30 inch Artar in Copal 3

[Dave Wooten]

On e bay... Shutter makes it f/16...

[karl french]

Stop that.

[Dave Wooten]

I have not seen a 30, I have 24 and 35. Have the 760 nikor.

[karl french]

No need to let everyone know about it :-)

[Kodachrome25]

No need to let everyone know about it :-)

Yeah, I am looking at it but not sure if it will sharply cover 16x20 at infinity. The other thing is that you lose nearly a stop with the copal 3 over an Ilex 5.

I can see why pros skip this ULF stuff altogether, who has time for these effing games!

[karl french]

Um, I think a 30" Artar will cover 16x20 at infinity without even breaking a sweat.
You are making way too much of a fuss about it over a number of forums.
Listen to those who know. Sandy and Hugo for example.
Copal 3 would be just fine for me.

[Kodachrome25]

Um, I think a 30" Artar will cover 16x20 at infinity without even breaking a sweat.
You are making way too much of a fuss about it over a number of forums.
Listen to those who know. Sandy and Hugo for example.
Copal 3 would be just fine for me.

I have been getting too much conflicting info, one guy on APUG says I will be disappointed with the sharpness of a 450 Nikkor on 16x20, another one PM'd and said it covers fine. It's all over the place, I got so much cryptic info from Dan Fromm basically saying to do my homework and no real answers from him at all. I PM'd Sandy and have not heard back from him.

Hugo says that a 24" Artar will cover fine and be sharp, that is pretty much the FL I want anyway, but maybe I WILL bid on this 30" just to get something going, F12.5 to 16 is nothing in the grand scheme of things. The ideal set for me would indeed be a 450 and a 760, that would be all I need.

[William Whitaker]

At some point you have to make your own answers. "Try it" (or something similar), as Fred Picker used to say.

[Kodachrome25]

At some point you have to make your own answers.

Yeah, I am not entirely buying that.

The lens of any camera is the heart of the camera, it should not be so damn hard to figure out a basic question like what is a good sharp landscape lens for 16x20 close to a normal field of view. Ask the same question of any other format and you will get the right answer within a page.

I'm actually getting PISSED right now because I am starting to run into the same BS country club shit that one can easily experience on this forum in particular.

THANKS!!!!

[karl french]

At some point you're going to have to find out what YOU are satisfied with. There is a wealth of knowledge from the posters you mentioned. What one photographer is satisfied with for contact or alt printing may not make you happy for the project you're interested. But you're in the ballpark with a group of lenses that may work. And that's pretty small with 16x20. You have a whole bunch of other things to worry about in terms of camera, tripod, holders, film, transport, processing, wind, physical and spiritual motivation and last but not least the will of the Muses.

[Dan Fromm]

I got so much cryptic info from Dan Fromm basically saying to do my homework and no real answers from him at all.

Sorry, but ULF helps those who help themselves.

I stopped giving you information because you seemed to have made no effort to find anything out on your own. I sent you to a catalog you need to consult, you came back asking for the page number. If you can't or won't read the table of contents and page down to the relevant page there's no hope for you.

[Kodachrome25]

Sorry, but ULF helps those who help themselves.

I stopped giving you information because you seemed to have made no effort to find anything out on your own. I sent you to a catalog you need to consult, you came back asking for the page number. If you can't or won't read the table of contents and page down to the relevant page there's no hope for you.

I poured over that thing, all I could gather is that the one type of lens covered more than the other, Dagor's the most. This is exactly what I mean by a country club attitude.


You have a whole bunch of other things to worry about in terms of camera, tripod, holders, film, transport, processing, wind, physical and spiritual motivation and last but not least the will of the Muses.

I have been shooting professionally for decades man, that stuff is second nature to me. Playing guessing games with what lens to get is not good, if you read the thread, there are people who are disagreeing with one another.

Hugo, I am bowing out of this pursuit, this really does not bode well at all and all that really matters to me is that I continue to make outstanding images no matter what format I choose.

Sorry to have wasted your time!

[Tracy Storer]

So few questions, asked so many times........ admittedly , maybe the search function could be a bit better, but it is hard for the veterans here to see the same questions asked over and over and over. (and over)
A few years ago, a would-be ULF shooter put together a site compiling answers he found, not all of them correct....just parroting what he read here and there. Not especially helpful.
Do your searches....you will find a few names whose posts are worth taking as gospel, though even then, working method and final result expectation come into play which affects opinions which others may express as facts. Honestly, very few lenses have been made expressly for ULF since the late 19th century, and many of those have been process lenses for plate making, mfgr specs were ultra conservative compared to the needs of somebody doing PT/PD prints.
At some point, you will need to get real-world answers from first-hand experience in the context of your own plans and expectations.
No "country club", just the real world.

[djdister]

I posted a shot of the Artar coverage chart from the Goerz catalog in the thread with this title:
Different Goerz 24" Red Dot Apochromat Artar with caps & Flange

The table shows that the 30" Artar covers 16x20 at a 1:10 reduction ratio, but, the catalog also says that if not using a reversing prism in front of the lens (in other words, not using it in a copy camera setup) the coverage is 15% greater than what is posted in the table. The coverage of the lens is even greater if used at closer ratios, like 1:2 or 1:1.

[William Whitaker]

Yeah, I am not entirely buying that.

The lens of any camera is the heart of the camera, it should not be so damn hard to figure out a basic question like what is a good sharp landscape lens for 16x20 close to a normal field of view. Ask the same question of any other format and you will get the right answer within a page.

I'm actually getting PISSED right now because I am starting to run into the same BS country club shit that one can easily experience on this forum in particular.

THANKS!!!!

A lot of talented people here have tried to answer your question. Seriously, at some point you just have to invest your own resources and find what suits YOU.
You can feel as you wish, but you've no right to show this kind of disrespect to your respondents, most of whom have attempted in good faith to provide you with accurate information.

[Oren Grad]

...it should not be so damn hard to figure out a basic question like what is a good sharp landscape lens for 16x20 close to a normal field of view.

There isn't one, at least not in the sense of a readily available lens that's not ancient that's designed for that purpose. There's no 16x20 counterpart of the ubiquitous modern normal plasmats for smaller formats sitting on the shelf waiting for you.


Ask the same question of any other format and you will get the right answer within a page.

Nobody's trying to jerk you around. People who work in the largest formats are either using antique lenses or using newer lenses designed for other purposes; it shouldn't be a surprise that there are different opinions as to whether performance is adequate. If you want "good, sharp" out of 16x20, and you don't personally know somebody who already works in the format and whose quality standards you understand well enough that you can know how to interpret any advice they give, there just isn't any alternative to testing for yourself. If that's not OK - if you must have a guaranteed-out-of-the-box solution - then it's a mistake to mess with 16x20. It's expensive and burdensome and challenging enough even when one's expectations are realistic.

[Taija71A]

... it should not be so damn hard to figure out a 'Basic' question like what is a good sharp landscape lens for 16x20 close to a normal field of view...

____

"I wanted a 'Perfect' ending... Now I've learned, the hard way, that some poems don't rhyme and some stories don't have a clear beginning, middle and end."

~~ Gilda Radner. ~~

_________

[Kodachrome25]

Thanks for all the input, I mean no disrespect to anyone, *really* I don't. So I apologize, please forgive me, I am honestly mentally exhausted from this.

And yes, VBulletin forums have lousy search functions hence the questions. I will take some time off of the pursuit of this to think it over, if I really want to do it now....I don't know...I think I might be done and will just work with my fabulous 4x5 kit. I just imagine getting wonderful images on 16x20 in the amazing place I live and then contact printing them on to silver gel paper, Litho film and offering my clients a wonderful new product.

Take care,

Dan

[Monty McCutchen]

one thought from someone who has shot 20x24 with a 16x20 reducing back, that would be me, is that you buy any of the lenses mentioned and give it a whirl. As Tracy pointed out none are new except the one you excluded the Schneider and almost all of them will retain in value the neighborhood of your original purchase price if shopped judiciously. There have been numerous threads over the years about fixed focal length box cameras made of plywood foam core and numerous other creative materials. If it suits your expectations you can move forward with greater commitment on camera holders etc if not you can sell the lens for near same more than purchase price. It would also speed up your timeline to see if it's a item you wish to offer your clients. Shooting big is great fun but it's not without its warts and limitations one of which is lens options. Personal preference really does play a role as my tastes have changed over the time I've owned my camera and thus my lens preferences as a result have conversely changed with it. One mans not sharp enough is another mans great bokeh. Your getting some of those preferences in responses. Six blind men of Indostan for lenses all being very honest from their point of view of experience but all trying to give good guidance. For me the 760 Nikkor in my real world covered great on my 20x24 for my pt/pd work. I loved it! And then I saved up bought the Schneider 550xl and viola there WAS a 5000 dollar difference in the final product--who would've thunk it😄. I haven't shot the 760 since!!! Perspective changes but only if you jump in a and get your experience with the format rolling as soon as possible. Times a wasting. Go for it. Nail the landing and for goodness sakes don't let a forum board dissuade a goal or dream.

[tgtaylor]

I agree with Monty. Go for it!

Thomas

[rdenney]

Moved to lens forum.

Rick "thanks for not posting links" Denney

[Kodachrome25]

Did you get it Karl? Looks like it went for about the same money you sold you Ilex 5 mounted 30" for, an ad I found while spending hour upon hour trying to figure this out. I passed because I am done considering it all for now.

[karl french]

Nope. Thought seriously about it, but then thought that the same money would basically get me 4 new 10x12 film holders... $1500 or so does seem to be the going rate for 30" Red Dot Artars in shutter.