What size Petzval covers 14x17?

[StoneNYC]

-What size Petzval covers 14x17 with modest movements?

-What size Petzval covers 14x17 just barely?

-What size Petzval will cover 10x17?

I can't wrap my head around this and yes I did search first.

Doing math...

565mm should be the required image circle I THINK? For "coverage" not "illumination". Of 14x17 before movements.

500mm for 10x17?

I hope I did that right?

As always, please try and keep the sharing of knowledge only if you own or have owned and / or used these and not just "theory on paper" as I find it easier to relate to those with practical ULF experience. And Petzval info gets kinda wonky real fast.

Thanks wise men of ultra large stature!

[Mark Sawyer]

Not all Petzvals of the same focal length have the same coverage, just like not all Tessars of the same focal length have the same coverage. And because the Petzval designs aberrations at the outer edges of the image circle start a lot sooner and are much more pronounced than on most lenses, the difference between illumination and sharp coverage is larger than normal.

For sharp coverage on 14x17 at infinity, you're talking about a 30 to 35 inch lens...

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Look at a catalog, for example Dallmeyer:

From Cameraeccentric

The Dallmeyer recommendations are just about right, although they can be pushed a little. I can tell you from personal experience that a 22" 5A will not cover 14x17, but a 30" 6A will. That said, you will never find a 6A, but you might find a 7D.

[goamules]

I have a 23" CC Harrison that I am hoping will cover 16x20. But I haven't tried it yet. Theoretically it should, but practically it may not. So I can give you both. One day.

I'd say to be safe look for something 25" or more.

[Andrew Plume]

the answer surely is, "a very expensive one"

regards
andrew

[brandon13]

The dallmeyers as well as the voigtlander petzvals tend to cover a little bit more than advertised depending on the catalogue. I have a dallmeyer 5d on my 11x14 and it covers just fine, so you could probably get away with a size down if you don't mind swirls. I personally don't love the swirls. At least not in excess. A dallmeyer 6a recently sold here in the Portland OR. area for $5000.00 and that was a really good price so expect to pay in the thousands. BTW Stone you have an interesting way of posing a question. I think you may have put off a few knowledgeable people by the way you phrased your post. Just a thought. cheers.

[davehyams]

Andrews reply is right. would be helpful to know what you want to shoot and also where your gold mine is. obviously it will be much easier to find a petzval that will cover a head shot on 14X17, although the pov and working distance would not be ideal in my opinion, than a full body portrait. If you are shooting wet plate it makes sense to find the fastest lens within your budget, but if you are shooting film you may not need all of that speed. good luck with your search.

[pierre506]

Such coverage lenses will let you bankrupted ASAP, dear Stone~
However, you can choose long focal length, but small aperture Petzval lenses.

[StoneNYC]

Such coverage lenses will let you bankrupted ASAP, dear Stone~
However, you can choose long focal length, but small aperture Petzval lenses.

I might just try and build one...

Also, years ago when applying for a librarians assistant job which required an entrance exam, the question of "irregardless" was on the test, and I got the answer correct.

However I agree that Shakespeare made up words and they because words, but he did it purposely, not out of ignorance as uneducated people tend to (Not saying you at all, I'm saying that "Ain't" is used all the time in many places in the US, but it's not a word, just because it's used and might be "a word" to some people, doesn't make it proper English) and if you used it on an english essay in school, you would get points marked off REGARDLESS of your argument to the contrary.

Anyway I guess I'm feeding the trolls, I'll stop.

[Alan Gales]

What? Ain't ain't a word?