Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,688   Posts: 1,548,660   Online: 1207
      
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    36

    Is it OK for 11 x 14.

    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.
    http://www.keh.com/camera/Large-Form...91247390?r=FE#


    Any advice will be appreciated.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,459
    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.

  3. #3
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,388
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    439
    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.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    43
    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.

  5. #5
    jp80874's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Bath, OH 44210 USA
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,436
    Images
    6
    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.
    http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/

    Enjoy,
    John Powers
    "If you want to be famous, you must do something more badly than anybody in the entire world." Miroslav Tichý

  6. #6
    LJH
    LJH is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    553
    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.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    16,412
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by rjmeyer314 View Post
    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

  8. #8
    Andrew O'Neill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Coquitlam, BC, Canada
    Posts
    616
    I have a 355 G-Claron and it well covers my 14x17.

  9. #9
    LJH
    LJH is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by johnielvis View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    LJH
    LJH is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by johnielvis View Post
    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.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin