PDA

View Full Version : Goerz Red Dot Artar question?



stradibarrius
6-Nov-2014, 17:12
What is it about Artar Red Dot photos that look so good? It is almost impossible to tell much when an image has been scanned but most of the photos seem to have something that I can't put my finger on.

Dan Fromm
6-Nov-2014, 18:15
Barry, its all in your head.

Vaughn
6-Nov-2014, 20:59
It is a dialyte design -- 4 air-spaced elements. Very sharp and well corrected lenses. I have never noticed anything special or different about the images they make...not any kind of 'feel'...Kinda of neutral that way, which is fine for me, in fact I prefer it. Just a sharp lens with limited coverage, but nice local contrast.

ScottPhotoCo
6-Nov-2014, 21:52
To get that "something" you have to press the red dot. Shhhhh, don't tell anyone else. :0

Timothy Blomquist
6-Nov-2014, 22:00
To get that "something" you have to press the red dot. Shhhhh, don't tell anyone else. :0
I always wondered what that Red Dot was for; now I know....thanks! I know this sounds stupid, but what kind of effect do you get when pushing the Gold Dot?...:)

Old-N-Feeble
6-Nov-2014, 22:21
I always wondered what that Red Dot was for; now I know....thanks! I know this sounds stupid, but what kind of effect do you get when pushing the Gold Dot?...:)

You have to be at least 18 years old to experience that.

Bernice Loui
6-Nov-2014, 22:22
Would pressing that blue dot make that something even more special?

-RDA, like them for longer than normal focal length or close up images. They have extreme resolution if the individual lens is in proper OE condition, moderate contrast, nice out of focus rendition specially in barrel with the Goerz round iris, very uniform illumination with very low distortion.

These are one of my all time fave lenses with a look very much their own like a Dagor or ...

Most sought after in longer focal lengths for BIG film, often not like due to limited coverage and being f9 or smaller.


Bernice




To get that "something" you have to press the red dot. Shhhhh, don't tell anyone else. :0

richardman
6-Nov-2014, 22:42
In my previous life as a Leica photographer (wait, I still use my Leica), people go on and on about "Bokeh King" (a myth that the phrase originator regretted having made up) and "Leica glow." I guess the same thing happens with LF lens too...

Bernice Loui
6-Nov-2014, 22:49
There are more than a few LF lenses that have very nice 'Bokeh". Most are older, in barrel or older shutters patly due to the round iris and what that generation of lens designers values in optical performance.

The Bokeh thing is one of the reasons why some folks favor older LF optics over new. For others, Bokeh matters little. Kinda like favorite foods for a given individual.



Bernice




In my previous life as a Leica photographer (wait, I still use my Leica), people go on and on about "Bokeh King" (a myth that the phrase originator regretted having made up) and "Leica glow." I guess the same thing happens with LF lens too...

richardman
6-Nov-2014, 22:53
Oh, Bokeh matters to *me*. I'm just referring to the Leica 35mm Summicron V4 which was called the "bokeh king" by a writer and subsequently its worth is around $1500 currently while its brethren languish at about $1000 even though there really aren't much difference between them. To further add insult, the writer refers to the boken at F5.6 (Summicron are F2 lens) but of course no one bothers to read that part and shoot their "bokeh king" at F2... Oh wait, most of them in fact do not make images, but that's another story.

Bernice Loui
6-Nov-2014, 23:17
Straying off topic, some what relevant.

Guess the lens. It is not LF, taken with a mirror less digital and compressed for web transmission (basically image a LOT less than what it was) taken by a photo friend.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-IXIAecyk0-4/VFxjN7UxQ1I/AAAAAAAAAwc/h9h06WieKD4/s720/Flowers%252C%2520Rodger%2520Lim_100f2%2520Kinoptic.jpg



Bernice






Oh, Bokeh matters to *me*. I'm just referring to the Leica 35mm Summicron V4 which was called the "bokeh king" by a writer and subsequently its worth is around $1500 currently while its brethren languish at about $1000 even though there really aren't much difference between them. To further add insult, the writer refers to the boken at F5.6 (Summicron are F2 lens) but of course no one bothers to read that part and shoot their "bokeh king" at F2... Oh wait, most of them in fact do not make images, but that's another story.

richardman
6-Nov-2014, 23:38
That's a telltale signature of an OM 90/2 macro. I can recognize it 90 feet away!

Ha ha...

mdarnton
7-Nov-2014, 06:49
I'm not sure this is a relevant comment, but here goes..... several decades ago I was impressed by the images made by the better process lenses which had a lot of snap and micro-contrast, especially in color photos. Then, somewhere around the 80s, everything started to become an apo-something. Now, all modern lenses, stopped down, look a lot like what I used to associate with stopped down Artars (that is, I'm avoiding the out-of-focus issue entirely). Consequently, I find myself buying mostly things like old tessars, to try to get away from that look. Somewhere along the line I had sold my Heliar, now I just re-bought one. Go figure.

Bernice Loui
7-Nov-2014, 09:09
Which aspects of this image leads one to believe it was created with an Olympus 90mm f2 macro?


