PDA

View Full Version : Subjective Quality of Artar lens



Pete Suttner
27-Mar-2012, 12:15
I've been shooting with "modern lenses" for the last 3 or so years ( B&W 4x5 and 5x7). Recently I bought a 14" Red Dot Artar and it just knocks my socks off. Smooth creamy mid and high tone tonality, subtle low contrast, and sharp as a tack. I know there are other folks out there that are equally smitten. What's going on here? What am I seeing? Is it just the coatings? What other lenses produce this effect? My first lens was a 150mm Symmar (?) and I wasn't sophisticated enough to recognize what was going on and dumped it for a newer Fujinon. What do you think, I'm having a hard time putting words to it? Help me out...

Thanks - Pete

Drew Wiley
27-Mar-2012, 12:29
What shutter is it in?

E. von Hoegh
27-Mar-2012, 12:31
It's the coatings, the glass, the design.... The Artars were process lenses, after all. The Artars that were factory mounted in shutter were optimised for infinity. Which Symmar did you have? I have a 150 convertible, it is more clinical than the Artar.

If you like the tonality of the Artar, try a Dagor.

Pete Suttner
27-Mar-2012, 12:56
Copal 3 shutter, SK Grimes.

To the best of my knowledge the chronology was Symmar - Symmar S - APO Symmar. The lens I had was a Symmar, small portable lens?

E. von Hoegh
27-Mar-2012, 13:03
Copal 3 shutter, SK Grimes.

To the best of my knowledge the chronology was Symmar - Symmar S - APO Symmar. The lens I had was a Symmar, small portable lens?

The Symmar chronology was - Doppel Anastigmat Symmar > triple convertible Symmar > Symmar (convertible) > Symmar S > Apo Symmar > Super Symmars, etc. The first two are Dagor clones, the Symmar (convertible) is the first Plasmat type.

Drew Wiley
27-Mar-2012, 13:13
Dagors could have very hard contrast, esp the last of 'em if multicoated. Only four air/glass
interfaces. Midtone micro-contrast could be exceptional. The multi-bladed shutters also
influenced the look. I thought artars were always four-element dialytes. The Fuji equivalent
would be the C series, and those certainly tend to be hard-sharp due to the exceptional coatings, unless you improperly shade and let too much skylight flare in (easy to due given their enormous image circles).

Pete Suttner
27-Mar-2012, 13:21
Bingo, thank you, it was the Symmar convertable. I recently reprinted some images from that lens and it has some similarities to the Artar. Smooth, low contrast, and sharp.

So we have early Symmars, Dagors, Artars. Any others? 14" lens is kinda long for 4x5 and I'm curious about 7-8.5" lens alternatives. I am shooting urban and landscape stopped down between f16 and f32.

E. von Hoegh
27-Mar-2012, 13:32
If you like the Artars, they were made as short as 4". The shortest Artar that will cover 4x5 at inf is 8 1/2" with little or no movement. Dagors are available in most all the standard lengths, they cover 70 degrees, same as a Symmar. Then you have Commercial Ektars, a single coated Tessar design. There is a very good section on classic lenses on the LFPF homepage.

An 8 1/4" Dagor is available, but pricey due to the cult status. With only 4 air/glass surfaces (8 for an Artar) the single coated Dagors give impressive results.

domaz
27-Mar-2012, 14:15
I like the look of just about all the dialyte lenses I've used. They do give nice transition areas. I sometimes wonder if the cult quality of these lenses is a little bit over done though. Weren't these lenses originially looked upon as bargain lenses after all? Back in the day when a Plasmat lenses would set you back the price of a used car (at a minimum).

Pete Suttner
27-Mar-2012, 14:16
Can I redirect the question? I'm looking at a subjective result of a technology that doesn't seem to exist today in large format lenses. What changed?

E. von Hoegh
27-Mar-2012, 14:22
Can I redirect the question? I'm looking at a subjective result of a technology that doesn't seem to exist today in large format lenses. What changed?

Primarily? Coatings. The dialyte (Artar) type lenses are still made, or were until recently. I too like the look of some the older lenses. If you want a lens that is a real flare machine, get al old uncoated Plasmat. Uncoated Tessars can be challenging, too, as regards flare.

E. von Hoegh
27-Mar-2012, 14:25
I like the look of just about all the dialyte lenses I've used. They do give nice transition areas. I sometimes wonder if the cult quality of these lenses is a little bit over done though. Weren't these lenses originially looked upon as bargain lenses after all? Back in the day when a Plasmat lenses would set you back the price of a used car (at a minimum).

Bargain? an LD Artar in the longer lengths would set you back the price of a new car. Some were made as bargain lenses, though. Cult quality is always overdone, just look at the Leicaphools.

Dan Fromm
27-Mar-2012, 15:39
Um, er, ah, re cult lenses and non-cult lenses, Goerz isn't the only firm to have made dialyte type process lenses or dagor type general purpose lenses. I'm not thinking of uncoated ancient who-knows-whats but of coated post-WW-II lenses from reputable makers. Some of the alternatives are pretty good and at least intermittently less expensive than the equivalent from Goerz. I even have some. The least expensive, a 210/7.7, cost all of UKP 5 plus postage. We ain't got nuttin on the Leicanuts.

Drew Wiley
27-Mar-2012, 15:50
Oh the cult asking prices aren't always fetching prices. Dagors and what not seem to rot an awfully long time on the auction site when someone gets unduly greedy. I don't think
Dagors are that big a deal. Yeah, I kept a single coated 14" and use it from time to time.
It is a damn nice lens with a slightly different look than the plasmats. But it's not different
enough to be worth five times the price! And it certainly isn't any sharper, and doesn't even have quite as much coverage. Like vintage Leica gear etc, someone is going to spend
two or three grand on some lens their nephew will inherit, then put in a garage sale for $15
and nobody will know or care what it is.

John Kasaian
27-Mar-2012, 21:40
I have two Artars, an uncoated 14" APO Artar & a 19" Red Dot Artar. Both are truly amazing to me. The 14" was my first 8x10 lense (it has since gone into the 5x7 kit along with the 159mm Wolly WA) and not being able to wait, that evening I stuck it on board and focused across the living room on a palo verdes rock fireplace and the textures I saw were absolutely beautiful (in an upside down backwards kind of way) even wide open at f/9
Are Artars worth cult prices? No---for that matter niether IMHO are petzvals, but compared to what the prices of what a new 19" lens (or even 14" lens) an equivalent Artar at a fair price would be at the top of my list.