16.5" Goerz Artar

[ScottPhotoCo]

Can anyone tell me if the 16.5" Goerz Artar will cover 8x10 wide open?

Thanks!

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

[Michael Kadillak]

Yes it will. The Deardorff V11 I acquired a while back came with a 14" Goerz Artar and it covered the format so the 16.5" lens of the same design will cover with movements no problem.

[ScottPhotoCo]

Yes it will. The Deardorff V11 I acquired a while back came with a 14" Goerz Artar and it covered the format so the 16.5" lens of the same design will cover with movements no problem.

Excellent! Can't wait to get this out and try it. :)

Thanks!

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

[Dan Fromm]

Interesting. It depends on what you mean by cover.

Look here: http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/goerz_3.html , page 23. In 1951 Goerz claimed that the 16 1/2" Artar covers 16 x 20 at 1:1; that means it should cover 8 x 10 and no more at infinity. They claim less (14 x 17 at 1:1) for the 14 incher.

[MIke Sherck]

Mine covers and is sharp to the edges even with moderate movements. Mine is in an Ilex #4 shutter.

Mike

[Dan Fromm]

Mike, how much do you enlarge?

[Vaughn]

The publication Dan linked to says that the 16.5" will cover 8x10 at 1:10 and 10x12 at 1:5 (and add another 15% more coverage since no reversing prism is used...for 8x10 at 1:10 that is 9.2x11.5). Where would 'infinity' fall in relation to those ratios?

I assume the publication means sharp to the corners for the coverage, but it does not list an aperture. I have never used the 16.5", but my 19" RDA does wonderfully on both 8x10 and 11x14, but I use it at, or close to, infinity and usually stopped down.

Vaughn

[Michael Kadillak]

Interesting. It depends on what you mean by cover.

Look here: http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/goerz_3.html , page 23. In 1951 Goerz claimed that the 16 1/2" Artar covers 16 x 20 at 1:1; that means it should cover 8 x 10 and no more at infinity. They claim less (14 x 17 at 1:1) for the 14 incher.

Which is why you use real life working examples and not rely upon literature. My 16.5" Artar covered 8x10 easily although my Nikon 450M is my first string lens in this focal length since it is multi coated. I put my 19" Red Dot on my 12x20 earlier today. While I did not make the photograph, the lens covered 12x20 wide open with a good front tilt.

[Dan Fromm]

Mike, the problem with real life working examples is that their conditions are rarely explained.

For example, contact prints require less image quality in the corners than enlarging does. Few people who express opinions about coverage say anything about how their negatives are used.

For another example, working closeup requires less coverage than working at infinity. Portraiture requires less coverage than landscape work. And in most portraits IQ in the corners doesn't matter at all.

No one says how much image quality is needed in the final print. I wouldn't enlarge any of my shots more than 10x, in fact 8x is stretching it. But I still remember those 60 foot wide prints in Grand Central Station made from 35 mm Kodachromes.

And people who express opinions about a lens' coverage hardly ever say just how important IQ in the corners is to them. For many of us, whats in the corners matters little.

Vaughn, you're right, the catalog for which I posted a link doesn't report the aperture at which the coverage claimed is reached. The likely apertures are 2 - 3 stops down from wide open. It gives coverage at 1:1. Coverage at infinity is 1/2 coverage at 1:1.

[Vaughn]

...Vaughn, you're right, the catalog for which I posted a link doesn't report the aperture at which the coverage claimed is reached. The likely apertures are 2 - 3 stops down from wide open. It gives coverage at 1:1. Coverage at infinity is 1/2 coverage at 1:1.

But it also gives coverage of the 16.5" Artar at 1:10 (page 23) and gives the covered format at 1:10 as 8x10 -- plus another 15% since no reversing prism is being used...so that is 8x10 with movements at 1:10. The coverage at 1:1 is 16x20 (plus that extra 15%!)

Anyone know what the ratio is at infinity?

I think it is safe to assume that most 8x10 users contact print -- tho that is probably changing now that people can scan. FWIW...The corners (and sides) in my images are as important as the center. Most of my time under the darkcloth is spent on the corners -- the center can pretty much take care of itself!

[Dan Fromm]

Vaughn, thanks for pointing out the text re reversing prisms. I skipped the text, went straight to the table. Shame on me.

That the catalog steps on itself slightly isn't surprising.

[MIke Sherck]

Mike, how much do you enlarge?

I only contact print 8x10, Dan, but I examine the negatives with a 9x loupe. I also generally use 8x10 with subjects closer than infinity.

Mike

[Michael Kadillak]

Mike, the problem with real life working examples is that their conditions are rarely explained.

For example, contact prints require less image quality in the corners than enlarging does. Few people who express opinions about coverage say anything about how their negatives are used.

For another example, working closeup requires less coverage than working at infinity. Portraiture requires less coverage than landscape work. And in most portraits IQ in the corners doesn't matter at all.

No one says how much image quality is needed in the final print. I wouldn't enlarge any of my shots more than 10x, in fact 8x is stretching it. But I still remember those 60 foot wide prints in Grand Central Station made from 35 mm Kodachromes.

And people who express opinions about a lens' coverage hardly ever say just how important IQ in the corners is to them. For many of us, whats in the corners matters little.

Vaughn, you're right, the catalog for which I posted a link doesn't report the aperture at which the coverage claimed is reached. The likely apertures are 2 - 3 stops down from wide open. It gives coverage at 1:1. Coverage at infinity is 1/2 coverage at 1:1.

A simple question was asked by the original person posting in regard to the 8x10 format and coverage devoid of any usage protocol. A referenced publication from the manufacturer seemed to me very conservative based upon my experience which is not really anomalous and comes from other manufacturers as well for very self serving reasons. I simply stated that the lens covers with more than enough room to spare and using it in the field is where one finds if it fits his specific needs whatever they may be. Sometimes we can get a bit over the top in over analyzing what is a very simple situation. Goerz made some great lenses that produce excellent images in a variety of mediums and shooting styles and they can be had for reasonable prices.

[Michael Kadillak]

A simple question was asked by the original person posting in regard to the 8x10 format and coverage devoid of any usage protocol. A referenced publication from the manufacturer seemed to me very conservative based upon my experience which is not really anomalous and comes from other manufacturers as well for very self serving reasons. I simply stated that the lens covers with more than enough room to spare and using it in the field is where one finds if it fits his specific needs whatever they may be. Sometimes we can get a bit over the top in over analyzing what is a very simple situation. Goerz made some great lenses that produce excellent images in a variety of mediums and shooting styles and they can be had for reasonable prices.

I put my 16.5" Red Dot on my 8x10 this morning and I was able to put the max rise on my Toyo 810M (about 2 1/2") at infinity without a hint of any image degradation or light image loss wide open. I observed a crisp sharp image consistent with my experience using the other 5 Goerz Artar lenses I have used extensively. They are all over achievers in the performance category.