Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,545   Posts: 1,544,500   Online: 1161
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,441
    Quote Originally Posted by dpurdy View Post
    The Goerz 14" Apo Artar must be very different from the lens I have which is a Goerz 14" Apochromatic Red Dot Artar. I use mine more than any other on my 8x10 and it has lots of coverage and is very sharp. I do mostly still life but I have taken it out and used it at infinite a few times.
    Dennis
    The Red Dot series is coated. This is the only difference.
    Don't confuse "illuminate" with "cover sharply to the corners".

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,441
    Quote Originally Posted by mkillmer View Post
    It was my first time to see such a modular lens...
    The inner lenses are mounted in threaded lens holders. All of the lens groups seem to have matching threads, even the back lens, so I could rebuild the lens like this:
    () )( )( S ()
    or this
    () S () )( )(
    or this
    () S )( )( ()
    etc...

    I think the seller was genuine, maybe made a mistake while cleaning.
    For me here in Australia, cost of shipping makes returning a very expensive option, so I'll be keeping the lens.
    If I was in the USA I probably would not.
    It seems to cover 8x10 - I'll post a sample this weekend for anyone interested.
    Thanks for your comments everyone.
    Those inner biconcave elements have different radius curves on each side. How do you know they're in the right way?
    There should be pencil markings on the edges of each element, put on at the Goerz factory to show the proper orientation of the elements. Are they still there? Did you follow them (if you can decipher them) when you reassembled the lens?

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Those inner biconcave elements have different radius curves on each side. How do you know they're in the right way?
    Great question - I did not realise they were different. The inner lens do not have any pencil marks, so I will label them myself and take 2 photos to compare. Should these be at infinity or is closer up ok? Infinity photos are problematic at the moment, so I would prefer a stobe illuminated target.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Jackson. MS, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    225
    An Artar should be an extremely sharp lens. It is my understanding that those factory mounted in shutter are corrected for more distant subjects than those mounted in barrel which are corrected for 1:1. If I'm not mistaken the difference is the distance between cells.

  5. #25
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    I see no reason to send the lens back and I doubt anything is massively wrong with it. You've got what, 4 major lens groups to worry about with only 2-3 real ways to screw it up? Seems like you could just exchange elements around until you have "sharp enough" images. Although not razor, the lily looked fine.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,441
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    I see no reason to send the lens back and I doubt anything is massively wrong with it. You've got what, 4 major lens groups to worry about with only 2-3 real ways to screw it up? Seems like you could just exchange elements around until you have "sharp enough" images. Although not razor, the lily looked fine.
    Great idea.

    An Artar is capable of 100+ LPMM under the right conditions. "Sharp enough" isn't.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,441
    Quote Originally Posted by mkillmer View Post
    Great question - I did not realise they were different. The inner lens do not have any pencil marks, so I will label them myself and take 2 photos to compare. Should these be at infinity or is closer up ok? Infinity photos are problematic at the moment, so I would prefer a stobe illuminated target.
    Look up a diagram of an Artar and check yours. I can look at one of mine and tell you which way they go tomorrow. Close up will be fine.

  8. #28
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Great idea.

    An Artar is capable of 100+ LPMM under the right conditions. "Sharp enough" isn't.
    Contrary to popular belief the lens is not imbued with magical powers and assembled by elves in the forest. I'm sure he can get it back together and up to snuff again. Take control.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  9. #29
    shutterfinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Mid Peninsula, Ca.
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    471
    From A Lens Collectors Vade Mecum
    C.P. Goertz, Berlin, Artar Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ScreenHunter_03 Aug. 12 14.53.jpg 
Views:	7 
Size:	12.9 KB 
ID:	72810 and Diaylt Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ScreenHunter_04 Aug. 12 14.59.jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	10.0 KB 
ID:	72814.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    96
    I labelled the inner lenses "A" and "B" and took the same picture with each configuration:

    ..."A".."B"...
    () )( S )( ()

    and

    ..."B".."A"...
    () )( S )( ()

    Pictures are a bit rough - but they are typical of how I plan to use the lens...
    A-B:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/9314116@N06/9500602365/
    A-B Crop:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/9314116@N06/9500604501/

    B-A:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/9314116@N06/9500616557/
    B-A Crop:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/9314116@N06/9503419936/

    Yes - I should have used a static scene. There is variation due to the model moving between shots.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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