm would cover at infinity- and many people report that the circle of *coverage* is larger than the circle of *sharpness*. Close up should be another story. The 300mm Nikkor-M, which unlike the Artar is a Tessar design, covers around 60 degrees.
     
  6. c6h6o3

    c6h6o3 Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2002
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Artars have lousy angle of coverage. On my 8x10 I get better coverage with my old 12" f6.3 Dagor (70-something degree angle of coverage) than I do with my 19" Red Dot Artar (40-something degree angle of coverage).
     
  7. Scott Peters

    Scott Peters Member

    Messages:
    360
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Location:
    Scottsdale,
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    My 16 1/2 artar covers 7 x 17 with some movement. Never had a problem. So.....
     
  8. bherg

    bherg Member

    Messages:
    89
    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Location:
    sweden
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    As i found searching google. Diffrent answers.

    And i would like it to cover on all stops, So this wouldnt be a good normal lens as i wished it would be.

    I will have to find something else.


    Cheers Johannes
     
  9. JG Motamedi

    JG Motamedi Member

    Messages:
    472
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2004
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    The circle of illumination of an Artar or any dialyte-type lens is actually quite large, however only about half of that circle is sharp. The size does not improve much with smaller apertures. My own experience is that a 16.5" Artar will cover 11x14, but with any movements the corners quickly turn to mush. A 19" Artar or the like will perform resonably well as a standard lens for 11x14 or 7x17, but a 24" would be ideal.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 22, 2006
  10. df cardwell

    df cardwell Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,341
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Location:
    Dearborn,Mic
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    An old guide was to choose a Dagor equal to the long dimension of your format,
    an Artar for the sum of the base and height. So, for 11x14, a 14" Dagor and 24" Artar would work very well. A 14" convertible Symmar would be a good choice.
     
  11. RobertP

    RobertP Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,130
    Joined:
    May 11, 2006
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    You may also want to consider a 21 1/4" Kodak Ektanon. It is also a dialyte-type lens and performs very nicely. A very sharp lens and it covers my 8x20 with movements. I know some will ask why would you spend 500.00 to put a 200.00 lens into shutter. But it is a great lens just as nice if not better than my Artars and 21 1/4" focal length would be a nice size for 11x14. It is also coated like the red dots. At least most of them are, depending on the age of the lens.
     
  12. df cardwell

    df cardwell Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,341
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Location:
    Dearborn,Mic
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    An EKTANON... yep. Great lens.

    Also, a Wollensak ... or Wray... Ross.... everybody made an Artar equiv. !
     
  13. Kameraman Craig

    Kameraman Craig Member

    Messages:
    4
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Artar coverage

    Johannes,
    I was curious as to the coverage of the 16-1/2 inch artar after reading your query, so I set up my 12 x 20 with my 16-1/2 inch artar lens and focussed at infinity. There was an image that appeared from corner to corner on the ground glass. The quality of the image at the corners was below the standard I want and I have no doubt that there is a significant light fall off.
    However, I know that the lens I have will project an image onto 11 x 14 but only you can decide by making pictures with it, if it will meet the quality standards that you require.
    I have also searched through a lot of web sites for data on these lenses and found that there is tremendous disagreement. There seems to be no end to "experts" reciting one source or another. I just try it and see if it works. Good luck with your search, Craig
     
  14. df cardwell

    df cardwell Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,341
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Location:
    Dearborn,Mic
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    There seems to be no end to "experts" reciting one source or another. I just try it and see if it works.[/]

    Goodness knows we can't trust Goerz.

    .
     
  15. Leonard Peterson

    Leonard Peterson Member

    Messages:
    10
    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2004
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Like Craig said, why don't you put it on the camera and see what it looks like. Then you'll know for sure, and everyone else will still be giving theory advice, which is abundant.
     
  16. bherg

    bherg Member

    Messages:
    89
    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Location:
    sweden
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Ofcourse i would like a red dot, but im uncertain that it would be a first lens the just always work without indosyncrasies. That is sharp edge to edge with no light fall of, always.


    Undoubtly i will get me a red dot artar some day, but now isnt the time.






    Cheers Johannes
     
  17. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Member

    Messages:
    4,913
    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Location:
    Northern Aqu
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Dear Craig,

    That's cheating! Actual testing, as against uninformed speculation? You should be drummed off the internet.

    Seriously, thanks for trying it for us all.

    Cheers,

    Roger
     
  18. Curt

    Curt Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,561
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Location:
    Pacific Nort
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I have two 16.5 Red dot artar lenses, one in a shutter and one barrel. I have not used them yet but after seeing this thread I had to check it out. I have an 11x14 ground glass so I set them up and was surprised to see that they cover an 11x14. They have a larger circle than I thought. I bought them for my 8x10 and will use another lens for the 11x14. I checked them out wide open and I think that stopped down it would only get better. Shooting on film is the only real way to confirm the coverage and quality of image. I thought the lenses wouldn't cover. I wouldn't expect that any movements would be possible but who knows?
     
  19. Kameraman Craig

    Kameraman Craig Member

    Messages:
    4
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Me Bad

    I guess I created a bit of controversy by flying in the face of accepted thought. Many yeras ago, 1980 to be exact, I was attending the Zone VI workshop with Fred Picker and Crew. There were lots of questions directed toward Fred about cameras, lenses and all aspects of photography. One of Fred's pat answerws was "I don't know, try it and let me know". I agreed with him that lessons learned from trial and error were longer lasting than reading opinions. When I decided to move up to 12 x 20, I seached several web sites for information on lenses and coverage. I found a lot facts and opinions on the subject. The manufacturers of process lenses rated the coverage for the exacting work in the reproduction field. Many photographers on the other hand didn't pay attention to the sales/marketing brochures and tried them on cameras in the great out doors. Some times the effects were worth repeating other times they weren't.
     
  20. jbbooks

    jbbooks Member

    Messages:
    173
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    All of the questions regarding the Artars come about because they were for producing graphics and rated at 1:1 using f22. Because of the way they were used, the rated image circles are huge. When trying to use the lens for another, general, purpose with the lens focused at infinity, the size of the acceptable image circle is much smaller than what Goerz gave in their brochures.

    I like the Artars and I use several. Somewhere, I read something published by Rodenstock about their Ronars, which I also use and like. If I remember correctly, what they said, basically, was that the rating of a Ronar could be relied on with the lens focused at infinity on a format where the long side of the negative was no more than half of the focal length of the lens. This, assuming the f stop used was the same; which, for the Artar, was f22 and I think it was the same for the Ronar.

    Of course, as you focus closer, the image circle gets larger, until, at 1:1 you have a lens rated at zero distortion for the published image circle size. In my experience, for use at infinity, the requirement that the lens focal length be double the length of the long side of the negative is conservative. While my standards may not be as high as some, I think the rule mentioned above (the focal length equal to the sum of the length and width of the negative) is a usable one. In fact, I have been quite pleased with the results using both Artars and Ronars where the focal length has been slightly smaller than that; an 8 1/4 inch Artar, for example, on 4x5 gives excellent results even though, at 210mm, it is slightly smaller than the rule requires.

    While I like the Artars, I think I like the Ronars even better. I cannot say it categorically, because I don't have enough comparisons on an apple to apple basis, but, from what I have seen, I think the Ronars have the edge if they are the later ones. Also, I have read where the Ronars that were installed in shutters were optimized for focus at infinity. I don't know enough about lenses to know how that would have been done, by varying the spacing of the elements or what? When I had mine removed from their barrel mounts and installed in shutters, I did not ask if this was something that was taken care of at that time. In other words, if you are using a lens focused at infinity that is still in a barrel mount, I don't know if your results will be as acceptable to you as mine, using lenses mounted in shutters, were to me.

    As to the angle of the lens, about 46 degrees, I think, that is not a problem if you follow the guidance regarding the relationship of the focal length to the negative dimensions. The other usual complaint about them is that they are slow. That is true, but the tradeoff for their being slow is that, for a relatively long lens, they are also smaller, lighter and less expensive.