7x17 lenses?

[Daniel Grenier]

A lens expert I am definitely not. So what are "standard" lenses for the 7x17 format anyway? I am considering going to that format and some of my lenses may fit well while others would surely vignette.

I have a 355 G-Clarron, 360 Commercial Ektar, 480 Apo Ronar, and 165 Super Angulon.

Ideally, what would work on a 7x17 among these and what else would I want to fit on the camera to provide good movement etc...

Thanks

[Ernest Purdum]

Unless I've messed up on the math - always a distinct possibility - the diagonal of 7" X 17" is 18.38" or 466mm. That's a really big diagonal. Your present lenses have image circles that are rated at less so are inadequate for 7" X 17" if you accept the makeers' figures.

What does work? Fujinon used to make a huge 300mm super wide. That would do it with lots of room to spare, but I think it would be hard to track one down. Schneider and Rodenstock both make a few lenses in this image circle range, up to 500mm. It's my impression that people working in this format often use very old lenses originally intended for use on huge studio cameras. Most of the familiar "classic" lenses were made in large enough sizes, though big ones can be hard to find.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Regardless of maker's figures, the 355/9 G-Claron and the 480 Apo-Ronar will both easily cover the format. I understand that the 14" Commercial Ektar will just cover, but the corners are soft.

[Mike Gudzinowicz]

This is a list of "modern" lenses for 7x17.

Focal Length, Aperture, & Maker E/G Shutter Rise - Fall - Shift
inches (cm)
84 mm f/22 Wisner Hypergon 2/2 n.a. 0.1, 0.2; (0.3, 0.5)
200 mm f/6.8 Rodenstock Grandagon 8/4 3 0.7, 1.6; (1.8, 4.1)
200 mm f/6.8 Rodenstock Grandagon N 8/4 3 0.7, 1.6; (1.8, 4.1)
210 mm f/8 Schneider Super Angulon 6/4 1, 3 0.9, 1.8; (2.3, 4.6)
250 mm f/6.3 Kodak Wide Field Ektar 4/4 n.a. 0.0, 0.1; (0.0, 0.3)
270 mm f/6.8 Kyvyx APO-Kyvytar n.a. 3 2.7, 4.6; (6.9, 11.7)
273 mm f/6.8 Goerz Dagor 6/2 n.a. 1.2, 2.4; (3.0, 6.1)
300 mm f/6.8 Schneider Symmar 6/2 n.a. 0.9, 1.9; (2.3, 4.8)
300 mm f/5.6 Rodenstock APO Sironar 7/5 3 0.6, 1.2; (1.5, 3.0)
300 mm f/5.6 Rodenstock APO Sironar W 7/5 3 0.6, 1.2; (1.5, 3.0)
300 mm f/5.6 Sinar Sinaron WS n.a. 3 0.6, 1.2; (1.5, 3.0)
305 mm f/6.8 Goerz Dagor 6/2 n.a. 2.5, 4.4; (6.4, 11.2)
305 mm f/9 Computar F9 6/4 3 0.6, 1.2; (1.5, 3.0)
355 mm f/7.7 Goerz Dagor 6/2 n.a. 4.5, 6.9; (11.4, 17.5)
355 mm f/9 Schneider Graphic Claron 6/2 n.a. 0.4, 1.0; (1.0, 2.5)
360 mm f/6.8 Schneider Symmar 6/2 n.a. 3.0, 5.1; (7.6, 13.0)
360 mm f/9 Kyvyx APO-Kyvytar n.a. 3 1.4, 2.6; (3.6, 6.6)
360 mm f/6.8 Calumet Caltar SII n.a. n.a. 1.0, 1.9; (2.5, 4.8)
360 mm f/10 Fujinon AS 6/4 1 1.0, 1.9; (2.5, 4.8)
360 mm f/5.6 Schneider Symmar 6/4 n.a. 1.0, 1.9; (2.5, 4.8)
360 mm f/5.6 Nikkor W 6/4 3 0.8, 1.6; (2.0, 4.1)
360 mm f/6.8 Schneider APO Symmar 6/4 3 0.8, 1.6; (2.0, 4.1)
360 mm f/6.8 Schneider Symmar S 6/4 3 0.8, 1.6; (2.0, 4.1)
360 mm f/6.8 Schneider Symmar S MC 6/4 3 0.8, 1.6; (2.0, 4.1)
360 mm f/6.5 Fujinon CM-W 6/6 3 0.6, 1.2; (1.5, 3.0)
360 mm f/6.3 Fujinon NWS 6/6 n.a. 0.6, 1.2; (1.5, 3.0)
360 mm f/6.3 Fujinon W 6/4 3 0.6, 1.2; (1.5, 3.0)
360 mm f/6.8 Rodenstock APO Sironar S 6/4 3 0.2, 0.5; (0.5, 1.3)
375 mm f/6.3 Calumet Caltar n.a. n.a. 0.2, 0.5; (0.5, 1.3)
420 mm f/7.7 Goerz Dagor 6/2 n.a. 6.9, 9.9; (17.5, 25.1)
420 mm f/5.6 Fujinon FS 3/3 3 1.0, 2.0; (2.5, 5.1)
420 mm f/5.6 Fujinon SFS 3/3 3 1.0, 2.0; (2.5, 5.1)
420 mm f/4.5 Schneider Xenar 4/3 n.a. 1.0, 2.0; (2.5, 5.1)
450 mm f/8 Fujinon CM-W 6/6 3 1.3, 2.5; (3.3, 6.4)
450 mm f/8.5 Fujinon C 4/4 1 0.6, 1.4; (1.5, 3.6)
450 mm f/8.5 Fujinon CS 4/4 1 0.6, 1.4; (1.5, 3.6)
480 mm f/7.7 Goerz Dagor 6/2 n.a. 9.2, 12.5; (23.4, 31.8)
480 mm f/9 Kyvyx APO-Kyvytar n.a. 3 4.9, 7.5; (12.4, 19.1)
480 mm f/4.5 Schneider Xenar 4/3 n.a. 2.5, 4.3; (6.4, 10.9)
480 mm f/8 Goerz Gotar 4/4 n.a. 1.1, 2.2; (2.8, 5.6)
480 mm f/8.4 Rodenstock APO Sironar N 6/4 3 0.9, 1.8; (2.3, 4.6)
480 mm f/8.4 Rodenstock Sironar N 6/4 3 0.9, 1.8; (2.3, 4.6)
480 mm f/8 Schneider APO Symmar 6/4 3 0.9, 1.8; (2.3, 4.6)
480 mm f/6.8 Schneider Symmar S 6/4 3 0.9, 1.8; (2.3, 4.6)
480 mm f/6.8 Schneider Symmar S MC 6/4 3 0.9, 1.8; (2.3, 4.6)
480 mm f/9 Sinar Sinaron S n.a. 3 0.4, 1.0; (1.0, 2.5)
508 mm f/6.3 Ilex Acutar 4/3 n.a. 2.2, 3.9; (5.6, 9.9)
508 mm f/4.5 Zeiss Tessar 4/3 n.a. 2.0, 3.5; (5.1, 8.9)
600 mm f/11.5 Fujinon C 4/4 3 3.5, 5.6; (8.9, 14.2)
600 mm f/11.5 Fujinon CS 4/4 3 3.5, 5.6; (8.9, 14.2)
600 mm f/11.5 Docter Apo-Germinar 6/6 3 0.8, 1.7; (2.0, 4.3)
600 mm f/9 Jenoptik Apo-Germinar 6/6 n.a. 0.8, 1.7; (2.0, 4.3)
600 mm f/9 Rodenstock Apo Ronar 4/4 3 0.8, 1.7; (2.0, 4.3)
600 mm f/9 Sinar APO Sinaron DBM n.a. n.a. 0.8, 1.7; (2.0, 4.3)
600 mm f/9 Voigtlander Apo-Skopar 5/3 n.a. 0.8, 1.7; (2.0, 4.3)
600 mm f/9 Jenoptik Apo-T 4/3 n.a. 0.3, 0.7; (0.8, 1.8)
610 mm f/6.3 Zeiss Tessar 4/3 n.a. 4.2, 6.6; (10.7, 16.8)
610 mm f/10 Goerz Gotar 4/4 n.a. 3.9, 6.3; (9.9, 16.0)
610 mm f/11 Goerz APO Artar 4/4 n.a. 1.2, 2.4; (3.0, 6.1)
610 mm f/11 Goerz Red Dot Artar 4/4 n.a. 1.2, 2.4; (3.0, 6.1)
610 mm f/9 Nikon Apo-Nikkor 4/4 n.a. 1.2, 2.4; (3.0, 6.1)
610 mm f/9 Schneider Repro-Claron 4/4 n.a. 1.2, 2.4; (3.0, 6.1)
610 mm f/9 Rank Apotal 4/3 n.a. 1.0, 2.0; (2.5, 5.1)
650 mm f/9 Voigtlander Apo-Skopar n.a. n.a. 1.7, 3.1; (4.3, 7.9)
750 mm f/14.5 Docter Apo-Germinar 6/6 3 3.4, 5.5; (8.6, 14.0)
750 mm f/9 Jenoptik Apo-Germinar 6/6 n.a. 3.4, 5.5; (8.6, 14.0)
750 mm f/9 Jenoptik Apo-T 4/3 n.a. 2.8, 4.7; (7.1, 11.9)
760 mm f/11 Nikon Apo-Nikkor 4/4 n.a. 3.9, 6.2; (9.9, 15.7)
762 mm f/12.5 Goerz APO Artar 4/4 n.a. 3.9, 6.2; (9.9, 15.7)
762 mm f/12.5 Goerz Red Dot Artar 4/4 n.a. 2.6, 4.5; (6.6, 11.4)
762 mm f/9 Rank Apotal 4/3 n.a. 2.6, 4.5; (6.6, 11.4)
762 mm f/10 Wray Apo-Process Lustrar 4/4 n.a. 0.8, 1.6; (2.0, 4.1)
800 mm f/9 Rodenstock APO Ronar S 6/4 3 3.2, 5.3; (8.1, 13.5)
800 mm f/11 Schneider APO Tele Xenar HM 5/5 3 1.0, 1.9; (2.5, 4.8)
890 mm f/12.5 Goerz APO Artar 4/4 n.a. 6.1, 8.9; (15.5, 22.6)
890 mm f/12.5 Goerz Red Dot Artar 4/4 n.a. 3.9, 6.2; (9.9, 15.7)
900 mm f/9 Jenoptik Apo-Germinar 6/6 n.a. 5.9, 8.7; (15.0, 22.1)
900 mm f/9 Jenoptik Apo-T 4/3 n.a. 5.2, 7.8; (13.2, 19.8)
914 mm f/10 Wray Apo-Process Lustrar 4/4 n.a. 2.8, 4.8; (7.1, 12.2)
965 mm f/4.5 Fujinon Fujinon 6/3 n.a. 6.6, 9.5; (16.8, 24.1)
1000 mm f/19.5 Docter Apo-Germinar 6/6 3 7.6, 10.6; (19.3, 26.9)
1067 mm f/14 Goerz APO Artar 4/4 n.a. 9.1, 12.4; (23.1, 31.5)
1067 mm f/14 Goerz Red Dot Artar 4/4 n.a. 6.5, 9.4; (16.5, 23.9)
1067 mm f/10 Wray Apo-Process Lustrar 4/4 n.a. 4.8, 7.4; (12.2, 18.8)
1200 mm f/15 Goerz APO Artar 4/4 n.a. 11.4, 14.9; (29.0, 37.8)
1200 mm f/11 Jenoptik Apo-Germinar 6/6 n.a. 10.9, 14.3; (27.7, 36.3)
1200 mm f/15 Goerz Red Dot Artar 4/4 n.a. 7.5, 10.6; (19.1, 26.9)
1200 mm f/10 Wray Apo-Process Lustrar 4/4 n.a. 6.9, 9.8; (17.5, 24.9)
1600 mm f/10 Wray Apo-Process Lustrar 4/4 n.a. 11.8, 15.3; (30.0, 38.9)
1780 mm f/16 Goerz APO Artar 4/4 n.a. 21.2, 25.2; (53.8, 64.0)
1780 mm f/16 Goerz Red Dot Artar 4/4 n.a. 13.5, 17.1; (34.3, 43.4)

[sanking]

“Regardless of maker's figures, the 355/9 G-Claron and the 480 Apo-Ronar will both easily cover the format. I understand that the 14" Commercial Ektar will just cover, but the corners are soft.”

For example, one of the most popular lenses for 7X17” is the 305mm G-Claron, which actually covers nicely this format with several inches of movement. But, if you were to rely on the coverage data supplied by Schneider for this lens you would be certain that it would not cover the format.

Wide angle lenses tend to be very popular with 7X17” users. There are, in addition to individual aesthetics, several practical reasons for this, including the fact that many of the older F&S and Korona cameras of this format have limited bellows draw. If one is looking for really wide angle coverage some of the possibilities in modern lenses, up to 305mm, for 7X17 are:

210mm SSXL
210mm Super Angulon
210mm Grandagon
240mm Computar
270mm Computar
305mm G-Claron
305mm Computar

Note that some 240mm and 270mm Kowa Graphics have the same design and similar coverage to the 240mm and 270mm Computars. But not all do, so buy with caution if your intended coverage is 7X17.

Among older lenses, lenses to consider include the 210 Series V Protar, wide angle Dagors down to 270mm, and regular Dagors down to 300mm. Many other older classic lenses will also cover. Maybe Jim Gali will comment further since he likes to use these lenses on panorama formats.

Once you get beyond about 350-60mm virtually of the current and last generation plasmats will cover. This includes Symmar and Symmar-S , Fujinon-W, Nikkor-W, and similar lenses by Rodenstock.

Above 480mm virtually all lenses will cover 7X17” , including most Apo lenses.

[Christopher Perez]

Couple lenses to add to the list:

- 250mm Kodak Wide Field Ektar f/6.3

- 183mm Bausch and Lomb Protar Series V f/18

I've used both and they give wide to very wide fields of view on 7x17. The 250WFEktar is sufficiently sharp all the way to the edges to make pleasing contact prints.

The Protar begins to see a little "softness". But then, mine are mounted in Supermatic #0 shutters and the front elements are somewhat recessed in the mountings. Perhaps a barrel mounted Protar with a more shallow front element set would provide clearer images to the edge?

Last thing about your question on "normal" lenses for 7x17 - The Schneider 355 GClaron feels pleasingly "normal" to me. The 305 GClaron is very slightly wide. The 250WFEktar feels very wide on the format. The 183Protar Series Vs feel rediculously wide.

I hope this helps.

[sanking]

"Couple lenses to add to the list:

- 250mm Kodak Wide Field Ektar f/6.3

- 183mm Bausch and Lomb Protar Series V f/18"

My 184mm B&L Protar Series V vignettes just a bit at infinity focus. So too does the 210mm Computar. Both lenses, however, cover without vignetting at closer focus as might be typical when working indoors.

We could also add to the list the 210mm Angulon, though the specimen I once owned ws unacceptably soft on the corners.

BTW, with all of the very wide angle lenses mentioned above you *must" stop down to at least f/45 to get decent performance on the corners.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Chris,

How much (if any) movement can you get on 7x17 with the 250/6.3 WF Ektar? Towards the end of its image circle does the lens vignette or fuzz out?

thanks

[Christopher Perez]

My 250WFEktar begins to "pull" at the edges if I use any rise/fall movements. So it's pretty much a "straight on" kind of optic, unless you can live with the slight "pull". It doesn't really "fuzz". Once you saw the effect, you'd know what I was talking about.

The 250WFEktar does not vignette like a Fuji 250 f/6.7 or some of the more recent optics that mechanically limit the field of view.

I'm looking for a 240 Germinar W f/9 (like the ones Kerry had forsale recently). These apparently vignette the extreme corners and may still give a usable image with a slight cropping. At least it looks like this from the image Jim Galli posted a month or so back. I like the idea of a modern, fairly light, multi-coated 250-ish focal length for 7x17.

Sandy, what vintage was the 210 Angulon you tried? Was early uncoated or later coated?

[Daniel Grenier]

Well, question answered in spades! Thanks for the great info (extra thanks to you, Mike, for the detailed list).

Bad news is, I only see one lens I now own that's usable on the camera - the G-Claron. The others would not work out unless I crop the neg or go for the round corners look. That includes my 480 Apo-Ronar (not sironar) which has an image circle of only 396mm as showing on Michael Davis's chart elsewhere on this forum.

Thanks again, folks. Info much appreciated.

[Christopher Perez]

Dan, I'd strongly suggest you work with just the GClaron for awhile. If there was only one lens to work with in the format, your Schneider might be it.

In ULF work I find having too many lens options very distracting. Confusing, in fact. Lately I carry the 355 CGlaron and the 250WFEktar in 7x17. That's it. I have no need for a lens longer than the 355 or shorter than 250 (though I may play with the Protars some more under special circumstances). But that's just me. YMMWV.

[Steve Nieslony]

My 7x17 'kit' is lenses that I have that I have used successfully with my 7x17:

210 f9 Computar - Limited to no movements - focus on outside and stop down to get focus
240 f9 Computar - More coverage then the 210 - but you still should focus on the outside
270 f9 Computar - Lots of coverage
355 G-Claron - Covers my 12x20 'nuf said
450 Nikkor M - Covers 12x20+
24" RD Artar - Covers 12x20 +

I have a 300mm g-Claron - I just haven't tried it. I do have 10.75 and 12" Golden Dagors which cover but seem to be a bit mushy. The 14" Schneider Dagor (made by Dagor) is wonderful but is limited in coverage (on 7x17 soft on the corners).

Hope this helps!
Steve

[sanking]

"Sandy, what vintage was the 210 Angulon you tried? Was early uncoated or later coated?"

It was a later coated version.

[Matt Magruder]

Dan
I have first hand experience that the 360mm (14") Kodak Commercial Ektar covers 7x17 adequately. I use it on my Folmer & Schwing 7x17 and found I can even manage with the lens and it covers the limited movements as well.

I have a 300mm Konica GRII as well that covers adequately with the limited movements.

[Mike Gudzinowicz]

[pre]
Dan,

Here's another list of lenses made before 1940. The minimum focal length
required to cover is given in the last column. You want something longer
if movements are anticipated. The old lenses are uncoated, so designs with
only 2 or 3 groups may be desirable to reduce flare, however, many of the
lenses were available later with coatings. Try your 480 APO Ronar. It will
cover for close work and might get by at longer distances if stopped down.
The contact prints aren't demanding as the specs of an APO lens, but don't
expect a much wider field since the design precludes that trick.

Good luck!

Mike

Manufacturer and Model f/# FL Deg E/G Min. FL
Range To Cover
Aldis Ser 3a 7.7 5-11" 100 - 192 mm or 7.6"
B & L Aero Tessar 6 24" 45 5/3 554 mm or 21.8"
B & L Ext. Wide, Ser 5 18 3.5-37" 90 4/2 229 mm or 9."
B & L Med. Wide, Ser 4 12.5 2.5-48" 70 4/2 328 mm or 12.9"
B & L Protar Ser 7 12.5 7-39" 56 4/1 431 mm or 17."
B & L Protar Ser 7a 6.3;7.7 4-23" 63 8/2 374 mm or 14.7"
B & L Tessar 4.5 3.5-19.5" 60 4/3 397 mm or 15.6"
B & L Tessar 2b 6.3 3.5-23.25" 62 4/3 382 mm or 15."
Beck Isostigmar 1 4.5 3-20" 60 5/5 397 mm or 15.6"
Beck Isostigmar 1a 6.5 9-19" 62 5/5 382 mm or 15."
Beck Isostigmar 4 6.3 3.5-19" 90 5/5 229 mm or 9."
Boyer Opale 4.5 50-500 mm 56 - 431 mm or 17."
Busch Lenkar 7.7 330-450 mm 61 - 389 mm or 15.3"
Busch Lenkar 9 65-300 mm 80 - 273 mm or 10.7"
Busch Omnar 5.5 90-450 mm 75 4/4 299 mm or 11.8"
Busch Omnar 7.7 70-550 mm 80 4/4 273 mm or 10.7"
Busch Stigmar 6.3 - 60 6/4 397 mm or 15.6"
Dallmeyer Dallmeyer-Bergheim 6.5;15 12-55" 20 2/2 1301 mm or 51.2"
Dallmeyer Dallon 16 7.7 12-40" 30 4/2 856 mm or 33.7"
Dallmeyer Patent Portrait 4 10-30" 36 - 706 mm or 27.8"
Dallmeyer Patent Portrait 6 9-37" 41 - 613 mm or 24.1"
Dallmeyer Portrait Anast. 4.5 10-18" 56 - 431 mm or 17."
Dallmeyer Portrait Anast. 6 10-18" 56 - 431 mm or 17."
Dallmeyer Stigmatic 2 6 4-15" 70 5/3 328 mm or 12.9"
Dallmeyer Stigmatic 3 7.5 3-16" 75 4/3 299 mm or 11.8"
Dallmeyer Wide-angle Anast. 11 3-9" 100 - 192 mm or 7.6"
Goerz Alethar Ser V 11 300-1200 mm 70 8/4 328 mm or 12.9"
Goerz Artar 9;16 14-70" 45 4/4 554 mm or 21.8"
Goerz Celor 3.5 - 70 4/4 328 mm or 12.9"
Goerz Celor Ser 1b 4.5;6.5 60-480 mm 70 4/4 328 mm or 12.9"
Goerz Dagor Ser 3 6.8 40-900 mm 85 6/2 250 mm or 9.8"
Goerz Dagor Ser 4 11 300-1200 mm 90 6/2 229 mm or 9."
Goerz Gotar 6.8;10 8-24" 54 4/4 450 mm or 17.7"
Goerz Hypergon Ser X 22;33 60-120 mm 140 2/2 83 mm or 3.3"
Goerz Pantar 6.3 86-276 mm 85 8/2 250 mm or 9.8"
Gundlach Anast. Ser 4 6.3 5-16" 60 4/4 397 mm or 15.6"
Gundlach Portrait A 5 9-20" 60 - 397 mm or 15.6"
Gundlach Portrait B 6 7.5-24" 60 - 397 mm or 15.6"
Gundlach Radar 4.5 3.5-18" 62 5/3 382 mm or 15."
Hugo Meyer Aristostigmat 4.5;5.5 1.5-20" 75 4/4 299 mm or 11.8"
Hugo Meyer Aristostigmat 6.3 1.5-20" 90 4/4 229 mm or 9."
Hugo Meyer Dbl.Aristostigmat 6.8 40-900 mm 82 8/2 264 mm or 10.4"
Hugo Meyer Double-Anast. 6.8 1.5-30" 62 6/2 382 mm or 15."
Hugo Meyer Double-Plasmat 4;5.5 2-19" 57 6/4 422 mm or 16.6"
Hugo Meyer Euryplan 6 2-24" 85 6/4 250 mm or 9.8"
Hugo Meyer Makro-Plasmat 2.9 1-12" 75 6/5 299 mm or 11.8"
Hugo Meyer Process-Plasmat 8 14-34" 48 6/4 515 mm or 20.3"
Hugo Meyer W.A. Aristostigmat 9 3-11" 100 4/4 192 mm or 7.6"
Ilex Ilexigmat 6.3 3.5-23.5" 58 - 414 mm or 16.3"
Ilex Paragon 4.5 3.5-20" 53 - 460 mm or 18.1"
Kodak Photostat Anast. 10 13-21" 50 4/4 492 mm or 19.4"
Laake Polycentar 6.8 180-360 mm 70 6/4 328 mm or 12.9"
Reichert Neukombinar 6.8 60-360 mm 95 - 210 mm or 8.3"
Rietzscel Linear A 4.5;4.8 60-420 mm 75 8/2 299 mm or 11.8"
Rietzscel Linear B 5.5;6 60-600 mm 75 8/2 299 mm or 11.8"
Rietzscel Linear C 6.8;7 60-900 mm 75 8/2 299 mm or 11.8"
Rietzscel Repro. Objektiv 11 300-1200 mm 45 - 554 mm or 21.8"
Rodenstock Eurygon 4.5 210-600 mm 48 3/3 515 mm or 20.3"
Rodenstock Eurynar 6.5 105-480 mm 60 4/4 397 mm or 15.6"
Rodenstock Imagonal 6;6.8 60-1500 mm 60 4/2 397 mm or 15.6"
Rodenstock Pantagonal 18 85-750 mm 125 3/2 119 mm or 4.7"
Rodenstock Perigon 12 90-750 mm 110 4/2 161 mm or 6.3"
Rodenstock Studio Rapid Lens 3.5 14-48" 30 - 856 mm or 33.7"
Rodenstock Ysar 4.5 50-480 mm 58 4/3 414 mm or 16.3"
Ross Apo-Process-Xpres 9;10 13-48" 60 - 397 mm or 15.6"
Ross Combinable 5.5 4-21" 58 - 414 mm or 16.3"
Ross Homocentric 5.6 12-24" 56 4/4 431 mm or 17."
Ross Homocentric 8 7-24" 56 4/4 431 mm or 17."
Ross Process Xpres 9;16 13-48" 60 - 397 mm or 15.6"
Ross Teleros 8 40" 30 5/2 856 mm or 33.7"
Ross Wide-angle 16 3-12" 95 - 210 mm or 8.3"
Ross Wide-angle-Xpres 4 4-20" 80 6/4 273 mm or 10.7"
Ross Xpres 4.5 3-21" 53 5/3 460 mm or 18.1"
Roussel Stylor 6.3 54-500 mm 53 4/3 460 mm or 18.1"
Schneider Aero Xenar 4.5 10-20" 53 5/3 460 mm or 18.1"
Schneider Angulon 6.8 3.5-8.25" 105 6/2 176 mm or 6.9"
Schneider Symmar 6.8 2-14" 80 6/2 273 mm or 10.7"
Schneider Xenar 4.5 2-19" 57 4/3 422 mm or 16.6"
Schulze Euryplan 1 4.5 90-320 mm 80 6/4 273 mm or 10.7"
Schulze Euryplan 2 6 60-600 mm 90 6/4 229 mm or 9."
Schulze Euryplan 3 7.7 60-600 mm 82 6/4 264 mm or 10.4"
Simon Octanar 6.3 90-600 mm 85 8/2 250 mm or 9.8"
Staeble Chloroplast - 46 4/4 540 mm or 21.3"
Staeble Lineoplast 12.5 - 46 4/2 540 mm or 21.3"
Staeble Neoplast - 46 540 mm or 21.3"
Steinheil Orthostigmat B 6.8 50-600 mm 85 6/2 250 mm or 9.8"
Steinheil Orthostigmat D 10 300-900 mm 80 6/2 273 mm or 10.7"
Steinheil Orthostigmat E 12 70-250 mm 100 6/2 192 mm or 7.6"
Steinheil Orthostigmat F 9 360-900 mm 75 6/2 299 mm or 11.8"
Steinheil Unofokal 1 4.5 100-500 mm 60 4/4 397 mm or 15.6"
Suter Anast. Ser 1 6.8;7.2 620-900 mm 80 8/2 273 mm or 10.7"
Suter Anast. Ser 2 6.3 140-520 mm 60 8/2 397 mm or 15.6"
Taylor, T. & H. Angelic, Ser 7b 6.5 3.25-12" 90 - 229 mm or 9."
Taylor, T. & H. Apo, Ser 9 10;16 13-48" 62 - 382 mm or 15."
Taylor, T. & H. Cooke-Anast Ser 14 6.3 13-21" 53 - 460 mm or 18.1"
Taylor, T. & H. Cooke-lens, Ser 3a 6.5 5-18" 62 3/3 382 mm or 15."
Taylor, T. & H. Cooke-lens, Ser 4a 5.6 5-18" 60 3/3 397 mm or 15.6"
Taylor, T. & H. Cooke-lens, Ser 5a 8 5-18" 65 3/3 360 mm or 14.2"
Taylor, T. & H. Distortionless Tele 5 - 20 4/4 1301 mm or 51.2"
Taylor, T. & H. Planital-Apo 12.5 16.5-24" 45 - 554 mm or 21.8"
Taylor, T. & H. Process, Ser 5b 8;16 9-36" 65 - 360 mm or 14.2"
Voigtlander Apo-Collinear 9;12.5 8-40" 66 6/2 353 mm or 13.9"
Voigtlander Collinear 2 5.4;6.3 3-20" 62 6/2 382 mm or 15."
Voigtlander Collinear 3 6.8;7.7 2-23" 66 6/2 353 mm or 13.9"
Voigtlander Collinear 4 12.5 4-12" 80 6/2 273 mm or 10.7"
Voigtlander Oxyn 9 14-63" 30 5/3 856 mm or 33.7"
Watson Holostigmat 11 3-9" 110 6/2 161 mm or 6.3"
Watson Holostigmat 1 6.1 4-14" 70 6/2 328 mm or 12.9"
Watson Holostigmat 3 9.5 11-26" 61 6/2 389 mm or 15.3"
Wollensak Extreme W.A. 12.5 4.5-13" 95 - 210 mm or 8.3"
Wollensak Velostigmat 1a 6.3 4.5-17.5" 63 - 374 mm or 14.7"
Wollensak Velostigmat Process 10 10.25-30" 50 - 492 mm or 19.4"
Wray Apo Lustrar 10 13-25" 45 - 554 mm or 21.8"
Wray Process-Lustrar 10 13-25" 64 4/4 367 mm or 14.4"
Wray Process-Lustrar 16 30-36" 64 4/4 367 mm or 14.4"
Zeiss Apo Planar 7;12.5 16-68" 30 6/4 856 mm or 33.7"
Zeiss Apo Tessar 9;15 9.5-72" 35 4/3 727 mm or 28.6"
Zeiss Planar 3.6;6.3 20-470 mm 62 6/4 382 mm or 15."
Zeiss Protar 12.5 7-27" 45 8/2 554 mm or 21.8"
Zeiss Protar 2a 8 90-430 mm 75 5/2 299 mm or 11.8"
Zeiss Protar 3a 9 75-410 mm 97 4/2 203 mm or 8."
Zeiss Protar 4 12.5 - 100 4/2 192 mm or 7.6"
Zeiss Protar 5 18 40-970 mm 110 4/2 161 mm or 6.3"
Zeiss Tessar 4.5 1.5-20" 60 4/3 397 mm or 15.6"
Zeiss Tessar 5 20-28" 60 4/3 397 mm or 15.6"
Zeiss Tessar 6.3 3-24" 65 4/3 360 mm or 14.2"
Zeiss Unar 4.5;6.3 110-460 mm 65 4/4 360 mm or 14.2"
[pre]

