What size Petzval covers 14x17?

[StoneNYC]

-What size Petzval covers 14x17 with modest movements?

-What size Petzval covers 14x17 just barely?

-What size Petzval will cover 10x17?

I can't wrap my head around this and yes I did search first.

Doing math...

565mm should be the required image circle I THINK? For "coverage" not "illumination". Of 14x17 before movements.

500mm for 10x17?

I hope I did that right?

As always, please try and keep the sharing of knowledge only if you own or have owned and / or used these and not just "theory on paper" as I find it easier to relate to those with practical ULF experience. And Petzval info gets kinda wonky real fast.

Thanks wise men of ultra large stature!

[Mark Sawyer]

Not all Petzvals of the same focal length have the same coverage, just like not all Tessars of the same focal length have the same coverage. And because the Petzval designs aberrations at the outer edges of the image circle start a lot sooner and are much more pronounced than on most lenses, the difference between illumination and sharp coverage is larger than normal.

For sharp coverage on 14x17 at infinity, you're talking about a 30 to 35 inch lens...

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Look at a catalog, for example Dallmeyer:
http://www.cameraeccentric.com/img/info/dallmeyer_1/dallmeyer_1_47.jpg
From Cameraeccentric

The Dallmeyer recommendations are just about right, although they can be pushed a little. I can tell you from personal experience that a 22" 5A will not cover 14x17, but a 30" 6A will. That said, you will never find a 6A, but you might find a 7D.

[goamules]

I have a 23" CC Harrison that I am hoping will cover 16x20. But I haven't tried it yet. Theoretically it should, but practically it may not. So I can give you both. One day.

I'd say to be safe look for something 25" or more.

[Andrew Plume]

the answer surely is, "a very expensive one"

regards
andrew

[brandon13]

The dallmeyers as well as the voigtlander petzvals tend to cover a little bit more than advertised depending on the catalogue. I have a dallmeyer 5d on my 11x14 and it covers just fine, so you could probably get away with a size down if you don't mind swirls. I personally don't love the swirls. At least not in excess. A dallmeyer 6a recently sold here in the Portland OR. area for $5000.00 and that was a really good price so expect to pay in the thousands. BTW Stone you have an interesting way of posing a question. I think you may have put off a few knowledgeable people by the way you phrased your post. Just a thought. cheers.

[davehyams]

Andrews reply is right. would be helpful to know what you want to shoot and also where your gold mine is. obviously it will be much easier to find a petzval that will cover a head shot on 14X17, although the pov and working distance would not be ideal in my opinion, than a full body portrait. If you are shooting wet plate it makes sense to find the fastest lens within your budget, but if you are shooting film you may not need all of that speed. good luck with your search.

[pierre506]

Such coverage lenses will let you bankrupted ASAP, dear Stone~
However, you can choose long focal length, but small aperture Petzval lenses.

[StoneNYC]

Such coverage lenses will let you bankrupted ASAP, dear Stone~
However, you can choose long focal length, but small aperture Petzval lenses.

I might just try and build one... ;)

Also, years ago when applying for a librarians assistant job which required an entrance exam, the question of "irregardless" was on the test, and I got the answer correct.

However I agree that Shakespeare made up words and they because words, but he did it purposely, not out of ignorance as uneducated people tend to (Not saying you at all, I'm saying that "Ain't" is used all the time in many places in the US, but it's not a word, just because it's used and might be "a word" to some people, doesn't make it proper English) and if you used it on an english essay in school, you would get points marked off REGARDLESS of your argument to the contrary.

Anyway I guess I'm feeding the trolls, I'll stop.

[Alan Gales]

What? Ain't ain't a word?

[c.d.ewen]

'tis, if Lord Peter Death Bredon Wimsey uses it.

Charley


What? Ain't ain't a word?

[Steven Tribe]

the answer surely is, "a very expensive one"

And, of course, a very heavy one. I remember a 24" F4. Darlot that eddie sold a few years ago - weighed just over 7 kilos.

[Rick A]

Dang, I just snotted on myself laughing.

[Ken Lee]

Rude forum members get banned: for short durations at first, then permanently.

[karl french]

What about forum members who post excessively and frivolously?

[Ken Lee]

What about forum members who post excessively and frivolously?

Contact the moderators. We have our methods :cool:

[Mark Sawyer]

Water-boarding is illegal, but perhaps lens-boarding?

[ghostcount]

What about forum members who post excessively and frivolously?

Perhaps we can blame the recent server problems with said forum member(s) taking up bandwidth. :rolleyes:

[Taija71A]

What about forum members who post excessively and frivolously?


Contact the moderators. We have our methods.

Does 58 posts in the last three (3) days 'perhaps' qualify?

[Ken Lee]

Does 58 posts in the last three (3) days 'perhaps' qualify?

Point taken. No further mention required.

[Ken Lee]

Irregardless is a fusion of irrespective and regardless.

It's a double negative, like saying "I do not have no idea what you mean." In English, double negatives are avoided, although they are considered correct in other languages.

It's an example of confused grammar which has been so widely used that it has become accepted, irregardlessly :cool:

[Andrew Plume]

Does 58 posts in the last three (3) days 'perhaps' qualify?

mmm

not sure who you could mean..............

andrew

[Taija71A]

Irregardless is a fusion of irrespective and regardless.

It's a double negative, like saying "I do not have no idea what you mean." In English, double negatives are avoided, although they are considered correct in other languages.

It's an example of confused grammar which has been so widely used that it has become accepted, irregardlessly :cool:

"I do not have no idea who you are perhaps referring to..."
Regardless, the point has now been very well taken and duly noted. Thank-you!

However, I reserve the right to change these terms and conditions during subsequent turbulence
and you irrespectively agree to abide by the most recent version of this Terms of Use Agreement.

LOLOL. :cool:

[Mark Sawyer]

In English, double negatives are avoided, although they are considered correct in other languages...

It isn't hard not to disagree...

[Kodachrome25]

Wow....this schoolyard bullying of Stone lately is really getting out of hand.
Kind of reminds me of when I asked what sharp "normal" focal length lens would cover 16x20.

I sure got put in my place....