PDA

View Full Version : 16 1/2in Red Dot Artar vs 420mm Fujinon L for 7x17



EdC
14-Mar-2017, 14:52
As part of filling a gap and getting the longest practical lens for my F&S 7x17, I've been doing some research on 420mm lenses. I've done some careful research on the forums here, and elsewhere. I only recall seeing one reference where the poster mentioned that the Red Dot Artar would cover 7x17 at other than 1:1, which is not what the manufacturer indicates in the 1951 catalog. As much as I respect these lenses, I do want some closer focusing capability. I've gotten some information on the 420mm Fujinon, and it would appear to have more than enough coverage. Anyone have any thoughts on this? I'm also looking to use this for 8x10, also.

Thanks,

Ed

Dan Fromm
14-Mar-2017, 15:13
I don't know where you looked. This source http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byseries.htm says the Fuji 420 L covers 480 mm @ f22 @ infinity. This source http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/goerz_3.html says the 16 1/2/9 Apo Artar covers ~ 300 mm + 15% = ~ 350 mm @ infinity @ f/?.

7x17 wants around 467 mm. The Fuji is marginal, the Artar won't make it.

Luis-F-S
14-Mar-2017, 15:24
I don't shoot 7X 17 but routinely use the 16 1/2 inch Artar on 8 x 10 with no issues, but a much smaller diagonal than 717.

EdC
14-Mar-2017, 15:45
I don't know where you looked. This source http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byseries.htm says the Fuji 420 L covers 480 mm @ f22 @ infinity. This source http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/goerz_3.html says the 16 1/2/9 Apo Artar covers ~ 300 mm + 15% = ~ 350 mm @ infinity @ f/?.

7x17 wants around 467 mm. The Fuji is marginal, the Artar won't make it.

Thanks, Dan! Here's one of the references that I was referring to for Artar coverage:

http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/red-dot-artar-coverage.21456/

FWIW,

Ed

DMS206
15-Mar-2017, 06:27
I have a 16-1/2" red dot artar that I use on 12x20, covers fine without much room
for movements.

Thom Bennett
15-Mar-2017, 06:56
I tried the Fuji 420 L on my 7x17 and, while it seems to cover, the image edges appeared "stretched." The 450mm Nikon covers with no issues.

Michael Kadillak
15-Mar-2017, 07:12
I have a 16-1/2" red dot artar that I use on 12x20, covers fine without much room
for movements.

I carefully use a 19" Red Dot on 12x20 so my question and quite possibly why there is some disparity on this general issue among ULF photographers is the interpretative term "Optimal Format Coverage". Some lenses have varying issues with image sharpness/contrast as one takes the image circle out to its maximum and for some it is acceptable and for others it is a show stopper. Clearly the issue is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I never feel comfortable at the edge of the circle of illumination for fear I will unintentionally cross the line and purposefully employ optics that cover much more than necessary. It does not take much of a swing on a panoramic camera to find yourself in the doghouse. You only have to do it once and you remember that ill feeling fondly.

karl french
15-Mar-2017, 08:31
The Nikkor 450 works quite well on 7x17, but you can't focus very close at all. If you want to work in close a 355 G Claron is a good choice.

Michael Kadillak
15-Mar-2017, 09:25
The Nikkor 450 works quite well on 7x17, but you can't focus very close at all. If you want to work in close a 355 G Claron is a good choice.

Just to clarify your comment. You must be referencing to not having enough bellows to use a Nikon 450 M in macro mode on a particular 7x17 camera because there is only 4" of focal length between them. Clearly the lens is capable of being deployed in a macro photograph as any lens is assuming you have the bellows to support such objectives.

karl french
15-Mar-2017, 10:40
F&S 7x17 only just has enough bellows for the 450 Nikon. About 4 teeth on the focusing track left when focused at infinity.

Will Whitaker
15-Mar-2017, 11:03
The Nikkor 450 works quite well on 7x17, but you can't focus very close at all. If you want to work in close a 355 G Claron is a good choice.

