Can anyone tell me if the 16.5" Goerz Artar will cover 8x10 wide open?
Thanks!
Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co
Can anyone tell me if the 16.5" Goerz Artar will cover 8x10 wide open?
Thanks!
Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co
Yes it will. The Deardorff V11 I acquired a while back came with a 14" Goerz Artar and it covered the format so the 16.5" lens of the same design will cover with movements no problem.
Excellent! Can't wait to get this out and try it.Originally Posted by Michael Kadillak
Thanks!
Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co
Interesting. It depends on what you mean by cover.
Look here: http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/goerz_3.html , page 23. In 1951 Goerz claimed that the 16 1/2" Artar covers 16 x 20 at 1:1; that means it should cover 8 x 10 and no more at infinity. They claim less (14 x 17 at 1:1) for the 14 incher.
Mine covers and is sharp to the edges even with moderate movements. Mine is in an Ilex #4 shutter.
Mike
Politically, aerodynamically, and fashionably incorrect.
Mike, how much do you enlarge?
The publication Dan linked to says that the 16.5" will cover 8x10 at 1:10 and 10x12 at 1:5 (and add another 15% more coverage since no reversing prism is used...for 8x10 at 1:10 that is 9.2x11.5). Where would 'infinity' fall in relation to those ratios?
I assume the publication means sharp to the corners for the coverage, but it does not list an aperture. I have never used the 16.5", but my 19" RDA does wonderfully on both 8x10 and 11x14, but I use it at, or close to, infinity and usually stopped down.
Vaughn
Which is why you use real life working examples and not rely upon literature. My 16.5" Artar covered 8x10 easily although my Nikon 450M is my first string lens in this focal length since it is multi coated. I put my 19" Red Dot on my 12x20 earlier today. While I did not make the photograph, the lens covered 12x20 wide open with a good front tilt.
Mike, the problem with real life working examples is that their conditions are rarely explained.
For example, contact prints require less image quality in the corners than enlarging does. Few people who express opinions about coverage say anything about how their negatives are used.
For another example, working closeup requires less coverage than working at infinity. Portraiture requires less coverage than landscape work. And in most portraits IQ in the corners doesn't matter at all.
No one says how much image quality is needed in the final print. I wouldn't enlarge any of my shots more than 10x, in fact 8x is stretching it. But I still remember those 60 foot wide prints in Grand Central Station made from 35 mm Kodachromes.
And people who express opinions about a lens' coverage hardly ever say just how important IQ in the corners is to them. For many of us, whats in the corners matters little.
Vaughn, you're right, the catalog for which I posted a link doesn't report the aperture at which the coverage claimed is reached. The likely apertures are 2 - 3 stops down from wide open. It gives coverage at 1:1. Coverage at infinity is 1/2 coverage at 1:1.
But it also gives coverage of the 16.5" Artar at 1:10 (page 23) and gives the covered format at 1:10 as 8x10 -- plus another 15% since no reversing prism is being used...so that is 8x10 with movements at 1:10. The coverage at 1:1 is 16x20 (plus that extra 15%!)
Anyone know what the ratio is at infinity?
I think it is safe to assume that most 8x10 users contact print -- tho that is probably changing now that people can scan. FWIW...The corners (and sides) in my images are as important as the center. Most of my time under the darkcloth is spent on the corners -- the center can pretty much take care of itself!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks