Anyone Familiar With 16 1/2" F9.5 APO Artar RD?

[Brian Ellis]

I haven't been able to find any information in the usual sources concerning the above lens. In fact for all I've seen no such lens exists, yet I'm thinking of buying one for 8x10 so unless the seller's lying there is such a lens. If anyone knows a source for information about its size, weight, coverage, quality for general purpose photography, coating (I believe all Red Dots were coated but I'm not certain), that kind of thing, or has personal experience using the lens and can provide information, I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know. Thanks.

[Jim Galli]

Actually, unless I'm missing something, this is a very common lens. Benchmark American quality, single coated, well useful for general photography, will "sort of" cover 11X14 but the corners would be soft. Nice for 8X10. Heavy in the extreme as no expense for large machined brass casings was spared. I have one...but my Fuji 450C rendered it obsolete.

[Steve Hamley]

Brian,

I have one also. As Jim points out, it's relatively common, but not so much as the 19". The Fuji 450C is so good it's not much of a contest. It was made in coated and uncoated versions according to documents I have. It is described in Goerz literature and is the shortest Artar that Goerz recommends for 8x10. I have electronic copies of some Goerz literature and a table showing coverages for all the Artars. If you want them, just let me know.

Steve

[John Kasaian]

Brian,

As far as wieght goes, is it a later aluminium version or an earlier brass version? I had a 19" aluminium bodied copy that was a true featherwieght. My current brass 19" RD Artar is heavier but certainly not too heavy for my 8x10. I would expect similar findings with a 16-1/2" model.

[Ernest Purdum]

Goerz described the coverage at infinity as 9 X 12, which is a little startling until you realize that they meant inches.

[wfwhitaker]

I have a 16 1/2" RD Artar in an Ilex Acme #4 and use it for 8x10 and 7x11. A very sharp lens; I'm quite pleased with it. I've not had any coverage issues, but I rarely use extreme movements. When I was in the market for such I could have gone with either this or a 19" lens. I went with this one simply because it was available at the time. It's the analog of a 210mm lens on 4x5 and that's a combination I have found pleasing in the past. It's also a good focal length if you're using an 8x10 with limited bellows extension.

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

I always wondered when they state coverage as somthing like the 9X12 description.
Shouldn't it be 12X12. Makes me have a vision of an elliptical image circle. Mama always said "there's somthin about that boy that just ain't quite right". When your retired you have the time to ponder these more important things in life.

[Jim Rhoades]

Hi Brian;
I've been following your posts for the last couple of months. How come I'm not suprised that you bought another 8x10? When you sell this one e-mail me a list of lenses that your want to unload.

BTW, I'm dumping my Zoner. I have the new 'Dorff 5x7-4x5 w/ both backs. It's cute.
Tillman's here this summer, I'm in.

[Brian Ellis]

Thanks for the responses (except Jim Rhoades, he's always commenting on my camera purchases so I knew he couldn't let this latest acquisition pass without some snide comment. Just because I've bought and sold two other 8x10 cameras and a couple 4x5s in the last several years he thinks I have trouble making up my mind or something : - )). The lens sounds fine, hopefully it's aluminum rather than brass, I'll ask the seller.

[Paul_5410]

Hello Brian,

I have some jpg images of a few old Goerz brochures drop me a note and I will email them to you. The 16 1/2" RD Artar is listed for a 9"x12" format and was provided in the standard #4 Ilex. I have a 19" that has been working on my 2D although I feel more secure with it locked down on an 8x10 Cambo rail!

Hope this helps and I can also give you a link if you prefer?
Paul