[John Layton]

For my two cents (plus a couple of thou., if you can even find one) the last series of 14" Goerz Blue-Dot Trigor lenses out of the Kern factory were the cats pajamas for 11X14, and should do nicely with 7X17.

[sanking]

"For my two cents (plus a couple of thou., if you can even find one) the last series of 14" Goerz Blue-Dot Trigor lenses out of the Kern factory were the cats pajamas for 11X14, and should do nicely with 7X17."

I have no experience with the 14" Goerz Blue-Dot Trigor. However, the last 14" Dagors made at the Kern factory have less coverage than older Dagors and I don't recommend them for 7X17". For this format the 355 G-Claron provides a lot more coverage.

No question but that the 14" Kern Dagors are fabulous lenss. Being multi-coated and with only four air to glass surfaces they have superb contrast, but limit format to 8X10, 7X11 or 5X12.

[Jim Galli]

Late to the party and not much to add. I have a 12" coated Dagor that is my standard 717 lens. A 150 SSXL (that I stole from Chris) will just squeak around at f64 if you're inclined to ultrawide. I'd at least try the 165 SA. I'll bet it would be somewhat useable. The one lens you list that may not work, at least if wouldn't on my camera is the 480. I've only got bellows on the F&S for 450mm so I use the Fuji C fairly often. 305 G-Claron is a must. Sharper than the Dagor I'm using. I've also forced the 270 G-Claron into service. It's nice especially if you're in a situation where you need just a bit of bellows away from infinity. I'll have a 305 G-Claron to sell coming up by this weekend. Contact me off line if interested. I have a Kern BD Trigor and it is different than it's cousin Dagor. It covers 7X17 with adequate movements.

[robert_4927]

Love my blue dot trigor... Covers like a dagor but almost as sharp as an artar. Covers my 8x20

[Ole Tjugen]

Yesterday I unpacked my "new" Russian 12x16" camera - image diagonal very close to 500mm. I put an iris lensmount on it and started "stuffing" it with whatever I thought might have a chance of covering.

the 480mm f:9 Apo-Ronar seems to be promising, as does a Steinheil "Patent No.4" Aplanat. I'll try a Suter Aplanat No.6 as soon as I figure out a way of mounting it - I may have to dismantle it, push it through from behind, then reassemble. I'm also expecting a pre-war 210mm Angulon to show up any day soon, and I hope that will work.

Oh - and I have a 500mm f:6.6 Schneider Göttingen Aerotar to try too - as soon as I get the jammed flange off.

[Daniel Grenier]

The considering is over.

Indeed, I took posession today of my "new" (used) 7x17 Wisner. It came with 3 S&S holders, a Satin Snow GG + a spare, lots of film and a terrific case for it all. I mounted my 14" Ektar on it for now and I get full coverage +. I'll be mounting my 355 G-Claron later and will try the 480 APo and my 165 as well. I may get a longer lens later (600+). Looks great and I love the format!

Thanks again, all for the good info. Off with my new toy now!

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

For my two cents (plus a couple of thou., if you can even find one) the last series of 14" Goerz Blue-Dot Trigor lenses out of the Kern factory were the cats pajamas for 11X14, and should do nicely with 7X17.

love my blue dot trigor... Covers like a dagor but almost as sharp as an artar. Covers my 8x20

I have a Kern BD Trigor and it is different than it's cousin Dagor. It covers 7X17 with adequate movements.

OK gents, I took your recommendations to heart and just picked up a 14" Blue Dot Trigor off eBay. It didn't come cheap, but I've been looking for a compact, lightweight 355mm - 360mm lens for my 7x17 and there aren't a lot of choices. I hope it lives up to its reputation. Of course, if it does, I may spring for getting the cells mounted in a nice spiffy Copal No. 3 and that will be even more bucks. Should be here in a couple days.

Kerry

[Jim Galli]

I'll be interested in your feedback of that lens Kerry.

While we're at it, I have 2 lenses that cover the 717 format to sell. 305 G-Claron, and 10 3/4" Dagor. Both listed here. (http://www.apug.org/classifieds/showcat.php?cat=500&ppuser=33)

[sanking]

OK gents, I took your recommendations to heart and just picked up a 14" Blue Dot Trigor off eBay. It didn't come cheap, but I've been looking for a compact, lightweight 355mm - 360mm lens for my 7x17 and there aren't a lot of choices. I hope it lives up to its reputation. Of course, if it does, I may spring for getting the cells mounted in a nice spiffy Copal No. 3 and that will be even more bucks. Should be here in a couple days.

Kerry

Kerry,

My understanding from someone who used the Blue Dot Trigor lens is that it has less coverage than a Dagor of the same focal length. I can't verify this since I have never used a BDT, but the informatin came from a reliable source. However, coverage should be enough for 7X17, though I don't think it will cover 12X20 as a 14" Dagor would.

Sandy King

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Kerry,

My understanding from someone who used the Blue Dot Trigor lens is that it has less coverage than a Dagor of the same focal length. I can't verify this since I have never used a BDT, but the informatin came from a reliable source. However, coverage should be enough for 7X17, though I don't think it will cover 12X20 as a 14" Dagor would.

Sandy King

Sandy,

To hit the corners of 7x17, a 14" lens only need about 66 degrees of coverage. Of course, a bit more, say 72 - 75 degrees, to allow for movements would be nice. I've read reports online that claim up to 80 degrees of coverage for the Blue Dot Trigor. Even if those reports are exaggerated and it "only" covers 75 degrees, I'll be a happy camper. I don't have the lens yet, but from pictures and the f11 max. aperture it looks to be pretty compact. And, as it's a later sample it should be in an aluminum barrel, making it very lightweight.

If it ends up being a keeper, my first inclination would be to have it mounted in a Copal No. 3 shutter, but now I'm wondering if it would fit in a Compur No. 2. Several years ago, I had Steve Grimes mount a 14" f9 LD Artar in a Compur No. 2 for me. It's much smaller and lighter than anything in a No. 3 shutter, but it doesn't have nearly enough coverage for 7x17. I have another Compur No. 2 that I've been saving in case anything special comes along. This might be the one (assuming it's possible - getting the 14" LD Artar to fit took a substantial effort on Steve's part).

