Almost makes my 5 lb. 42" Red Dot Artar seem lightweight by comparison. I plan to use it on 14x17 where it's equivalent to a 300mm on 4x5.Originally Posted by alec4444
Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras - and Lenses (but not as big as Alec's)
Almost makes my 5 lb. 42" Red Dot Artar seem lightweight by comparison. I plan to use it on 14x17 where it's equivalent to a 300mm on 4x5.
Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras - and Lenses (but not as big as Alec's)
Reinhart Wolf used these lenses on a Sinar system. He used a support on both the front and back of the lens. That is easier with a rail system.
I have a humble 40in Apo Ronar CL and I keep it around for fun (and because it's just a joy to look at) but I would never use it on my Lotus 14 x 17 even though its front standard is _really_ strong. When I say "using it" I mean doing tilts and swings like with any other GF lens. Eight inches in length and eleven pounds in weight, hello?!
My 40in is the six-glass model, there is also a more compact four-glass version, I don't know, that one might work ... maybe. I am not sure there is a four-glass 47in APO Ronar CL. But hey, have you guys seen the cameras these lenses were normally used on? More than "cameras" they were darkrooms on rails :-)
Cheers!
This lens would be perfect on the Sinar Norma. I have always been a fan of the late Reinhart Wolf. Yes, he used the front and back standards of the Sinar Norma to support the 1000mm Apo Ronar, as well as other lenses. This lens you have is in the same category, 47"x25.6=1203mm. I would be interested, if you ever want to sell it.
Regards, Dan
Marco,
I'll have to dig through my Rodenstock literature to see if they ever made a 47" APO Ronar of 4/4 construction. I seem to recall that they did, but I want to check the literature to be sure.
I do know that Goerz made the 47" Red Dot Artar in 4/4 construction. I'm not sure, however, if they produced any late samples in the lighter weight aluminum barrels in this focal length. When I bought my 42" Red Dot Artar, I specifically sought one with an aluminum barrel to keep the weight within reason. Even then, it tops out at a few grams over 5 lbs. - which is about 4 oz. less than it's grandson, the 1100mm Fine Art XXL.
Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras
Kerry,
Rodenstock made the 1200mm (47 inch) in the 4/4 Artar design and as 6- and 8-element versions.
best
Joerg
... but nobody will ever be able to convince me that the Apo-Ronar 16/1800that showed up on Ebay last year can be used on a view camera that you can (somewhat) effortlessly move around
Kerry, your 42in RD Artar must be a real beauty...
Cheers!
Anyone care to shed some light on the shortest lens that can cover a 50x50" sheet of paper without significant fall-off? German photographer Roland Wirtz apparently uses a 1800mm Apo-Ronar to cover 50x86" and a group of Italian (and Swiss?) photographers working under the name "Cube stories" use an 890mm Apo-Nikkor for a 42x42" sheet. Which lens would come in between these focal lengths but still be relatively affordable?
The 1000mm Apo Ronar at 1:1 covers a 40x40" paper, the 1070 Apo Ronar covered 40 x 45", the 1200mm covered 40x50" and the 1800 covered 60x80". For the 1000 and the 1200 both speed versions covered the same format.
At infinity, of course, the coverages are much smaller.
jeess, now that's a setup:
[from google translate]
Photographer Reinhart Wolf to work in Spain Polaroid in hand. On Sinar 8 * 10 diafilm, 800 mm lens, bellows stretching: feet. Photo: from the book Castilos in Spain. The Rodenstock lens weighs approximately 7 pounds and was made to order in the factory. The tote is in architectuurfotografie. Reinhart made tele's stunning 8 * 10 inch slide film from New York.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks