What Lenses for ULF Photography?

[sanking]

I am in the process of putting together an article on lenses for ULF cameras and am very interested in obtaining information from other ULF workers about their favorite lenses. What I would request from anyone willing to assist me with this project is the following information.

1. Format(s) in which you are working.

2. Your favorite lenses for each format.

3. Characteristics of each lens (coverage, performance at the edges, contrast, etc.).

Your reply, either to this forum or by personal email to sanking@clemson.edu would be greatly appreciated.

[Jim Galli]

Hi Sandy. I'll jump right in while it's easy. I work in 7X17, 11X14, and 8X20. I enjoy the 355mm G-Claron for 8X20 and also the 2 smaller formats, and I suppose my 305 G-Claron is the favorite for 717 and 1114 both. Nice coverage and plenty sharp all the way out into the extremes. I have used 260mm Konica Hexanon GRII on the 1114 and will use it on the 717 also. I've just been testing a 265mm Ilex-Kenro f10 wide angle paragon ($55!) and it shows huge promise. It's a modern coated wide field copy lens and it almost covers the 8X20. Neat lens and I haven't seen another like it. Large amounts of $ aren't always the instant solution to everything. I have a 305mm Ilex-Bruning that I paid $5 for that will cover 11X14 and get the job done nicely. Then there's the $58 B&L 8X10 Plastigmat that easily covers 11X14 and is a 3 way convertible. Reflects light like a Protar and I think perhaps that's what it is. Some of these are still in the test stages and if I get a pay job like this Saturday (8X20 group shot that needs to look like the one in the museum done in 1924) I don't mess with the unknowns. The G-Claron will get the work done on Saturday. It never seems to let me down.

[Steve Nieslony]

Sandy,

I shoot many formats, and someother 'odd size' formats (7x11, 5x12 and 6.5x8.5) - but since you asked about ULF here goes...

7x17 210/f9 Computar (covers with slight movement) 240/f9 Computar (covers with more movements then the 210) 270/f9 Computar (lots of coverage and movement) 300/f6.8 Gold Dot Dagor (minimal movement) 355 G-Claron (large IC - see 12x20) 450 Nikkor-M (large IC - see 12x20) 610 Red Dot Artar (huge IC - see 12x20) 11x14 Same as the 7x17 - though I have not shot that much with this format

12x20/8x20 355 G- Claron (probably about an inch of movements available) 450 Nikkor M (lost of movement available) 610 Red Dot Artar (haven't found the edge of the IC yet)

My 12x20 has both a 12x20 and 8x20 back. I did shoot the 8x20 once with the 270 Computar once but the focus plane was fairly close so I am not sure that the coverage would indeed cover 8x20.

In using the 210 Computar on 7x17 it was recommended that you focus on the edges not the center, then when you stop down you will gain sharpness throughout the image. Until I did this I was disapointed that my 210 did not cover 7x17.

All of these lenses have been spoken about - so I doubt I can add anything new in terms of the lens characteristics, but I can say that each is more then adequate in terms of sharpness and contrast.

I hope this helps!

[neil poulsen]

I'm not a ULF'r, although I think that ULF is really neat. With that said, you might investigate the de Golden Busch lenses. They are modern type lenses that include (I believe) 18" and 24" wide-field optics.

Perhaps someone else has more information on these lenses?

[Nick Morris]

I do not use ULF, only 8x10, but I have a lense that is supposed to be very suitable for ULF, a 16 1/4"-25"-31" Wollensak Series 1A Raptar triple convertible. I was told when I bought it that it is designed for 11x14, but I have been told by someone with access to Wollensak literature that it will cover larger film. This lens is a bigger version of the 13" Raptar convertible used for 8x10. This is the only example I've ever seen. I do not recall ever seeing one on ebay. If anyone has literature that describes this lens, I am courious to know its full coverage capability. Thank you.

[David Vickery]

Hello, The lenses that I use that have not been mentioned yet are; 14"Eastman (commercial) Ektar on 11x14 - Not a lot of extra coverage but great images. I love this lens on 11x14. 19" Artar on 12x20 -- My most frequently used lens for this format. 21.25" Kodak Copying Anastigmat - great on 12x20 or smalller. I have not tried it on anything bigger yet. I think that mine cost me about $35.00, but the latest prices seem to be higher due to the much larger interest in ULF I also have a 12" berlin Dagor that covers 12x20 and works great for a beat up old lens. I may have more to ad so I will go look through my bag and see what else I have used. I am looking forward to your article.

[CXC]

I've just started out in ULF, 7x17 and 12x20, for which I bought a 355mm G-Claron. I also use a 450mm Fuji C, but prefer the wider lens.

With these long formats, wideness is what it is all about. I am particularly interested in what lenses shorter than 355mm people use with 7x17 and above.

[Michael Jones]

Sandy:

My favorite 8x20 lens is a 16.5" RD Artar; plenty of coverage and movements. I prefer it to a more modern 450mm Fuji, which I found harsh (too sharp or contrasty). The 21.25 inch Kodak Copying Anastigmat covered 8x20 well, but I thought it produced somewhat "flat" (lacking contrast) images. So I got rid of the Kodak and Fuji and stuck with the Artar. I also used a 590mm single element Protar on the 8x20. Covered very well, but did require a rather strong (orange) filter to produce the image quality (both sharpness and contrast) I wanted.

Modern glass works well for my 14x17: a 355mm Symmar. Razor sharp, modern shutter, large (& bright) image circle and good contrast without an edge to the image.

For 11x14, I like my 9.25" Gold Dot Dagor, but would go wider with a 210 Angulon. Both lenses produce a sharp, but soft, full image and allow significant movements. This may not make a lot of sense, but if you use old glass, you may understand.

On the really negative side, I had the much touted (on eBay, anyway) 270mm WA G-Claron mounted in a Copal 3 several years ago and discovered that it would barely cover 8x10. Dick Phillips and I played with for a while trying to get it to cover 8x16 or 7x17, but could not get any satisfactory results (big illumination circle, fuzzy and distorted edges), so I got rid of it. It did look pretty impressive with its convex elements.

Good luck with the compilation.

Mike

[CP Goerz]

8x20 with assorted lenses,

14" WA APO Nikkor-crisp and contrasty, best to focus at the 11x14 edge mark for best overall sharpness. You have to use oversized filters as a standard filter will cause a little reduction in image circle.

19"Dagor-(standard F7.7 type) I still have to compare this one to a 19" Process Dagor I picked up but if it compares with the excellent shadow detail, beautiful contrast and coverage then I'll keep it as its tiny and fits nicely in a Copal #3. Its handy since you tend to span quite a few highlights and shadows on the groundglass and to have a lens that is forgiving in the contrast department makes shooting easier as you have less of an issue with the eternal question of highlights or shadows.

19" LD Artar-For those flat light days, helps boost the contrast up.

24" Dagor...Ahh! THE KING!!!!

8" Series IV Protar-Doesn't cover 8x20 but the outside edges of the image are more useable than the series V protar. I use this lens for what I call 'special effects' a lot of vignette and a soft circle edge.

Lenses used in the past but no longer on 8x20.....

11x14 WA Protar(10 1/2)- Bought it, had it, never found myself using it really. Protar WAs can be difficult to work with and I find that to get good shadows you have to almost double or triple the exposure reading and they aren't the sharpest of lenses even when stopped down. I think smaller Protars are sharper than the larger ones, just a casual observation through use and contact prints. Don't ask me for any readings etc as I don't do that stuff.

12" Series V Protar- Good performance overall but it was a bit of a pain to focus as it was so dim, image 'expanse' didn't look that different from the 14" WA APO Nikkor or Dagor so on Ebay it went.



14" Dagor-Not really an 8x20 lens in my mind as the corners aren't quite the same as the center(I am probably a bit too fussy about that), the Nikkor came out on top in my wee test.

355 G Claron- The image quality just did nothing for me, really bland, it did have excellent coverage and the corners do look better than the 14" Dagor.

16 1/2" Dagor- The best standard lens for 8x20 but I have a 14 and a 19 and found I went for one or the other and never really used the 16 1/2 that much, still it remains a fond memory.

24" Artar-not red dot, excellent but the Dagor contrast was more to my liking.

30" Red Dot-never used it too often so sold it.

14 1/2" Protar (24 + 27" Cells)- Didn't look as good as the Dagor but had the contrast range I liked.

14 X 17 Extreme WA Anastigmat Gundlach-Beautiful shadows, glowing highlights but the last two inches of the image weren't a match to the center, I've always wanted the 16x20 version!!!

I'll probably think of a few more but for right now thats all I can think of.

CP Goerz

[Chad Jarvis]

11x14 Seneca
480mm RD Artar
Good contrast, flat field, sharp corner-to-corner, but alas, no shutter.

[John D Gerndt]

I'll add a Kodak Wide Field Copying 18 inch f16 to the list for 12x20. I have not shot extensively yet with this lens but I doubt if it is much different from any other Kodak MTF characteristics for single coated optics. It is a heavy chunk of glass with a 4 inch exit opening so be warned, you'll need a good sized Packard shutter to use this lens. I have read in passing that they can be put in a Copal #3 as the minimum aperature is quite small.

Just for the Hail Mary here, if any MTF information could be added to or conjoined to subjective comments about how a lens renders a scene I would pay dearly for that data. It would be as useful as the curve matcher in BTZS.

Cheers,

[sanking]

Thanks for all the information.

My own experience with lenses for ULF is as follows. All based on aperture of f/45 or f/64.

1) 11X14 and 7X17

180 f/18 Series V Protar -- just covers

210 f/9 Computar -- just covers

240 f/9 Computar -- just covers

305 G-Claron -- covers with lots of movement

240 f/6.8 Goerz Dagor -- just covers

270 f/6.8 Goerz Dagor -- covers with some movements

300 f/6.8 Goerz Dagor ---covers with lots of movement.

At focal lengths of 350mm or more virtually any lens will cover 7X17

2) 12X20

210 SSXL -- covers with some movement

300 Computar -- covers with about two inches of movement

355 G-Claron -- just covers

12" Goerz Dagor -- just covers (but not all 300mm Dagors do)

14" Goerz Dagor -- should cover (but many 14" Dagors do not)

16" Dagor -- most cover

450mm Nikkor M -- covers with lots of movement

480mm Symmar-S -- covers with lots of movement

19" Dagor -- Covers with huge movement

Virtually all lenses of 600mm or more will cover with movements.

[David Flockhart]

For 11x14 and 8x20. The Kodak 21 1/4 (540mm) anastigmat covers nicely and does, as someone said, have slightly less contrast than some modern lenses but this can be put to good use. I have made some very contrasty images with this lens even though it is less contrasty than some others. The oft' mentioned 355 G Claron, 450 Nikkor M and the Nikkor 610 and 760mm Nikkor process lenses fill out the rest. The 760 is an awesome lens and provides a really nice perspective for these formats. The 355 and 760 are used more than the others.

[e]

260mm WA Nikkor process lens covers 7x17 with knife biting sharpness right out to the corners. Only goes to f32 though. Very likable lens. Protar VII triple convetible 305/480/590 for 7x17 tames sunny days nicely. 250mm SF fuji for a different look on 7x17.