Bernice



That's a telltale signature of an OM 90/2 macro. I can recognize it 90 feet away!

Ha ha...

stradibarrius
7-Nov-2014, 09:31
Learning via forums is certainly different than being present with an instructor. You have to rely on the experience of others with equipment that you may not presently have access. Michael your comment is more relevant than you may think.

Bernice Loui
7-Nov-2014, 09:32
Many years ago when color transparency film was widely available for LF and was the norm for commercial work it was apparent that most of this work was after a certain look in the finished image. The look was typically everything in the image sharp, high contrast, saturated color and basically images intended to catch the viewer's eye. There was often little nuance or refined details to the images often produced by the commercial ad world form that time in color transparency LF work.

Professional images produced during the 1950's were not this way. Examples of this can be found in Kodak publications from that time. The shift over to high contrast, everything sharp, hard hitting color images appear to have started in the mid-late 1960's.

This drove the lens manufactures and lens designers to produce LF optics with high contrast, high color saturation, enough sharpness typically at f22 and a large focusing aperture to aid in setting up the camera image and large image circle. The design of choice became the widely produced f5.6 plasmat made by Schneider, Fujinon, Rodenstock, Nikkor and others. Their resulting image became pretty similar as they were pretty much after the same market expectations and design goals. Being a LF newbie at the time, those images from these f5.6 Plasmats looked GREAT and extremely impressive. Once day I tried a Kodak Commercial Ektar out of curiosity on color transparency film compared to a Sironar N which was the latest and greatest at that time. Their look was distinctly different. Sharpness was better with the Ektar,lower contrast with better separation and a look that was distinctly Ektar. How could this be? An old lens produce an image this appealing.

Shared this finding with a working photographer friend who then told me to have a look at the difference between a table top studio image made with a modern plasma -vs- a Goerz Artar. The Artar had higher resolution, better contrast separation and lower distortion.. After this experience I started to question if the modern plasma was actually better than some of the vintage lenses. Turns out, it was all a matter of trade offs. Artars, Ronars and Dialyte designs do have a look of their own. In time this caused me to acquire a collection of Artars and Ronars in various focal lengths with one oddity a Cooke Aviar which is f4.5.

What is apparent in my travels is those older lens designs have more personality beyond just being sharp and snappy.


Bernice

stradibarrius
7-Nov-2014, 09:50
This is getting to the "heart" of why I asked the question to begin with. I read a lot about the "Red Dots" or Ektars ,etc. and wonder why these older lenses are so popular. The explaination that Bernice posted explains some of her reasons. Thanks Bernice!

Dan Fromm
7-Nov-2014, 11:24
Barry, there's another reason to pursue old and, sometimes, unpopular lenses. Many of them are better than good enough and much less expensive than modern lenses. I don't know what your budget is. Mine has often been, um, constrained. Hence all of my not very popular French lenses.

stradibarrius
7-Nov-2014, 16:40
That is a real world consideration for most of us Dan. When you can't really afford $$$ to make an "obvious" mistake it is great to have some experienced opinions to help to try and give some guidance about things to consider when you are asking about a given lens. It is really sharp but won't cover 5x7, or, that lens is a soft focus lens blah blah. Michael made a point a few post back that over time your taste in what you want to see changes.

Drew Wiley
7-Nov-2014, 17:26
Another sea change in the 60's was the proliferation of multi-coatings, which led to higher contrast lenses.

ImSoNegative
7-Nov-2014, 20:05
I love the older lenses I use a 355 RD as my go to lens for 8x10 and I just purchased a 180mm heliar for portraits on 4x5 and 5x7. I had a 150mm heliar a while back but sold it. They are excellent portrait and still life lenses

richardman
7-Nov-2014, 20:26
Which aspects of this image leads one to believe it was created with an Olympus 90mm f2 macro?


Bernice

I am just joking around. Basically, all lens have some kind of individual looks, but at certain aperture, chances are any lens is going to look awfully similar to some other lens. There have been lots of tests for people who claim they can pick up prints from X lens but usually in a true blind test of random prints, no such success can be found.

Now in this particular image, of all the lens that I have shot, the Cooke PS845 and the OM 90/2 have the smoothest bokeh ever, even more than my Leica lens. Would I bet more than 5 cents on what lens was used in a particular shot like this one? Not a chance :-)

richardman
7-Nov-2014, 20:27
BTW, this doesn't mean I am not a gear head. I do like to chase the "Holy Grail of XYZ" from time to time

Bernice Loui
7-Nov-2014, 20:51
Distinction of lens images are more apparent at or near their largest aperture. Once stopped down, the differences are discounted and can often be much reduced. Specifically in many LF images, many are made with an effort to hold most every aspect of the image in focus. View camera movement allows much control over what and where areas and items are in focus and what is not. This is one of the features that makes a vie camera unique and special.

That image was made with a 100mm f2 Kinoptic, one of my all time favorite 35mm lenses. It has a smoothness in the OOF rendition that is special, low contrast that tends to look and render more realistic than most, extreme resolution (not kidding about this) and color rendition that is extremely neutral. Back in the day, using the 100mm f2 Kinoptic with Kodachrome 25 was simply great.

