Goertz Red Dot Artar lenses

[renes]

Thanks Dan and Roger. All 6x9 roll film backs are about 56x80mm so the corners will not loose so much I suppose.

[Andrew Plume]

Thanks Dan and Roger. All 6x9 roll film backs are about 56x80mm so the corners will not loose so much I suppose.

Hi Piotr

they're far from fast lenses...........

best

andrew

[Roger Hesketh]

Hi Piotr

they're far from fast lenses...........

Agreed Andrew. Mine would get used more if the slow speeds of it's shutter didn't hang as well further reducing it's usefulness Needs a CLA.

Roger

[Dan Fromm]

Thanks Dan and Roger. All 6x9 roll film backs are about 56x80mm so the corners will not loose so much I suppose.

See http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/goerz_3.html , page 23. If Goerz' coverage claims are to believed, it covers around 80 mm at distance. 6x9 needs 100 mm.

[renes]

Hi Piotr

they're far from fast lenses...........

best

andrew

I am aware of that but I found f/9 quite good for landscape. All lenses I have are for black and white so I look for 2-3 lenses (3-4", 6", 7-8") for colour landscapes. Do not know yet which to choose but I look at Red Dot Artars, G-Clarons, Apo Ronars and Fujinon A (180mm). All probably peform similar (sharpness, contrast, etc) but do not know if they are similar in colour rendering which is one of my main criteria and overall look which has kind of pictorial sign. The only print I have seen is the one published in Using The View Camera taken with Red Dot Artar, and I like it very much.

Any recommendation of books where these lenses have been used for colour landscapes?

There are some images to see in Image Sharing section taken with these lenses but most are black and white.

[Roger Hesketh]

Hi Dan I did not particularly want to get into this particular debate regarding coverage with you and I thought long and hard before contradicting your previous statement.

The figures suggest it will not cover but I know from experience that it will and Piotr did ask if it would work. Please note I also sought evidence to back up my assertion that a 4" Apochromat red dot Artar is usable on 6x9. Well I grant you Goerz did say 2x3 at infinity which is not quite the same thing but then you never ever focus the thing at infinity. A point I will come back to.

Why it works. Firstly we are only talking about a possible loss of definition in the corners. Their is no vignetting due to drop off in illumination. As to loss of definition in the corners. So what. The subject of most photographs is not located there and with this lens it still looks pretty good. Probably equal to that of many lenses on axis.

Also as Piotr correctly pointed out the film gate of all roll film holders is smaller than the nominal film size. This helps the cause.

Thirdly as I said before you never ever focus the lens at infinity . Why would you wish to? The lens is very slow. Even wide open at f9.5 the hyperfocal distance is 30ft. When focused at that distance the lens's depth of field extends from 17ft to infinity. When stopped down to f16 which Goerz recommend to maximize performance that focusing distance drops to 25ft and everything from 11foot to infinity is in acceptable focus. Their is no scope for movements though but it works OK on a Miniature Graphic.

Having said all that. |Their are better lenses, easier to use normal length lenses, to use on 6x9. I favour the 101mm f4.5 Ektar which I know you also do Dan. Where the 4 inch Red dot scores though is as a macro lens but with the potential to be used at longer subject distances should it happen to be on the camera.

[Dan Fromm]

Roger, there are many coverage concepts. And many of us use lenses on formats larger than they cover in the sense of putting good image in the corners. If doing that makes you happy, I'm happy for you. I can get away with it for some subjects, not for all.

I don't use "hyperfocal focusing." I focus on the subject and let the depth-of-field be what it will. That guarantees better sharpness in the subject, doesn't always give as much DoF as some would want. If more DoF with the risk of less sharpness in the subject pleases you, I'm pleased for you.

I like my little 101/4.5 Ektar even though it has to be stopped down more than I sometimes do to give good image quality in the corners. But nowadays I use a decent 105/5.6 plasmat type instead of the 101 Ektar. Choices, choices ...

I have to apologize to you for not making it clear that I don't much care what people do as long as they're happy with it. I do care about what people say. There's a great risk of telling people that one's own practice is best for them regardless of their preferences. I try to lay out the alternatives, let people choose what suits them best. If I've failed, shame on me.

