New To ULF - Looking for advice on lense selection - I have a list!

[Qeb]

Hi everyone,


My name is Kevin and I am fairly new to the forums!


I'm researching 16x20 cameras and I've gone through many posts, searched this website's

database/pdf files, and exchanged private messages with some amazingly friendly/kind/sharing people

like: MAubrey, xfrench, benrains, and DolphinDan (Thank you!).


I thought the best place to start was researching lenses.
*Side Note, I think I might try to build a 20x20 camera so I can shoot portrait and landscape

orientations - not sure if that will be a problem with the lens selection.


Here is my list so far.


For wide lenses I need something that can shoot full body in portrait orientation, and maybe (if

it's not asking too much) in landscrape orientation.

Here's the list:

Nikon Nikkor-M 450mm f/9 (I think this lens can do everything except landscrape full body).

APO Symmar L 480mm f8.4 (S version will not work)

Fuji Fujinon CM W 450

Rodenstock APO Sironar N 480

Schneider APO Artar 480


For a portrait lens I am looking to be able to shoot 1:1 head shots, head and shoulder and finally

half body in portrait orientation and possibly half body in landscape orientation.


Here's the list:


Goerz Red Dot Artar 24" (I think this lens can do what I'm looking for)

Fujinon-C 600mm f11.5 (I think this lens can do everything possibly).

Apo Nikkor 600/610 f9

Apo-Ronar-CL 600mm f11

APO-RONAR 600mm F9




We'll, I hope everyone had a great weekend. Thank you so so much for reading all of this.
If anyone has any opinions, recommendations, personal experiences please feel free to share here or

you can PM me or even email me at toyo8x10@gmail.com.

For everyone that made it this far....check out this new science news research about 3d printing

small lenses...I hope one day we can all 3d print our own lenses at home and be able to share the

design with everyone in the world.

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-lab-scientists-successfully-glass-optics.html


Thank you once again. Take care everyone!

Cheers,
Kevin

[Dan Fromm]

Um, practically speaking there's no difference between, in alphabetical order, Goerz', Nikon's and Rodenstock's dialytes. They all cover 45 degrees give or take a little, they're all more than sharp and contrasty enough. If you want to get a 600 mm coated dialyte, buy on price and condition and. other things equal, go for a lens in shutter. Or plan to use a behind-the-lens shutter such as a Packard. The 600/9 Apo-Nikkor is a tessar type, has significantly less coverage than any of the dialytes so isn't well-suited to your project.

Consider using a longer lens to reduce coverage worries and to get what some consider nicer perspective for portraits than a normal lens will produce. Remember, 16x20's diagonal is around 620 mm, 20x20's is roughly 700 mm. You wouldn't shoot portraits with a 43 mm lens on 35 mm, would you? That's normal for the format.

FWIW, I understand that these days Richard Learoyd (Google him) uses a 760 Apo-Ronar.

[Hugo Zhang]

I am with Dan and I do shoot 16x20.

For landscapes:

24” Artar will cover, but not not much movement at infinity. A 24” Dagor will be a better choice. The last two 24" Dagor were sold on the forum around 3k.
450mm Nikon M will cover as a wide angle lens.

For portrait, especially head and shoulder, you really need a 30-35" lens. A 24" lens will cover full body.

Hugo

[angusparker]

Some ideas. Many cover 16x20: http://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blog/2015/2/ulf-lens-recommendations-14x17


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Qeb]

Hey Dan Fromm, Thanks again for your advice about getting one with a shutter alreaday.
Also thanks, you are right, there is that convention of shooting portraits in a 35mm format with 85mm lenses. But who is that photographer who photographs celebrities and does head shots very close and slightly wide.
He should the former US President as well. I always wondered what his technical setup was.

Oh wow, this guy is a true artist! - I saw the video and some photos by him. He really knows how to talk art (I never got that good at it at all from my art degree hahaha).
60 by 70 prints!


Hello Hugo Zhang, Thanks for your advice sharing! Gotcha, I need a longer lens! Thank you again!


Hi angusparker, thank you also! I went through the top part of this blog post last week but now it seems I need to be careful about considering longer lens.

Thanks everyone!

[angusparker]

Definitely would go longer for portraits. Advantage is many of these lenses are relatively cheap. There are some TTH/Cooke process lenses (not portrait) that are priced right if you don’t mind single or no coating.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Luis-F-S]

If you search the For Sale ads on this forum, you will find applicable lenses that may meet your criteria.