Kerry

[scott_6029]

A 16 1/2 ARTAR is a nice choice for 7 x 17 I have found. For whatever reason, they seem to be 'more-reasonably' priced than other 'cult' type lenses. The 24" ARTAR is also nice, but tends to be quite a bit more expensive. I have been looking out for a 19" ARTAR also.

I have an older 12" dagor, and a G Claron 305....personally, I prefer the Dagor....can't really tell you why, it's more of a 'feel' thing....

It was suggested that I would prefer the Claron....maybe I just need to give it some more tries in the field....

[Steve Hamley]

Kerry,

The f/11 process Dagors are the same size as their f/7.7 ot f/6.8 kin, at least according to the three I've had. You'll find the iris in the barrel just doesn't open up further than f/11.

I've tested a Kern Blue Dot and owned a Kern Gold Dot. I found the BDT to be a bit sharper and a bit shorter both in physical length and focal length (by about 10mm IIRC). That was a nice looking lens on eBay if you're the one that got it.

Steve

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Kerry,

The f/11 process Dagors are the same size as their f/7.7 ot f/6.8 kin, at least according to the three I've had. You'll find the iris in the barrel just doesn't open up further than f/11.

I've tested a Kern Blue Dot and owned a Kern Gold Dot. I found the BDT to be a bit sharper and a bit shorter both in physical length and focal length (by about 10mm IIRC). That was a nice looking lens on eBay if you're the one that got it.

Steve

Steve,

Thanks for the info. Sounds like it might be a bit too big to fit into a Compur No. 2 shutter. Initially, I plan to use it with a behind the lens shutter. If I really, REALLY like it, I may eventually have it mounted in a Copal No. 3.

Yes, that's the one I got off eBay. According to the seller, it was bought new and never used. The price was steep (by my standards), but still quite a bit less than the Computars and Gold Dot Dagors have been going for lately.

Kerry

[Steve Hamley]

Kerry,

I suspect you're right about the shutter sizes; it really isn't a lightweight lens except in consideration of the modern coated alternatives. It probably doesn't have front threads; I couldn't really tell from the picture - and that complicates field use sans shutter. Of course, you could hit the easy button and do a 355mm G-Claron in shutter for about half the price, the weight won't that much different.

However, the price wasn't bad especially for one in that condition. S.K. Grimes will charge about $700 to mount it including the Copal 3 shutter, and Lens and Repro recently sold one that was S.K. Grimes mounted with caps and filter adapter for around $1,800 - $2,000 IIRC. I might have bought the eBay lens myself but I have other fish to fry.

I'm using a 360mm f/9 WA Apo Nikkor on 8x20 which I really, really like. It's a larger lens and uses 86mm filters (95mm on mine via step up) but really isn't any heavier than a 355 G-Claron.

Steve

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Steve,

Lens & Repro currently has one listed on their website in a Copal No. 3 shutter with a 67mm filter adapter for $1950. They recently had one listed at $2150. I'm not sure if this is teh same one with a lowered price, or a different lens. I do have a Copal No. 3 shutter that I could use for the mounting of this lens. I occasionally pick them up when I can get them for less than $300. It seems like you can never have too many shutters for these special kinds of projects.

By definition, anything in a Copal No. 3 doesn't qualify as "lightweight", but it's all relative. On 4x5 and 4x10, I successfully managed to avoid No. 3 shutters for year. For 7x17, the kind of go with the territory (the 305mm G Glaron and 450mm Fujinon C being exceptions).

I've watched several 355mm G Clarons go by on eBay and even one of the 360mm WA APO Nikkors, but was hoping for something a little smaller/lighter. I especially like the fact that the 14" Trigor can be used with 67mm filters. I standardized on this size years ago for my 4x5 and 4x10 lenses and my other 7x17 lenses take 67mm (or smaller) filters. I suppose it's false economy to save money on filters when buying a lens in this price range, but it helps take a little sting off the wallet.

I'm really looking forward to testing the Trigor against the 360mm Fujinon A - the other reasonably lightweight, compact offering in this focal length that MIGHT be usable on 7x17.

Kerry

[Arthur Nichols]

Hi,
I use a 16.5 inch F/9 repro claron in a compound shutter. For some reason it covers and it is small and sharp. I also use a 19 inch F/11 Artar and a 19 inch F/9 Turner Reich repro lens, also in a compound shutter. From what I can tell the TR has more coverage than the Artar and is also is surprisingly sharp. Of course as already mentioned the 12 inch Dagor more than covers the format and is nice and sharp. My 210 Angulon doesn't cover it is way too soft at the corners. Maybe others have had more luck with the Angulons covering this format, as I always seem to hear about them in relation to the 7x17 format, but not for me.
Art

[Death Valley Phil]

Hi Daniel.
Here's a list of wide lenses that I use on a 7x17
150XL Sch, 270 F9 Computar, 9 1/2 Gold Dot Dagor, 12 inch dagor, 14 inch Gold Dot Sch (soft on the edges) I seem to remember trying the Kodak 250 WF and it didn't cover, but I may be wrong. Hope this helps....Phil.

[robert]

The blue dot is a great piece of glass. I've never owned a 14" gold dot so i can't do a comparison but mine covers my 8x20 with slight movements. I just had it mounted in a copal 3 by grimes with grimes lens caps. This lens may be for sale in the next week or so.

[robert]

And I know I'll regret it

[robert]

The only lens I had to compare my Blue Dot to is my old uncoated 16 1/2" Dagor. By finding the edge of the image circle of both lenses and shooting them both at the same aperture. The Blue Dot Trigor was significantly sharper than the Dagor near the edges of the image circle. And it appeared more contrasty than the dagor. Now this may not be a very scientific test since I'm comparing the Trigor which is coated to an uncoated Dagor. I think it will be a perfect 7x17 lens

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Robert,

Thanks for sharing the info on your lens. If you don't mind me asking, how much did it cost to have it mounted in a Copal No. 3 shutter. Also, when you get a chance, if you could weigh it and post the results, I'd appreciate it. I'm a bit of a fanatic about weight (says the 7x17 shooter).

I'm hoping this lens will be the "perfect" 14" lens for my 7x17. I really like the 210mm focal length on 4x10 and consider it my "normal" lens on that format. Since 14"/355mm on 7x17 is equivalent to 210mm on 4x10, I've been looking for a lens in this range that would cover 7x17, yet not be too big or heavy.

Kerry

[Sheldon N]

Kerry -

Have you tried your Fuji 360mm A on the 7x17 yet?

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Kerry -

Have you tried your Fuji 360mm A on the 7x17 yet?

Not yet, I want to test it directly against the 14" Trigor.

Kerry

[robert]

Kerry, I'll have to find the receipt when I get back to give you the exacts. But since you already have a copal 3 that should take a big sting out of the costs.I think off the top of my head it was in the 800 range with the price of the shutter included of course. I have an itemized bill so I can probably give you the machining costs and install when I get home. I'll pm you.

[SAShruby]

Old Fuji 360 (lettering inside) will easily cover 7x17. I am using my fuji on 8x20.

[Christopher Perez]

I assume you're talking about the "W" model, right? Or is it an "A" model? Perhaps?

I have a 360 Schneider Convert in #5 Compound that will cover the format too (thanks Bob!). But it deserves it's title as large cruise ship anchor. :)


Old Fuji 360 (lettering inside) will easily cover 7x17. I am using my fuji on 8x20.

[Sheldon N]

Old Fuji 360 (lettering inside) will easily cover 7x17. I am using my fuji on 8x20.

Is your Fuji lens from the W series (Copal 3 shutter)? I would expect that the old single coated version would have fairly significant coverage, given that Fuji specs quoted 80 degrees as the angle of coverage, which was even more than the newer EBC coated version. I've never been too sure of how optimistic that was, though. The A series 360mm lens is quite a bit smaller (f/10) and in a Copal 1 shutter, but still has significant coverage.

[Sheldon N]

Looks like our posts crossed paths while we were writing them, Chris. Great minds and all... :)

[Geert]

Let's add another one:

Rodenstock APO Gerogon 300mm f9

G

[Hugo Zhang]

Kerry,

My newly mounted Blue Dot Trigor in Copal 3 with 2 caps weights 1 pound and 10.9 ounces on the postal scale this morning. It covers my 10x20 on the ground glass. I will know for sure when I get my holders next month.

For mounting service, I used Tim Sharkey at Lens2shutter. He sells his services at eBay. It's $250 with your own shutter. Here is a picture of his job.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Hugo,

Thanks for sharing the picture and information on your 14" Trigor. It sure looks nice. I have never used lensN2shutter, but the price seems reasonable. One thing I am surprised about is the weight. 26.9 oz. = 762g. I was expecting something in the 550 - 600g range (similar to a 450mm Nikkor M or 600mm Fujinon C). From the photo, your lens looks like the original cells are aluminum, not brass. Can you tell if the adapters lensN2shutter fabricated to fit the cells into the shutter are made from brass or aluminum? I would expect aluminum, but that's just an assumption on my part.

Still, 762g is less than 1/2 the weight of a 360mm Convertible Symmar, and it's much more compact as well. It will be interesting to see how the Trigor tests out against the 360mm Fujinon A. Neither of these are very common lenses. So, there isn't a lot of data to go on. All the reports I've seen on the Trigor have been very positive. A few of the reports on the 360mm Fujinon A have suggested that the corners are a bit soft on 7x17. Of course all this depends on what aperture is used and one's definition of "soft". It will be good to see how the two compare side-by-side. For testing purposes, I'll probably use a behind-the-lens shutter with the Trigor. No sense paying to have the Trigor mounted in the shutter until after I test its performance against the Fujinon.

Kerry

[Hugo Zhang]

Kerry,

The cells and the adapters are made of aluminum. The two cells with a metal front cap and a leather rear cap weight 13.9 oz. and the shutter is 13 oz.

This will be my ULF lens. I have a Gold Dot 355mm f/8 Dagor which is one of my favorite lenses for the old Deardorff. I have not had a chance to compare the two yet.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

The cells and the adapters are made of aluminum. The two cells with a metal front cap and a leather rear cap weight 13.9 oz. and the shutter is 13 oz.
I'm a little surprised by the weight of the cells, but as I've never even seen one in person (mine hasn't arrived yet), I really have nothing to go by other than pictures in which the lens looks quite compact. Of course, the 360mm Fujinon A is quite a bit more compact than my 210mm APO Symmar, but actually weighs the same. So, size alone isn't always a good indicator of weight.


This will be my ULF lens. I have a Gold Dot 355mm f/8 Dagor which is one of my favorite lenses for the old Deardorff. I have not had a chance to compare the two yet.
That would be a very intersting comparison that not many people will ever have a chance to make. The results would certianly be of interest to all the Goerz fans out there.

Kerry

[Hugo Zhang]

To make things interesting, I also have a 14" Berlin Dagor f/7.7 in brass barrel., which I think will cover 7x17 or even my 10x20.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

To make things interesting, I also have a 14" Berlin Dagor f/7.7 in brass barrel., which I think will cover 7x17 or even my 10x20.
Hugo,

I assume you mean one of the other old CP Goerz Berlin Dagors and not one of the "Berlin" Dagors assembled and sold by Burke & James after WWII. Given the brass barrel, that would appear to be the case. If so, it should cover quite a bit more (16x20) than both the Trigor and the Schneider MC Gold Dot Dagor.

Kerry

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

My new 14" Blue Dot Trigor was waiting for me when I got home from work last night. I was a bit distressed initially as it wasn't packed very well and was covered with a lot of dust and grime. Fortunately, it cleaned up nicely and looks great.

Now I see where the weight comes from. In the original aluminum barrel, with retaining ring, but no caps, it weighs 485g. Not exactly a heavyweight for a lens that covers 7x17 (or even 8x20), but still 10g more than my 360mm Fujinon A in shutter. The front and rear cells weigh 175g each. So, by the time you add a Copal No. 3 shutter and a couple adapters to fit the cells to the shutter, you're in the 760g range that Hugo and others have reported. This is one of those lenses that is heavier than it looks like it would be. Anybody know what type of construction it is? I've read a few places that it might be a modified Dagor type (6/2). Anyone know for sure? I haven't tried counting reflections to see if I can figure it out. I thought perhaps someone out there might have some original Goerz literature with some details on the design.

This lens and the box top that came with it read like a final chapter in the history of Goerz. Both the box and the lens are labled Goerz Optical Company, Inc. The box also says: "A SUBSIDIARY OF KOLLMORGEN" and it also has a "SCHNEIDER CORP. of AMERICA" sticker on the box. Around the rear lens cell it is also engraved "Lens made in Switzerland" - indicating it was made by Kern. So, Goerz, Kollmorgen, Schneider and Kern all had a hand in this one.

Kerry

[robert]

Kerry, I have been looking for literature on the Blue Dot for years and can't seem to find any. Maybe it was such a great lens that Goerz was just keeping it a secret. Have you had a chance to get it on a board yet? If so what do you think? i almost put mine on the auction site yesterday and just couldn't bring myself to do it. So I went out and shot a few sheets of 8x20 with it to remind me of why I shouldn't sell it.

[Hugo Zhang]

Kerry,

Ask John at Focal Point. He charged me $700 for a recement job for my Trigor, claiming it cost more than Dagor (Double Anastigmat), because it is a Triple Anastigmat. More cells and thus heavier, I guess.

robert,

Don't sell your Trigor. You won't be able to buy it back at the price you sell. What are you going to do with the proceeds? The US$ is overvalued and the price of these rare lenses are not going down. Wait till I spread the word of Trigor to the Chinese LF people, they don't know this lens yet. See what they have done to the prices of Dagors and Protars? -:)

Hugo

[robert]

Hugo, I've heard Jim at midwest call it a triple dagor. I can't tell much from reflections but then again I'm no optical expert. But I do know how it performs and I've sold a lot of lenses but this one is just to hard to let go of. whether or not it is a triple or a better corrected dagor I don't know but it is a nice performer.

[robert]

Alright....Who will volunteer their trigor to be taken apart so an exploded view can be drawn up to confirm that it is indeed a triple anastigmat? Or not

[robert]

maybe John at focal point will chime in

[Steve Hamley]

Here's Steve Grimes' two cents from 1998:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.equipment.large-format/browse_frm/thread/28ea2de6e68d4e9c/aaca9c1040328484?lnk=gst&q=trigor&rnum=11#aaca9c1040328484

Steve

[robert]

Steve, I've seen that post before. Trust me I searched everything I could think of trying to find info on this lens. Hopefully maybe something will turn up from a company that at one time bought one for their press, like a sales brochure or something. What's interesting though is as Hugo said he had a recement job done on his which usually means (if I'm not mistaken) removing the elements. John at Focal Point may have seen something that Steve missed with just doing a shutter mount. A triple anastigmat would be a different design than a dagor, naturally. I just wish I knew a little more about optical design.

[Jim Galli]

OK, fwiw, I have both GD Dagor 14" and also the Kern Trigor. They look identical and reflect a penlight source identically. I always just "assumed" that the 'tri' in trigor was because Goerz put some extra APO corrections of all three prime color groups. (Necessary for tri-color seperations which were still hot ticket graphics shop work at that time) It is NOT some kind of 3 seperate anastigmats like 9 glasses in 3 groups as opposed to double anastigmat which is standard dagor 6 glass 2 group. Also the reason other sizes never got built MAY be because Schneider already owned Goerz by the time this was all happening and their G-Claron at that point in history WAS optically identical to the Trigor and already offered in 150 210 240 270, and 305mm sizes. Makes sense that they wouldn't need or want to overlap. They never made a 14" G-Claron that was dagor type so thus the Trigor? I'm making some educated guesses here folks.

[Peter Roody]

Jim,

Goerz also made trigors in 9-1/4", 12" and 19" focal lengths.

Peter



Also the reason other sizes never got built MAY be because Schneider already owned Goerz by the time this was all happening and their G-Claron at that point in history WAS optically identical to the Trigor and already offered in 150 210 240 270, and 305mm sizes. Makes sense that they wouldn't need or want to overlap. They never made a 14" G-Claron that was dagor type so thus the Trigor? I'm making some educated guesses here folks.

[Jim Galli]

Jim,

Goerz also made trigors in 9-1/4", 12" and 19" focal lengths.

Peter
WOW, never seen yet by me. A 19" would be SWEET!! Oh my. jg

[robert]

Here's another twist. No where on my Blue dot does it say Kern or made in Swiss. here is what it reads.....Goerz Optical Co. Inc. ( then the blue dot) Trigor 14 in. F: 11 No. 1100xxx. On the back it just has 1100xxx. Does that mean it wasn't made by Kern and it is different than even the Kern Trigors? I must say there is a little mystery about this lens due to the fact that no one can come up with any literature. I wonder what extra elements John from Focal Point saw? Interesting

[Peter Roody]

Robert,

The trigor design dates back to the 1950's from what I can gather. Your lens was made by Goerz, not Kern, based on the serial number.

I have a 12" version. SK Grimes has a photo of the 9-1/4" lens in their lens mounting table. I know the 19" version exists although I never actually seen one. I saw it listed in an old Lens & Repro ad.

Burke & James listed the 12', 14" and 19" in their 1967 catalog:

http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/goerz/p1.html

Peter



Here's another twist. No where on my Blue dot does it say Kern or made in Swiss. here is what it reads.....Goerz Optical Co. Inc. ( then the blue dot) Trigor 14 in. F: 11 No. 1100xxx. On the back it just has 1100xxx. Does that mean it wasn't made by Kern and it is different than even the Kern Trigors? I must say there is a little mystery about this lens due to the fact that no one can come up with any literature. I wonder what extra elements John from Focal Point saw? Interesting

[robert]

Peter, this raises another question. Does the Goerz made Blue Dot and the Kern made Blue Dot differ in performance? Could this be the reason why the claims in coverage differ? If so then why?

[Dan Fromm]

Peter, this raises another question. Does the Goerz made Blue Dot and the Kern made Blue Dot differ in performance? Could this be the reason why the claims in coverage differ? If so then why?Robert, at this point in the discussion I've completely lost track of what claims have been made and by whom.

