Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,049   Posts: 1,561,097   Online: 867
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11
    RobertP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,130
    Images
    8
    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.

  2. #12
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    An EKTANON... yep. Great lens.

    Also, a Wollensak ... or Wray... Ross.... everybody made an Artar equiv. !
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4

    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

  4. #14
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    [I]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.

    .
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    10

    Red dot artar coverage

    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.

  6. #16
    bherg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    sweden
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    89
    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

  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    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

  8. #18
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,553
    Images
    15
    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?

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4

    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.

  10. #20
    jbbooks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    173
    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.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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