+1

The Nikkor-M 450 is a wonderful lens and if larger formats are in your future, it will serve you well for those, too. Too bad F&S was stingy with their extensions.... but for what they were intended, they were great designs.

EdC
15-Mar-2017, 19:15
F&S 7x17 only just has enough bellows for the 450 Nikon. About 4 teeth on the focusing track left when focused at infinity.

Karl is absolutely correct. I was looking at 420mm focal length so that I would have some ability to focus at other than infinity. Certainly can't do that with the 450mm on the F&S, unfortunately. The lenses that I've picked up to work with 8x10 and 7x17 would be 210mm Computar, 10 3/4in Dagor, and 360mm Symmar. I was hoping to pick up a longer lens that would give me something close to a normal lens for 7x17 and slightly long for 8x10.

FWIW,

Ed

Doug Howk
16-Mar-2017, 03:37
I have used a 19" Artar lens on my 7X17 Korona but the rig is a bit wobbly with the extension. I normally just use a 265mm Ilex Kowa which provides coverage with minimal movements.

EdC
18-Mar-2017, 09:32
I tried the Fuji 420 L on my 7x17 and, while it seems to cover, the image edges appeared "stretched." The 450mm Nikon covers with no issues.

Thanks to Thom for this commentary. That Fuji isn't a super common lens, so I'm reluctant to pick one up only to find out that there are issues with performance towards the edge of the coverage. I have not seen any other comments on this lens. Speaking of which, another poster indicates that he has been able to use a 16-1/2in Artar on an 12x20. The question that I would have is whether it's circle of illumination or actual sharp image. So, with the various comments that everyone has contributed, it doesn't look like either lens would be a safe bet for coverage. Is there anything else that comes to mind? I have seen mention that a 16-1/2in Dagor would cover with room to spare, but I've not seen one for sale, and hate to think of what it would cost. Open to suggestions!

Ed

Thom Bennett
18-Mar-2017, 11:35
I realized, as the thread went on, that you have a F&S, not the Korona which has a rear extension and can handle the longer lenses. While I don't have one yet, I understand that the 355 G-Claron is a great lens for 7x17 and would not be too far off, as far as focal length, as the 420. I use the 305 G-Claron on the 7x17 and it's sharp and has decent coverage.

EdC
18-Mar-2017, 12:25
I realized, as the thread went on, that you have a F&S, not the Korona which has a rear extension and can handle the longer lenses. While I don't have one yet, I understand that the 355 G-Claron is a great lens for 7x17 and would not be too far off, as far as focal length, as the 420. I use the 305 G-Claron on the 7x17 and it's sharp and has decent coverage.

That's correct, Thom! I do have the F&S. I know that some people use a 450mm for infinity focus only, but I want more flexibility for subjects a little closer. I appreciate the suggestion regarding the 355mm. I have a 360mm Symmar. While I was frankly shocked at just how large this thing was when I unpacked it, it's not much heavier than the G-Claron, and offers a bit more coverage, which is attractive, since I plan on using that lens on 8x10 also.

At any rate, I'm getting the distinct impression that I'm not likely to find something that will work, so I guess I can leave it at the three lens kit that I referenced earlier in this thread.

Thanks,

Ed

Jim Galli
18-Mar-2017, 13:21
Ed, take the front off of the 210 Computar and see what you get on the ground glass. Bingo. That lens is so well corrected I doubt you'd need an orange filter to land colors on one plane. Let us know how it goes. Theres so much stuff out there floating around. I've got a 16" APO tessar that came in a junk box that is so valueless I've never thought of selling it, and it makes marvelous images. Don't get in a hurry.

Will Whitaker
19-Mar-2017, 11:28
In the spirit of Jim's post, above... Perhaps there is a 5x7 triple convertible, one cell of which might be in the range you seek. I have seen some which list a focal length in the vicinity of 16" Of course, with single cells, some of the old familiar devils may pop up again (focus shift, stopping down for optimum aperture). Still, with little else to consider, that may be the final frontier. You sure there's not a way to build a front/rear extension for the F&S?