What I do know is that coverage claims based on inspection of the ground glass with the lens wide open or of contact prints are worthless. Also that one viewer's "tack sharp" is another's "unacceptably soft." And, finally, that there is variation between lenses made to the same spec. when they're brand new that grows as the lenses accumlate use and abuse.

[robert]

Thanks Dan, I guess that answers all of our questions

[Dan Fromm]

Robert, there's a lot of brown stuff around here that claims to be shoe polish but that smells rather worse than, um, Kiwi.

You might look into how Rodenstock and Schneider measure coverage. They don't look at images on ground glass or contact sheets.

[Hugo Zhang]

OK, fwiw, I have both GD Dagor 14" and also the Kern Trigor. They look identical and reflect a penlight source identically. I always just "assumed" that the 'tri' in trigor was because Goerz put some extra APO corrections of all three prime color groups. (Necessary for tri-color seperations which were still hot ticket graphics shop work at that time) It is NOT some kind of 3 seperate anastigmats like 9 glasses in 3 groups as opposed to double anastigmat which is standard dagor 6 glass 2 group.

Jim, John usually charge $500 for a recement job for a Dagor. I wonder why he charged me $700 for my Trigor if they are basically the same lenses.

Hugo

[Nick_3536]

or of contact prints are worthless.


Isn't the only thing that matters what the print looks like? If the company claims XXX coverage but the print looks like crap isn't that worse then a lens that claims less coverage but looks good in print?

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

The trigor design dates back to the 1950's from what I can gather. Your lens was made by Goerz, not Kern, based on the serial number.

I have a 12" version. SK Grimes has a photo of the 9-1/4" lens in their lens mounting table. I know the 19" version exists although I never actually seen one. I saw it listed in an old Lens & Repro ad.

Burke & James listed the 12', 14" and 19" in their 1967 catalog:[/url]

Peter, I don't believe the Trigor design goes back quite that far. The link provided by Steve Hamley references a Goerz brochure dated May, 1968 "The new Goerz Blue Dot Wide Field 14" f:11...". Also, to be made in the 1950's would require a serial number in the very high 79x xxx range. I have never seen a Trigor with such a low serial number (granted, the sample size of what I have seen is very small). What is teh serial number of your 12" Trigor? Does it have a blue dot?

I have that same 1967 Burke & James catalog, as well as one from 1969. In the 1969 catalog, the 12" and 19" Trigors are no longer listed, just the 14".

The 9½" Trigor shown on the SK Grimes web site has a serial number of 831 xxx - this follows the standard Goerz serial number convention. So, this lens was definitely made before the Kollmorgen and subsequent Schneider acquisitions. Oddly eough, it doesn't appear to have a "Blue Dot" (at least not that I can see in the jpeg). It pre-dates all the 14" Blue Dot Trigors mentioned in this thread. Based on the serial number, that 9½" Trigor would have been made around 1968 or 1969.

As the box that came with my 14" Trigor (matching serial numbers) is labeled with Goerz, Optical Company Inc. - a Subsidiary of Kollmorgen (like the one of the SK Grimes web site) - AND Schneider Corportation of America, it was originally SOLD after the Schneider acquisition in 1972 - making it a rather late sample. As the lens is also labled "Lens Made in Switzerland", it was definitely made by Kern.

That brings us back to Robert's 14" Trigor with the unusual 1100 xxx serial number. I have a theory, based purely on anecdotal evidence and wild-eyed speculation (call it a "guess"), that this lens was made by Goerz, after they were bought by Kollmorgen, but before the lens manufacturing was farmed out to Kern in Switzerland. The 1100 xxx serial number falls outside of the Goerz sequence that had been in use for over 70 years. It seems to me, that it would take a rather significant event (like the Kollmorgen acquisition) to cause them to abandon a perfectly good serial numbering sequence that had served them well for so long. By changing the serial numbering style, it would have made it easy to instantly determine which lenses were made before and after the acquisition. Or, perhaps, Kollmorgen already had other products with serial numbers in the 8xx xxx range and needed a different sequense for their newly acquired Goerz products.

Just as a side note, I've seen several Goerz lenses with serial numbers in the 84x xx range, but never anything in the 85x xxx range. In addition to Robert's Trigor, I have also seen a number of Red Dot Artars with serial numbers in the 11xx xxx range.

The 11xx xxx serial numbering convention seems to have been very short lived, and then they jumped to 200x xxx. It would seem another significant event caused them to again change their serial numbering scheme within a year or two. My initial instinct is this second change might have been caused by the Schneider acquisition. However, I have seen lenses with 200x xxx serial numbers that came in Kollmorgen boxes with no mention of Schneider Corp. of America. One thing I have noticed is every lenses I've seen with a 200x xxx serial number was labeled "Made in Switzerland". So, perhaps the 200x xxx serial number sequence was used to distinguish lenses that were manufactured by Kern.

Eventually, Schneider would roll the Goerz legacy products into their standard 12 xxx xxx = 14 xxx xxx sequence with all of their other products.

So, my theory, in summary:

Goerz lenses with serial numbers below 85x xxx were made by Goerz prior to teh Kollmorgen acquisition.

Goerz lenses with serial numbers in the 11xx xxx range were made by the Goerz subsidiary of Kollmorgen after the Kollmorgen acquisition.

Goerz lenses with serial numbers in the 200x xxx range were made by Kern in Switzerland - both for Kollmorgen and Schneider.

Eventually, Goerz legacy products (red Dot Artar and Gold Dot Dagor) were absorbed into the standard Schneider serial numbering sequence.

Again, this is speculation, but the limited data I have seen seems to fit this theory (guess). Also, keep in mind that when the Goerz assets were acquired by Kollmorgen and subsequently by Schneider, both companies continued to sell previously manufacturered products from existing inventories. Therefore it is possible to have a lens with a serial number in the 84x xxx range that was manufactured by Goerz, but sold by Schneider in a box labeled Kollmorgen and a Schneider Corp. of America sticker.

Bit of thread drift there and lots of speculation in my attempt to answer Robert's question about his Trigor serial number. Ideally, it would be nice to have some original literature or first hand accounts on the history of the Goerz products from this time period (early 1970s). Unfortunately, such references seem all but impossible to locate.

Kerry

[Peter Roody]

Peter, I don't believe the Trigor design goes back quite that far. The link provided by Steve Hamley references a Goerz brochure dated May, 1968 "The new Goerz Blue Dot Wide Field 14" f:11...". Also, to be made in the 1950's would require a serial number in the very high 79x xxx range. I have never seen a Trigor with such a low serial number (granted, the sample size of what I have seen is very small). What is teh serial number of your 12" Trigor? Does it have a blue dot?


Kerry

Kerry,

My lenses are labeled as follows:

Goerz Optical Co. Inc. Trigor 12 IN. F:6.8 No. 824xxx (No Blue Dot)
(Matching serial no. on rear element)

Goerz Optical Co. Inc. Blue Dot W.A. Process 14 IN. F:11 No. 831xxx
(Matching serial no. on rear element)

I did some additional checking and you are correct that the Trigor is a 1960's product. The following is a link to a 1959 pricelist that did not mention the lens. I stand corrected.

http://yandr.50megs.com/gz/artar1/artar1.htm

Peter

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Peter,

Thanks for sharing the data on your lenses. Wow, two Trigors. You're a lucky guy. Interesting that the 12" is an f6.8 lens rather than an f11 like the other Trigors (including the 12" listed in the 1967 B&J catalog). While not conclusive, it's another clue that the Trigor may be modified Dagor design.

I don't have much in the way of Goerz literature, but I'll dig through what I have. I have a couple brochures from the early 1960s. I don't recall any mention of the Trigor, but I'll double check. In addition to the serial numbers, the company name engraved on the lens is also a hint as to when they were made. Sometime between 1960 and 1964 (I'll see if I can track down a more exact date), the company name was changed from C.P. Goerz American Optical Company to Goerz Optical Company, Inc. Based on the limited Goerz serial number data available, it looks like your Trigors were made in the 1966 - 1969 time frame.

Kerry

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Sometime between 1960 and 1964 (I'll see if I can track down a more exact date), the company name was changed from C.P. Goerz American Optical Company to Goerz Optical Company, Inc.

A couple online sources claim the name change occurred in 1964. However, another source cites a brochure from October 1963 labeled Goerz Optical Company, Inc.

Kerry

[wfwhitaker]

Two Trigors = a Sexgor.

Have fun....

[sanking]

Peter,

Thanks for sharing the data on your lenses. Wow, two Trigors. You're a lucky guy. Interesting that the 12" is an f6.8 lens rather than an f11 like the other Trigors (including the 12" listed in the 1967 B&J catalog). While not conclusive, it's another clue that the Trigor may be modified Dagor design.


Kerry

I can not provide any tangible proof for my thoughts, but for years, say from the early 1980s, there has never been any question in my mind but that the Trigor was a Dagor design modified for the specific requirments of color reproduction for three-color separations. Perhaps I picked this up from one of the books on color separation, or perhaps from one of the old (old then, dead now) color carbro workers that I exchanged information with at the time.

But for truth, I looked carefully and have absolutely nothing in my files about the design.

Sandy

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Peter,

Thanks for the link:

http://yandr.50megs.com/gz/artar1/artar1.htm

To put it in perspective, you could buy a new 1959 Ford 500 for $59.00 a month, that's 2 year's worth of car payments for the lens and 1 year's worth for the prism. Damn. Wonder if they threw in a lens board?

