View Full Version : Is it OK for 11 x 14.

03-26-2012, 02:18 PM
Hi everebody

I am a newbe in ULF. My 11 X 14 Seneca camera is in the mail and I'm waiting for it.

I don't have lens for the camera and I read a lot about G-Claron 355 mm, Nikkor and Dagor.
I want to use a moderate wide angle lens for lanscape and I'm thinking that 355mm is a good choice...is it?

What about a Artar lens 355mm f9 with a Alphax shutter?

See the link.

Any advice will be appreciated.

E. von Hoegh
03-26-2012, 02:25 PM
No. The shortest Artar that covers 8x10 at infinity is the 16 1/2", so you'll need at least a 19" Artar for 11x14. This is according to a Goerz lens brochure. A 355 Gold Dot Kern Dagor will just cover 11x14, an older 14"/355mm CPG Berlin or US Dagor will cover with movements. Your best bang for the buck will probably be an older Symmar (Plasmat type) or something equivalent.

03-26-2012, 02:25 PM
The 355 G-Claron will have a larger coverage circle than the Artar, and will most likely be in a more modern, reliable shutter than the Artar. A 14" Commercial Ektar will also cover 11x14, at least at portrait distances, and may still cover at infinity with minimal movement. The 14" Dagor will have similar coverage to the G-Claron. I don't know of a 360 Nikkor that has that kind of coverage, but I'm not very familiar with the shorter Nikon lenses. I have a 450 Nikkor-M that covers 14x17 with room for movements.

03-26-2012, 02:57 PM
I also have an 11x14 Seneca. I have used the following lenses on it: (i)the lens I use the most is a 12"/21"/28" Turner Reich Triple convertible. The 12" will cover, although I have heard some people claim they won't. Mine does. (ii) a 480mm APO Ronar; (iii)a 600mm Nikkor, (iv) a 30" Kodak Process Ektar.

03-26-2012, 04:00 PM
Welcome to ULF. Enjoy your new camera.

As you may know a normal lens size is the distance between opposite corners of the negative. 7x17 is about 465mm. 11x14 is 448mm. 8x10 is 313mm.

355mm 14” G Claron as you say would be moderate wide
300mm 12” Dagor is a little wider and has great coverage on my 7x17. It is my favorite for 7x17 and 8x10
250mm wide field Ektar covers 7x17 with just a little movement. It would be fine for 11x14
210mm Super Angulon and Super Symmar XL will cover but are quite expensive, 3x the 355mm G Claron. The regular Symmars (300, 240, 210) don’t have the coverage you need.

There is about a ten year old 11x14 lens comparison Excel chart on the LF Forum that may help. Naturally it doesn’t have all the lenses available but it is a good start.

John Powers

03-26-2012, 04:11 PM
305mm G Claron will also cover stopped down a little.

Some of the Konica Hexanon lenses are a cheap option (with reported massive coverage), but these are almost impossible to mount in shutters.

03-27-2012, 09:23 AM
I also have an 11x14 Seneca. I have used the following lenses on it: (i)the lens I use the most is a 12"/21"/28" Turner Reich Triple convertible. The 12" will cover, although I have heard some people claim they won't. Mine does. (ii) a 480mm APO Ronar; (iii)a 600mm Nikkor, (iv) a 30" Kodak Process Ektar.

i use a wollensak 1a triple (13,20,25 ) and it covers ( 11x14 ) at 13" too ... with lots of room to spare

Andrew O'Neill
03-27-2012, 10:57 AM
I have a 355 G-Claron and it well covers my 14x17.

03-27-2012, 03:56 PM
I went for the apo symmar because I wanted to eventually upgrade to 11x14 in the future.

The 355mm G Claron covers 12x20, so I have no idea why you would write that you "... went for the apo symmar because I wanted to eventually upgrade to 11x14 in the future..."

The Claron weighs over half a kilo LESS (1410 v 855g) and uses readily available filters (77mm). Do a quick search for availability and cost of 112mm filters, as used on the APO Symmar.

The APO Symmar is a massive lens. You'll probably be surprised just how big if you get one in your hands. At almost 1.5kg, it could stress your camera's front standard.

03-28-2012, 05:54 PM
I said that I got the apo symmar with an eye to upgrading to 11x14---here are the reasons, since you ask:

because it has more coverage

Wrong, according to ULF doyen Don Hutton, "The Schneider APO Symmar 360 and 480 I own both cover around 500mm but have mechanical vignetting". So, the G Claron reportedly has greater coverage. Also, even if Don is wrong (and I doubt that), why would need more than the G Claron's 12x20? That's over 590mm coverage. Thus, not a factor for 11x14.

because it's optimized for farther distances Implying that the G Claron is no good for "father distance", I assume? Mine is superbly sharp at infinity. It is also used by many, many ULF landscape shooter (just Google it), so it must be a very, very good landscape lens. And, given so many ULF images are contact printed and any sharpness difference is not going to show (assuming that there is a difference, that is), this is a fairly moot difference. Unless, of course, you're intending to shoot USAF 1951 test charts. But, then, you'd want to fill the frame, meaning that you'd need a lens that is optimised for "unfarther" distances, meaning that the G Claron is your go-to lens for making massive prints of USAF 1951 test charts.

because it is faster Longer lenses have greater edge-to-edge GG brightness (they utilise more of the lens' "hotspot"), even on 11x14. As such, faster lenses are not as necessary in this focal length as they are in, say, 4x5 wide angle. How often do you see ULF fresnels? I shoot a 240mm f9 on my 7x17 (wider image size/wider angled lens than the 14" range, so should be darker in the corners than on an 11x14) with no trouble whatsoever, even in dark settings like rain forests.

because it is the length I wanted when I bought the 8x10 You're talking about a 1.3% difference in focal length between the two, and this has nothing to do with 11x14. So, what's your point here?

because I wanted a plug and play if I wanted to upgrade to 11x14 I don't even know what that means, let alone what it has to do with this topic.

don't be afraid of the size...it fits in a copal 3 ...and is pretty well balanced on each side of the shutter, so there's no significant moment like a huge petzval or something like that It is not the shutter size that is of concern here. The problem is not the balance of the lens around said shutter (whatever that's meant to imply); it is the weight of the assembly. And, thus, the torque this weight imparts on both the front standard and the front rail.

when you lug around 11x14 stuff, an extra kilo or 10 don't make no [sic] difference--if you're packing 11x14, the lens is the lightest thing you carry, no matter WHAT lens--the weight is insignificant. What??!?!?!?!? Unlike smaller formats, weight is critical with ULF. You're kidding yourself if you don't think an extra half kilo will be noticeable over an extended hike. The bigger the format, the greater the need to reduce weight wherever possible. You reach your carrying limit far sooner as the format increases, regardless of what this limit is. To quote well-considered LF expert, Kerry Thalmann, " Forget the 360mm plasmats (APO Symmar, APO Sironar, Nikkor W, Fujinon CM-W, etc.). They can weigh more than the typical lightweight field camera and have rear elements too large to fit through the front standard openings on many cameras".

I think it's a superiour lens to the g claron---that's why. Which is why I recommended it too. See? Actually, no I don't. In my opinion, apart from being slightly brighter image on the GG, you have not really made any valid point about the Symmar being a better option.