Verito 9 inch Diffused Focus F4

[Will Whitaker]

My 8 3/4" Verito covers 8x10. I had a 9" at one time, but never tried it on 8x10. I don't see why it wouldn't cover if the slightly shorter lens does. Does the OP have a 9" Verito or is he only considering buying one? 9" is kind of short for doing portraits on 8x10 (if portraiture is even the goal).

But that brings up another factor. If the lens is to be used as a portrait lens, then it will probably be used at extensions greater than the nominal focal length, which would allow for somewhat better coverage.

Speaking of coverage with regard to a Verito is a little misleading. Coverage is usually taken to refer to an area of critical sharpness inside the circle of illumination. And a Verito is not critically sharp anywhere. My experience with Veritos is that they do have a wide field of illumination, although the image tends to suffer the further off axis one goes. But again, subject matter and the way the lens is used has much to do with its suitability. If your subject matter is close to the center and the edges of the field are out of focus and darker anyway, then what the lens is doing out there isn't really noticeable anyway.

I'd like to ask the OP what he intends to photograph and what he's trying to accomplish before determining if a 9" Verito is suitable or not.

Removing the front cell will yield a lens with a longer focal length and a slightly slower speed, but with similar characteristics otherwise. I didn't find a conversion focal length listed for the 9" lens, but an 8 3/4" Verito converts to a 14" lens with the front cell removed. The 9" should be similar.

[bracan]

Yes Will, my intention is to use 9'' Verito for portraits on 8x10 and Im glad that you answer my question
Anyway I will take the lens, try it and share my knowledge here on thread
Thank you everybody on answers!

[Mark Sawyer]

Given a choice, I'd hold out for a 14". Even though the 9" converts to 14", it will be slower, and (I think) the Verito has a slightly nicer look unconverted.

To Will's excellent answer, I'd add that the Verito does have an area of "critical sharpness", but it's overlaid with the image from spherical aberration. The sharp image is important, as it keeps the soft image from looking just out-of-focus. You'll lose some of that sharpness in the corners with a 9-inch on 8x10, but on portraits it will seldom matter; it may even be an advantage holding interest more in the center.

But my 8 3/4" Verito makes a nice soft landscape or close-up lens on 8x10. It's also very sharp with a lovely smooth look at f/32. You may need a 9" and a 14"!

[goamules]

During lunch I checked my 9" Verito, and it does cover 8x10 easily. But like everyone says above, it's not really meant to be an 8x10 inch lens. This setup would be useful as a slight wide angle for landscapes, but not for portraits because of the perspective.

[bracan]

Hello Garrett, can you post, if you have, some photographs from 9" Verito on 8x10? I am curious about perspective in portraits?
Thanks!

[goamules]

Sorry, I have not taken any on 8x10 with the 9". But here is one on wholeplate with a 7.5"

[bracan]

Excellent! Thanks Garrett!
Wholeplate of 8x10?

[goamules]

Wholeplate is 6 1/2 X 8 1/2 inches.

[bracan]

Thank you Garrett!

[eddie]

Using a 7 or 9 inch lens for portraits is far far from ideal.

The perspective is way off!

Just cause it "lights" the corners does not mean it covers.

As posted on page one the 9 inch is designed for 5x7. Use them as u would. But please stop apreading mis information.

REALLY? Come on guys. U know better! Most non wide angle lenses in 7 to 9 inches are NOT suitable for 8x10. Even many wide angle lenses in 7 inches do not do 8x10 well. The 165mm super angulon DOES cover very well.

Eddie