I know that nominal 6x9 is a poor metric approximation to 2 1/4" x 3 1/4". I've made the point many times.

I use a little spreadsheet to design flash rigs. It wasn't designed as a DoF calculator but spits out DoF as a side product. According to it, a 4" lens set to f/16 and focused at 16' will have DoF of 1.7 meters. This with a .025 mm circle of confusion. What CoC did you give your DoF calculator? Oh, and by the way, I think the algebra in my little spreadsheet is right but I could be mistaken. If I am mistaken, I'd love to know it. I'd rather fix what I have than fight. Would you like to audit it for me?

Interestingly, if Nikon's propaganda is to be believed the 105/3.5 Nikkor-M has all of the process lens virtues (apochromatic, sharp, low distortion) and covers 100 mm wide open. If I ever win the lottery -- I don't play any lottery, the odds aren't in my favor -- I'd look for one.

Cheers,

Dan

[Roger Hesketh]

Hi Dan I do not use hyperfocal focusing either except if I want a lots of depth of field for Landscapes and do not want to stop down too much.
Most of the time I use lenses with excess coverage anyway. Currently awaiting delivery of a 90mm Goerz Series III to use on 2 1/4 x 3 1/4. I really was surprised that a 80mm was all that this lens was supposed to cover and much of the foregoing is me trying to work out how I have managed to get away with using it on 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 on the rare occasion I have used it. The shutter issues have prevented me using it much.
Sorry unable to offer any assistance with auditing the spreadsheet. Far too clever that sort of thing for me. I would not know where to start. That is why I lurk here trying to learn things from people cleverer and more knowledgeable than me.

[Bernice Loui]

Lenses have been corrected for color since the 1900's and before as color correction was one of the key lens design elements that had to be resolved to improve lens performance.

There are a lot of factors that affect color rendition on film. Everything from varying color temperature of the light (varies with sun, over cast, haze and many other typical natural weather events), air pollution, color shifts due to reflected light and more.. all server to alter color rendition.

I'm a big fan and long time user of Goerz Artars. They appeal to me for their color rendition, un-exaggerated contrast rendition, uniform illumination and high resolution. What they lack is coverage (about 45 degrees) or image circle for a given focal length. These lenses work best as longer then "normal" focal lengths.

Of the view camera lens I have used and tinkered with over the years, the most neutral color rendition were produced by Kodak Commercial Ektars and single coated Goerz Artar.

Keep in mind there are and will be variations for a specific lens. Don't choose by brand or formula alone, test the lens to see if you like it and performs to your satisfaction. If the lens under test is a dud, pass it on and try again until one appears that meets your expectations and the lens reputation.

Don't obsess too much with trying to find the "perfect" lens. They are all a set of different trade offs. None are perfect, all have their strengths and weaknesses. Know there is much marketing behind selling imaging hardware and optics obey the laws of Physics regardless of what the marketing claims. Newer is not always better.

It is more important to focus on creating images rather than trying chasing down the magical image creation device.. as the real image creation device is the photographer.



Bernice

I am aware of that but I found f/9 quite good for landscape. All lenses I have are for black and white so I look for 2-3 lenses (3-4", 6", 7-8") for colour landscapes. Do not know yet which to choose but I look at Red Dot Artars, G-Clarons, Apo Ronars and Fujinon A (180mm). All probably peform similar (sharpness, contrast, etc) but do not know if they are similar in colour rendering which is one of my main criteria and overall look which has kind of pictorial sign. The only print I have seen is the one published in Using The View Camera taken with Red Dot Artar, and I like it very much.

Any recommendation of books where these lenses have been used for colour landscapes?

There are some images to see in Image Sharing section taken with these lenses but most are black and white.

[Dan Fromm]

Currently awaiting delivery of a 90mm Goerz Series III to use on 2 1/4 x 3 1/4. I really was surprised that a 80mm was all that this lens was supposed to cover and much of the foregoing is me trying to work out how I have managed to get away with using it on 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 on the rare occasion I have used it.

Are you sure about the coverage claim? Goerz American claimed much more (1913: http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/goerz_2.html p. 22; 1951: http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/goerz_3.html p. 17). FWIW, Boyer claims that the 90/6.8 Beryl, a Dagor clone, covers 164 mm.

Cheers,

Dan