Just a thought.

[Doug Howk]

At the Lens & Repro website, they have pictures of a 12X20 Star camera with two lenghts of extended lensboards (3" & 6"). I have a 19" Artar and recently purchased a 7X17 Korona. The bellows/rail extension is not sufficient for the Artar; and I'm wondering about feasibility of creating the lensboard extension.

I did just purchase a 265mm Ilex Wide Angle Kenro Process Lens; but have not found any info other than the seller's ad. I'm not doubting the seller, but am interested in more info on this lens.

[Wenbiao Liang]

Will a B&L-Zeiss Protar Series IV 8x10 cover 7x17 at f45? From the B&L catelog, it seems the 8x10 Series IV protar is 195mm focal length, and a Series IV covers 100 degrees at f45, so if the math is correct, the 8x10 Series IV's image circle is 465mm, just one mm short of 466mm image circle of 7X17? Anyone has any experience with the 8x10 series IV Protar?

Thanks!

[sanking]

Will a B&L-Zeiss Protar Series IV 8x10 cover 7x17 at f45? From the B&L catelog, it seems the 8x10 Series IV protar is 195mm focal length, and a Series IV covers 100 degrees at f45, so if the math is correct, the 8x10 Series IV's image circle is 465mm, just one mm short of 466mm image circle of 7X17? Anyone has any experience with the 8x10 series IV Protar?

Thanks!

Congratulations. You did your homework. My experience is that both the 8X10 B&L and Zeiss Protar 183mm cover 11X14, but just miss the corners on 7X17 at f/45. But it is a great lens, with super wide coverage for both 11X14 and 7X17, and in a super small package. The lens itself, including mount, is about the size of a US quarter, and it goes into a small Copal #1.

Ufortunately, they don't make them like this any more. Bigger and better, yes, but smaller and better, no.

Sandy King

[Wenbiao Liang]

Sorry Sandy, I meant the Series IV, not the wider Series V. :)

This was a impulse buy from eBay, the seller's picture was too small, and I could not determine if it was a V or a IV, but I bought it anyway, hoping it was a V, but after the lens arrived I found out it is a Series IV after all.

Will a Series IV 8x10 cover 7x17?

Thanks!

[sanking]

Sorry Sandy, I meant the Series IV, not the wider Series V. :)

This was a impulse buy from eBay, the seller's picture was too small, and I could not determine if it was a V or a IV, but I bought it anyway, hoping it was a V, but after the lens arrived I found out it is a Series IV after all.

Will a Series IV 8x10 cover 7x17?

Thanks!


I don't believe a Series IV Protar 8X10 will cover 7X17. The Series V just misses 7X17, so I think it not likely that the Series IV, which in theory does not cover as much, would surely miss.

But by all test your lens. Many of these old lenses are in cells that don't reflect what they really are.

Sandy

[Wenbiao Liang]

Thanks Sandy,
I don't have a 7x17 camera yet, :) so can not test it in the near future.

I was hoping that Series IV 8x10 can almost cover, having longer focus length than Series V (195mm vs V's 183mm)

So, in general, which series lens is sharper, series V vs IV?

Thanks again,
Wenbiao

[Capocheny]

Kerry,

Have you considered Tim at www.lensN2shutter.com to mount your lens?

Cheers

[Steve Hamley]

Just re-reading the thread: I don't think Goerz ever made a 19" Blue Dot Trigor. They did make 19" f:11 wide angle process lenses labeled "Dagor" (I'm pretty sure) and before 1904, "Double Anastigmat" (very sure, I have one).

http://www.pbase.com/sahamley/image/67628311

They also apparently made wide angle f:11 process lenses labeled "Argyle" for the Argyle repro camera. I have a 9-1/2" f:11 Argyle process lens that like the Trigor, did not open up past f:11 in barrel but does in shutter.

http://www.pbase.com/sahamley/image/67628291

Steve

[Ole Tjugen]

I had to have a quick look in my book...

In 1910, CP Goerz (Berlin) offered two types of repro lenses: Artar (F:9 to f:12.5) in 300, 360, 420, 480, 600, 750 and 900mm focal lengths, and Alethar Serie V f:11 in 300, 360, 420, 480, 600, 750, 900 and 1200mm focal lengths. no Dagors, and I have no idea what kind of lens the Alethar was.

[Ernest Purdum]

Kingslake says the Alethar was a dialyte variation with the inner groups being triplets. He says that they had trouble with glass not meeting specifications and that the lens ws soon discontinued.

[Turner Reich]

Will a single element of a convertible lens cover 7x17?

[sanking]

Will a single element of a convertible lens cover 7x17?

Both single elements of a 360mm Symmar Convertible will cover 7X17. However, you will need to stop down a lot to get acceptable performance at the edge of the field with either of the single elements.

I once owned a 13"-20"-25" Wollensak Raptar convertible and neither of the single elements covered. I also owned a convertible protar of about the same focal lengths and it was not satisfactory either.

Sandy King

[Jim Galli]

Will a single element of a convertible lens cover 7x17?

Depends on the convertible. The Cooke Series XV will cover combined and converted and give superb performance. I have one for sale in the classifieds.

[Turner Reich]

Jim, everything said sold on the big garage sale.

[Jim Galli]

It is here: (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=19739)

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=19739

[Turner Reich]

No thanks.

[klausesser]

Hi Daniel!

I use a 90mm SuperAngulon and a 120mm SuperAngulon in my 6x17. They don´t need a centerfilter - you can handle the moderate falloff (at f:16) of the 90mm in Photoshop easily.
The 120mm fits for 8x10" so it doesn´t have any falloff at 7x17"cm.

best, Klaus

[Steve Hamley]

Eh, klausesser,

They're talking about 7x17 inches.

Steve

[John Powers]

[QUOTE=sanking;
I once owned a 13"-20"-25" Wollensak Raptar convertible and neither of the single elements covered. I also owned a convertible protar of about the same focal lengths and it was not satisfactory either.

Sandy King[/QUOTE]

Sandy’s is the only other reference I see here for a Wollensak Raptar, so here is another 7x17 possibility. Tim Sharkey of Lensn2shutter sold me a lens marked “Wollensak 103/4 “ (273mm) f6.8 (C with a W in it) Graphic Raptar Wide Field Lens No D96023” which he then mounted in a Pi-Alphax Wollensak shutter having f stops 6.8 – 64 and speeds 1-1/50, B and T.

I know there are differences of opinion on the quality of these lenses, but this one is sharp and covers 7x17 with a small amount of movement. Perhaps someone with access to more data can tell us the image circle and date of production.

John

[Jim Noel]

Use the G-Claron and I think you will love the view it produces. I have four lenses which cover the format and rarely use anything else.

[Jim Noel]

At the Lens & Repro website, they have pictures of a 12X20 Star camera with two lenghts of extended lensboards (3" & 6"). I have a 19" Artar and recently purchased a 7X17 Korona. The bellows/rail extension is not sufficient for the Artar; and I'm wondering about feasibility of creating the lensboard extension.

I did just purchase a 265mm Ilex Wide Angle Kenro Process Lens; but have not found any info other than the seller's ad. I'm not doubting the seller, but am interested in more info on this lens.

Doug,
I have a Korona and a 19"Artar. They work very well together unless I am working at very close range, which I rarely do with the 7x17. I am sure I have used the combination down to about 20 feet.
Jim

[Turner Reich]

With a 12/19/25 or a 12/21/28 Turner Reich, which element would cover a 7x17? Is there very much movement with the 16 1/2 inch Red Dot Artar? And the 14 inch Kodak Commercial Ektar, has anyone had one really cover the format without soft corners and with soft corners how bad are they?

Thank you
tr

[photoevangelist]

I can say now from experience that the Konica Hexanon GRII 260mm will cover 7x17 with no movements from F9-F45.

With minimal movements (F&S 7x17)I got some clipping on one corner, perhaps that's my fault as I made my lens board with foam board.

[Lachlan 717]

I can say now from experience that the Konica Hexanon GRII 260mm will cover 7x17 with no movements from F9-F45.

With minimal movements (F&S 7x17)I got some clipping on one corner, perhaps that's my fault as I made my lens board with foam board.

Coverage doesn't change when stopped down?

[photoevangelist]

Coverage doesn't change when stopped down?

Sounds odd doesn't it. I must investigate further. All I can say is I've exposed 4 negatives. 2 of the images, which had movements, got clipped on one corner. The all of the above were exposed at F45, except one. I forgot to stop the lens down. The image exposed at F9 had clean corners.

Today when I was making additional exposures I added rear tilt and when viewing the ground glass from the lens opening, I could preview that the one corner was being blocked again. I straightened out the rear and all four corners were visible from the lens again. So I stopped down to f45 again and am hoping it'll be enough DOF for 15ft - infinity. I hope that makes sense.

So my observations so far are that the Hexanon GRII 260mm covers 7x17, at all F stops with minimal or no movements. It was really hot today. I'll be playing around with it more next week.

[unityofsaints]

A 150 SSXL (that I stole from Chris) will just squeak around at f64 if you're inclined to ultrawide.

Does the 150 XL really cover? What are the corners like, soft or vignetted?

[Dugan]

Jim Galli isn't active on this forum anymore.