Can someone tell me what the weight and coverage of a 35" RD artar would be?
And also the same for the 24"
Thank you,
Can someone tell me what the weight and coverage of a 35" RD artar would be?
And also the same for the 24"
Thank you,
Re coverage, see http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/goerz_3.html . Read the text, it indicates the published plate sizes are for lens plus prism and that without the prism coverage is about 15% larger.
Re weight, if you have to ask you can't afford it.
A circa mid 1960's Goerz leaflet I have gives a 20.4 inch image circle and a weight of 41 oz. for the 24 inch Red Dot Artar and a 25.5 inch image circle and a weight of 106 oz for the 35 inch Red Dot Artar. These coverages are for the lenses focused at infinity, no f stop given. Coverage of the Artars may not be influenced much by stopping down, perhaps someone can confirm this.Weights are for barrel mounted lenses.Originally Posted by cyrus
David
Some Artars are aluminium, some are brass. That really effects the weight.
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
Thanks all
Yeah I'm starting to get the feeling that I can't find a reasonably priced barrel lens for 20x24 that weighs less than a wet dead body
Great find. Helped me figure out my 19" that I have.
Thanks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Crow , www.cameraeccentric.com is a very well-known site. Its owner Seth Broder deals in old cameras and lenses, is kind enough to collect photographic equipment catalogs, scan them, and give all comers free access. He's a benefactor.
www.largeformatphotography.infoholds quite a lot of information on LF lenses and has a search function. Searching here is always worth trying.
And, some are in a combination of both. My 42" Red Dot Artar has the cells mounted in brass, but the barrel and lens flange are aluminum. This definitely saves a significant amount of weight. Near as I can tell, from the serial number, this lens would have been manufactured around 1962, give or take a year. The Goerz literature, at the time, listed the weight of the 42" Red Dot Artar as 121.3 oz. Mine weighs 80.5 oz. (just over 5 lb.).
A newer (ca. ~1967) 19" Red Dot Artar I have is completely "brass free" (aluminum cell mounts, aluminum barrel and aluminum flange) weighs an impressively light 11.85 oz. A Goerz brochure I have from the same time period lists the weight of the 19" Red Dot Artar as 32 oz. So, the weight savings of the all aluminum construction are quite significant.
Kerry
It all depends on what you consider reasonable. Lightweight and inexpensive are not terms generally associated with the 20x24 format. It's all relative. It also depends on if you need a lens that covers at 1:1, or one that covers at infinity. There are all sorts of options at 1:1; very few at infinity. It also depends on what focal length you are looking for.
For example, a 19" Red Dot Artar will cover 20x24 at 1:1. But, to cover at infinity, you need a 35" (or longer) Artar. 19" Red Dot Artars are a lot more common, and a lot less expensive, than 35" (or longer) Red Dot Artar. Still, if you're patient, you may be able to find a nice long, Red Dot Artar for less than $1/mm. I paid a bit less than that for my 42" Red Dot Artar - which is less than it sold for when new ($1332) back in the early 1960s.
Kerry
I have a feeling a cheap lightweight 20x24 camera for wet plate camera work doesn't exist... as much as we would all like it to
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks