14" Red Dot Artar Coverage?

[John Kasaian]

My 14" APO Artar will easily cover 8x10 with a bit of room for movements, but not a lot of room. It is very sharp though----perhaps not all that flattering for portraiture.

[Peter Spangenberg]

I have one of the Goerz Schneider 14" RDAs in an aluminum barrel that works on 8x10 for landscape shots and is sharp. Haven't tried lots of movement, but the corners are very sharp under a loupe. Contact printing only.

[Alan Gales]

My 14" APO Artar will easily cover 8x10 with a bit of room for movements, but not a lot of room. It is very sharp though----perhaps not all that flattering for portraiture.

My 19" Artar is really sharp too. I much prefer the Commercial Ektar for portraits but to each their own.

[John Kasaian]

A 14" Commercial Ektar and 10" WF Ektar are my "go to" for 8x10 portraits, along with a 15" B&L Petzval for when I want "the look."

[Jim Graves]

OK ... I need some education ... maybe Dan and E. von Hoegh can fill in my blank spots.

The Goerz catalogues list the 14" Artar as suitable for covering 7" x 9" at 1-10 (is that equivalent to infinity?) ... but the catalog adds in the remarks that the coverage estmates are based on the usage of a "reversing prism" ... and then the catalogue verbiage goes on to add that "Without such a prism our Artar lenses will cover an area about 15% larger than listed."

Does this mean that without the reducing prism Goerz is saying that the 14" Artar will cover 8.05" x 10.35" at 1-10? ... or am I mixing up apples and oranges?

[Dan Fromm]

The Goerz catalogues list the 14" Artar as suitable for covering 7" x 9" at 1-10 (is that equivalent to infinity?) ... but the catalog adds in the remarks that the coverage estmates are based on the usage of a "reversing prism" ... and then the catalogue verbiage goes on to add that "Without such a prism our Artar lenses will cover an area about 15% larger than listed."

Does this mean that without the reducing prism Goerz is saying that the 14" Artar will cover 8.05" x 10.35" at 1-10? ... or am I mixing up apples and oranges?

Jim, thanks very much for bringing this up. I always skip over the text under the table on p. 23 here http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/goerz_3.html and am glad you brought it to my attention.

I think your interpretation of "cover an area about 15% larger than listed." is correct. That's how I interpret it even though that's not what area means. We could both be mistaken.

1:10 is not infinity. At 1:10 the lens is extended .1 f from the infinity position and the circle covered is 13.11". If I did the arithmetic correctly, this means that without the prism the lens covers 46.7 degrees. At infinity, it should cover a 12.95" circle. So I misread the catalog and the posters who report that their 14" Artars cover 8x10 are right.

[Mark Sawyer]

One thing to remember is that the Artar is a process lens made for very high resolution technical work. On 8x10 at portrait distance, a 14" Artar could be sharper in the corners than a 14" Commercial Ektar, but still not meet printing industry standards.