16 1/2in Red Dot Artar vs 420mm Fujinon L for 7x17

[EdC]

Like Jim said:



And, as somebody else might have said, "Chance favors a prepared pocketbook."

I'm not in a super hurry, but I have observed that when something seldom seen makes an appearance, it's a good idea to be ready to act on that.

Ed

[Keith Pitman]

I noted this Xenar in a list of possible ULF lenses:

https://www.schneideroptics.com/info...4,5-420mm.html

I don't know anything else about it, but the image circle suggests it would cover 7x17.

With 120mm filters, it must be a large lens.

[EdC]

Ed, take the front off of the 210 Computar and see what you get on the ground glass. Bingo. That lens is so well corrected I doubt you'd need an orange filter to land colors on one plane. Let us know how it goes. Theres so much stuff out there floating around. I've got a 16" APO tessar that came in a junk box that is so valueless I've never thought of selling it, and it makes marvelous images. Don't get in a hurry.

Good advice, Jim! I already have a 360mm Symmar as part of my longer lens kit, but if I didn't, your suggestion would be good, since the 210mm does change to a 370mm when converted. Thanks for chiming in!

Ed

[Thom Bennett]

Thanks to Thom for this commentary. That Fuji isn't a super common lens, so I'm reluctant to pick one up only to find out that there are issues with performance towards the edge of the coverage. I have not seen any other comments on this lens. Speaking of which, another poster indicates that he has been able to use a 16-1/2in Artar on an 12x20. The question that I would have is whether it's circle of illumination or actual sharp image. So, with the various comments that everyone has contributed, it doesn't look like either lens would be a safe bet for coverage. Is there anything else that comes to mind? I have seen mention that a 16-1/2in Dagor would cover with room to spare, but I've not seen one for sale, and hate to think of what it would cost. Open to suggestions!

Ed

EdC, I need to amend my previous observations. I took the 420 L back out and tried it again. The subject was a building wall about 50ft. away and I used a significant amount of rise (~1.5") and exposed at f32. The neg looks fine. No "stretching" or other anomalies. I am afraid I mixed my notes up when trying out lenses earlier this summer and the "stretching of the image must have been some other lens. Or maybe it was the heat and humidity. I don't know but I do plan to try some other images with the 420 L and report back. I am having other issues such as leaking film holders so it may be towards the end of the year before I get them back and can shoot again. Just wanted to let you and others know that my reporting was inaccurate. Fake lens news! You got it here first.

[Michael Jones]

I used both the Fuji 420 L and 16 1/2 RD Artar on my 8x20. I never had coverage issues or complaints about the images (except for my visual acuity).

Mike

[Luis-F-S]

EdC, ............ Or maybe it was the heat and humidity. I don't know but I do plan to try some other images with the 420 L and report back.

What, heat and humidity in New Orleans? That's got to be a first!

[Thom Bennett]

an iphone snap of a Fuji 420mm L neg then inverted in PS. Just wanted to give the OP an idea of how the lens renders on 7x17.

[Thom Bennett]

What, heat and humidity in New Orleans? That's got to be a first!

Maybe we'll get a break in December for a week or so and call it Winter.

[Luis-F-S]

Maybe we'll get a break in December for a week or so and call it Winter.

Yeah right! LOL

[G Benaim]

Just for reference, my artar 16" definitely covers 717.