EdC
19-Mar-2017, 13:23
In the spirit of Jim's post, above... Perhaps there is a 5x7 triple convertible, one cell of which might be in the range you seek. I have seen some which list a focal length in the vicinity of 16" Of course, with single cells, some of the old familiar devils may pop up again (focus shift, stopping down for optimum aperture). Still, with little else to consider, that may be the final frontier. You sure there's not a way to build a front/rear extension for the F&S?

Interesting suggestion , Will! The question that comes to mind would be what the cost would be. If it's expensive enough then I'd be better off selling and going with another camera.

Will Whitaker
19-Mar-2017, 13:37
Like Jim said:


Don't get in a hurry.

And, as somebody else might have said, "Chance favors a prepared pocketbook."

EdC
21-Mar-2017, 14:26
Like Jim said:



And, as somebody else might have said, "Chance favors a prepared pocketbook."

I'm not in a super hurry, but I have observed that when something seldom seen makes an appearance, it's a good idea to be ready to act on that.

Ed

Keith Pitman
23-Mar-2017, 02:07
I noted this Xenar in a list of possible ULF lenses:

https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/xenar/data/4,5-420mm.html

I don't know anything else about it, but the image circle suggests it would cover 7x17.

With 120mm filters, it must be a large lens.

EdC
27-Mar-2017, 13:26
Ed, take the front off of the 210 Computar and see what you get on the ground glass. Bingo. That lens is so well corrected I doubt you'd need an orange filter to land colors on one plane. Let us know how it goes. Theres so much stuff out there floating around. I've got a 16" APO tessar that came in a junk box that is so valueless I've never thought of selling it, and it makes marvelous images. Don't get in a hurry.

Good advice, Jim! I already have a 360mm Symmar as part of my longer lens kit, but if I didn't, your suggestion would be good, since the 210mm does change to a 370mm when converted. Thanks for chiming in!

Ed

Thom Bennett
10-Oct-2017, 13:42
Thanks to Thom for this commentary. That Fuji isn't a super common lens, so I'm reluctant to pick one up only to find out that there are issues with performance towards the edge of the coverage. I have not seen any other comments on this lens. Speaking of which, another poster indicates that he has been able to use a 16-1/2in Artar on an 12x20. The question that I would have is whether it's circle of illumination or actual sharp image. So, with the various comments that everyone has contributed, it doesn't look like either lens would be a safe bet for coverage. Is there anything else that comes to mind? I have seen mention that a 16-1/2in Dagor would cover with room to spare, but I've not seen one for sale, and hate to think of what it would cost. Open to suggestions!

Ed

EdC, I need to amend my previous observations. I took the 420 L back out and tried it again. The subject was a building wall about 50ft. away and I used a significant amount of rise (~1.5") and exposed at f32. The neg looks fine. No "stretching" or other anomalies. I am afraid I mixed my notes up when trying out lenses earlier this summer and the "stretching of the image must have been some other lens. Or maybe it was the heat and humidity. I don't know but I do plan to try some other images with the 420 L and report back. I am having other issues such as leaking film holders so it may be towards the end of the year before I get them back and can shoot again. Just wanted to let you and others know that my reporting was inaccurate. Fake lens news! You got it here first.

Michael Jones
11-Oct-2017, 19:14
I used both the Fuji 420 L and 16 1/2 RD Artar on my 8x20. I never had coverage issues or complaints about the images (except for my visual acuity).

Mike

Luis-F-S
11-Oct-2017, 21:19
EdC, ............ Or maybe it was the heat and humidity. I don't know but I do plan to try some other images with the 420 L and report back.

What, heat and humidity in New Orleans? That's got to be a first!

Thom Bennett
11-Oct-2017, 22:36
an iphone snap of a Fuji 420mm L neg then inverted in PS. Just wanted to give the OP an idea of how the lens renders on 7x17.

170813

Thom Bennett
11-Oct-2017, 22:38
What, heat and humidity in New Orleans? That's got to be a first!

Maybe we'll get a break in December for a week or so and call it Winter.

Luis-F-S
12-Oct-2017, 16:31
Maybe we'll get a break in December for a week or so and call it Winter.

Yeah right! LOL