when I had one...I used a 14" dagor with a backmounted shutter
(backmounted?? the shutter was mounted on the front of the lens...it looked weird but worked okay)
when I had one...I used a 14" dagor with a backmounted shutter
(backmounted?? the shutter was mounted on the front of the lens...it looked weird but worked okay)
My go to lens for my 8x20 is a Rodenstock 360 mm Gerogon barrel lens. It is sharp and contrasty and covers. I also us a 21 1/4" Kodak Ektanon and a 19" Artar.
Jim beat me to it. The Kodak 21 1/4" Copying Ektanon seems to get passed over, but it is a good solution for ULF. They most frequently show up in a barrel configuration. But barrel isn't so bad. This lens wide open is f/11, so especially with a slower film, a lens cap makes a good shutter. Mine covers my 12x20 well, so 8x20 should be generously covered.
The late William Corey used a Copying Ektanon for his Japanese work:-
http://williamcorey.com/the-camera/
Andrew
The following is Michael Kadillak's response to a question that I asked him in a private message. My question follows his response below . . .
Originally Posted by Michael KadillakOriginally Posted by neil poulsen
Some years back I also owned a 210 Kowa Graphic and 210 Computar (both purchased from Kerry Thallman BTW) and compared them to a massive 200 Grandagon on 8x10 from the perspective of making enlargements. I ended up keeping the Computar as well as the Grandagon.
When compared within the Kowa's image circle, the Kowa and Computar performed similarly (I thought the Computar was a smidge sharper but probably not enough to make a difference in enlargements). The Computar clearly had a larger image circle so I sold the Kowa. But when I started testing the boundaries of the Computar's image circle, and compared it to the Grandagon (495mm IC @ f/22), I noticed a couple of things. The tests were done using real world architecture and landscape subjects, not resolution targets.
Near image circle extremes, I had to stop down the Computar more than the Grandagon in order to get everything in sharp focus. This I presume was the result of field curvature by the Computar. I don't remember whether I saw evidence of curvature when centered on the IC, if any it was likely minimal. Also at the edge of the image circle, I saw a tremendous amount of light falloff with the Computar (although otherwise the image seemed reasonably sharp). Thus I decided to retain the Computar for backpacking, and the Grandagon for everything else. I remember concluding that if I wanted to use the Computar as a large image circle lens, that I would have to fit a center filter for it. I shot exclusively chrome at the time, I don't know how much negative film would have improved the situation. I had previously successfully fitted a Schneider CF to my 240 Germinar W (I've posted about that either here or at APUG), so I assume finding a reasonably good match for the Computar is possible.
I believe both my Kowa and Computar were single coated, but when centered my Computar produced an image whose sharpness and contrast compared favorably (and may have even slightly exceeded) that of my multi-coated Grandagon. None were as sharp as a 210 Sironar W.
Last edited by Eric Leppanen; 3-Jun-2018 at 13:45.
I missed this thread.
If you keep your eyes open, you can find a 305mm G-Claron of the older Dagor type (Google search 305mm G-Claron Dagor and you'll find a thread that I made on this topic). The older Dagor model is hard to find and hard to identify by laymen, so it goes cheap when you find it. Mine cost $150. This covers 8x20 nicely, with even a little bit of wiggle room.
Personally I also have a Nikkor 450mm, which I've used a couple of times. I usually only bring one lens or the other.
I responded to an add for a Durst 184 enlarger for sale a number of years ago and drove up to Boulder to meet William Corey and spend several hours looking at his enlarger but mostly talking to him about about photography. What was surprising to me was the several hundred negatives that he said he had exposed and had yet found time to process and print. He truly was the epitome of an artist that had found a unique niche in the oriental culture and was masterfully exploiting it. I can remember feeling tremendously invigorated about photography after the experience and hoped to spend more time with him. Unfortunately, William passed far too soon and I was saddened when I learned of the event. Sometimes life is neither fair or easy. I hope his wife finds continues to share the work William created so others can experience his vision.
For my Horizontal 8x20, I use a 355 G Claron, 24" Artar and a 30" Artar. For my vertical 8x20, I have a 14" Dagor and 19" Dagor that gets added to the mix because I need a little more image circle if I use front or rear tilt.
Confused.
Why would you need a separate set of lenses for vertical 8x20? The film plane does not change and I have never run out of coverage with the 355 G Claron in either orientation. This is because the hyperfocal distance of the 355 G Claron as an extreme wide angle on the 8x20 is very shallow requiring minor front tilt (horizontal) and swing (vertical). Ditto for the Fuji 600C.
Last edited by Michael Kadillak; 12-Jun-2018 at 06:15. Reason: typo
Bookmarks