The Cooke PS945 is a speciality portrait lens in the tradition of the Pinkham Smith. It is expensive, individually made to order is IMO, worth the cost if one is serious about making images in this style.

Lens choice is much like food (previously notes), living space decorations and ... Knowing there are many, many choices offered by the volume of lenses and optics made is a good thing. In time, one does tend to settle on specific imaging tool choices that works for what they are trying to achieve. Once the tools have become pretty much settled, real energy can be focused towards creative image-making.


Bernice




I am just joking around. Basically, all lens have some kind of individual looks, but at certain aperture, chances are any lens is going to look awfully similar to some other lens. There have been lots of tests for people who claim they can pick up prints from X lens but usually in a true blind test of random prints, no such success can be found.

Now in this particular image, of all the lens that I have shot, the Cooke PS845 and the OM 90/2 have the smoothest bokeh ever, even more than my Leica lens. Would I bet more than 5 cents on what lens was used in a particular shot like this one? Not a chance :-)

Taija71A
7-Nov-2014, 21:20
... Now in this particular image, of all the lens that I have shot, the Cooke PS845 and the...

____

Hi Richard!

Was the Cooke PS845... Perhaps an earlier 'prototype' of the Cooke PS945?
Is so, I would imagine that it must be fairly rare and valuable...

Just kidding of course. :-)
--
Best regards,

-Tim.
________

richardman
8-Nov-2014, 00:28
Yes, I will add an arc to the bottom of the nine and call t PS845 and sell it for as a $10,000 special prototype :-) It even has a gold rim!

ImSoNegative
8-Nov-2014, 08:23
Yes, I will add an arc to the bottom of the nine and call t PS845 and sell it for as a $10,000 special prototype :-) It even has a gold rim!

my 19in. RD artar had a gold rim too first one I had ever seen like it, I sold it about a year ago, not sure why it had the gold rim. havnt seen another like it since.

stradibarrius
9-Jan-2015, 10:30
What is the main difference in a RD artar and a "plain artar?

Ken Lee
9-Jan-2015, 11:11
What is the main difference in a RD artar and a "plain artar?

See Dhananjay Nayakankuppam's excellent post at http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/azoforum/one.asp?ID=6610&PgNo=&GID=6610&CID=3:


"The difference between Artars and red dot Artars are that (1) red dots are coated and (2) red dots installed in shutters at the factory supposedly had their optimization tweaked for different distances (say, 1:10) rather than the 1:1 that Artars were typically optimized for. Now how much of a difference do these make? The optimization does not make much of a difference because the dialyte design holds its corrections well over a large range of image distances. The coating will make a difference because the dialyte design has eight air-glass surfaces which does make for quite some flare, so the coating will help. Having said that, some non-red-dot Artars are coated (supposedly done after-market by Burke and James). I have had one of these and it performed admirably. Non-coated non-red-dots perform very well also, especially if you take care and use a good lens shade."

Drew Wiley
9-Jan-2015, 11:34
After that, the Artar name passed on to Schneider, who made a small selection of multi-coated ones in modern shutters, though they're not very common. Artars had less coverage than the general-purpose plastmats that became so popular around that time. They competed against Rodenstock's Apo-Ronars, which were a
bit better known. Docter Optic also made something equivalent, as I recall. Numerous "process" lenses share a similar formula, but just weren't marketed in
shutter.

David Lindquist
10-Jan-2015, 11:38
See Dhananjay Nayakankuppam's excellent post at http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/azoforum/one.asp?ID=6610&PgNo=&GID=6610&CID=3:


"The difference between Artars and red dot Artars are that (1) red dots are coated and (2) red dots installed in shutters at the factory supposedly had their optimization tweaked for different distances (say, 1:10) rather than the 1:1 that Artars were typically optimized for. Now how much of a difference do these make? The optimization does not make much of a difference because the dialyte design holds its corrections well over a large range of image distances. The coating will make a difference because the dialyte design has eight air-glass surfaces which does make for quite some flare, so the coating will help. Having said that, some non-red-dot Artars are coated (supposedly done after-market by Burke and James). I have had one of these and it performed admirably. Non-coated non-red-dots perform very well also, especially if you take care and use a good lens shade."

The 1951 C.P. Goerz American Optical Co. catalogue at http://www.cameraeccentric.com/index.html has this statement on page 5: "We furnish ALL (emphasis added) our lenses with reflecting surfaces coated. Uncoated lenses can be furnished upon special order." This catalogue includes the Apochromat Artars (not "Red Dot") as well as Dagors which suggests to me that by 1951 both C.P. Goerz A.O.C. Apochromat Artars as well as Dagors were coated. The price list at the end of the catalogue shows that the Apochromat Artars in focal lengths 9 1/2 inches through 24 inches could be supplied in Ilex shutters. There is no indication that these shutter mounted Artars were optimized for different working distances than the barrel mounted Artars.

David