[Qeb]

Hell angusparker, Thanks for the advice and tips! I see a few lenses on your website that around 800mm. If I do 1:1 or close to that (just a bit of shoulders but mostly the subjects head) do I need full extension of 1600mm?
Sorry for the newbie question, still learning! :)

Thanks Luis-F-S, I think I need more posts before I can get to that section :)

[angusparker]

Hell angusparker, Thanks for the advice and tips! I see a few lenses on your website that around 800mm. If I do 1:1 or close to that (just a bit of shoulders but mostly the subjects head) do I need full extension of 1600mm?
Sorry for the newbie question, still learning! :)

Thanks Luis-F-S, I think I need more posts before I can get to that section :)

Yes, at 1:1 you will need somewhere around twice the focal length of the lens. This holds true for most lenses (usually off only a few percent) except for telephoto designs where the focal length and the bellows required are dramatically different by design. But for ULF I'm not aware of any telephoto designs that have the required coverage. They usually just cover 4x5 or 8x10 formats with very little excess coverage. You can read more on bellows extension including adjusting your exposure for the light fall off here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/bellows-factor.html

One of the big considerations when buying a ULF setup is bellows draw. Many 7x17 or 12x20 setups, known as banquet cameras, were designed for group portraits shot at infinity with limited bellows to reduce weight and make them easier to use. With long bellows comes the very real issue of vignetting with the bellows - you literally have to prop the bellows up or they will get in the way of the light path.

I know you mentioned 16x20 as your preferred format, but take a look at 14x17 and 11x14 as alternatives if you are looking to go square. Or 12x20 or 7x17 if you don't mind a panoramic format. To my mind above 8x10, 11x14 is the clear sweetspot given film availability and portability. Some of the old 11x14 (like my 1895 King) are lighter than some modern 8x10 setups! Not the film holders though. Film holders actually get to be a very large proportion of total weight in ULF.

You might want to read this post I made a while ago on the perfect ULF format for you: http://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blog/2016/2/what-is-the-ULF-format-for-you

Also you can check out this spreadsheet of the old and new cameras made in ULF format. I think I got a good proportion of them covered: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kT2o95ghJOq_jz4fy7y85Qyk6Pwbza-hs_IcXlIjq-U/edit#gid=0

[Pere Casals]

Be aware that image circles given for repro lenses, like apo nikkor, are given at 1:1 magnification, so the circle is way smaller than specified as you focus farther. Pictorial lenses have the circle specified for focus at infinite, so it grows for a near subject.

Of the regular pictorial lenses the single one that covers 16x20 (at infinite) in the popular list is the Fujinon C 600. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF8x10in.html

For portrait, you should learn how to calculate actual image circle you will have at the subject distance, from 1:1 magnification specification for repro glass, and from circle at infinite of pictorial lenses. Glass for 16x20 has limited choices, so understanding and calculating how actual image circle grows or shrinks with focus distance will help you to make your choices.

I got a Symmar 360 convertible to 620 to be used in a (to be refurbished) 11x14, shuttered (that's good), I gess it would cover 16x20 for portrait, it can be calculated until what subject distance...

[Pere Casals]

You might want to read this post I made a while ago on the perfect ULF format for you: http://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blog/2016/2/what-is-the-ULF-format-for-you


Angus, this is a really nice article, I've been reading it a couple of times, excellent information. At one time it helped me to decide... Thanks !

Regards.

[Qeb]

Hello angusparker, Thanks! I glanced at the first link you posted: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/bellows-factor.html
I'm going to go over this link carefully before I will comment or ask any questions (tomorrow when I have a clearer head lol)
I think I am set at 16x20 only because I find that was my favourite print size in school. Oh, sorry, I don't think I will shoot square, but I just want to the ability to switch between portrait and landscape orientation.
Okay, great, I'll go over your webpage carefully tomorrow!
And as for the google docs file, thanks.... I didn't know the lens boards are that big!
Thank you again for your time!

Hello PereCasals, Thanks for the advice. I'm a little overwhelmed but all this I need to learn... While I got decent to great marks in math and physics in highschool, I've lost a lot of those abilities lol
Do you have any links for calculating image circle for specific glass at specific focusing distances?

Thanks to both of you again!
Have a great Thursday!

[Dan Fromm]

Do you have any links for calculating image circle for specific glass at specific focusing distances?

It is in the list. Look there and you'll find it.

[Pere Casals]

Adding to what Dan pointed

Another resource, http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/bellows.php here shows how to calculate the bellows draw,

once you have the draw that's basic math, as circle grows proportional to the draw.

For example a 600mm lens requires 600mm a theoric bellows draw focused at infinite having 500mm circle, then you give 600mm more bellows draw, for total 1200mm draw, to focus a close object, then twice the original draw (at infinite focus) this is also twice the circle, 500mm x 2 = 1000mm. Just like with an slides projector, if you place the projector increasing 2x the screen-projector distance then the projected image size is x2 larger.

Using that theoric calculation it will give you a very good aproximation.

Be aware that process lenses have the circle specified at 1:1 magnification, not for focus at infinite, so you can find the circle at infinite, and then use the focal for the original focus draw. and it would be the same calculation.

By knowing the original circle you don't need to consider angle of coverage and trigonometry, just proporcionality.

You can easy find bellows draw calculators for the smartphone.

[Dan Fromm]

Be aware that process lenses have the circle specified at 1:1 magnification, not for focus at infinite, so you can find the circle at infinite, and then use the focal for the original focus draw. and it would be the same calculation.

This isn't always the case. One always has to check the definition of coverage used in lens makers' propaganda about their process lenses.

[Pere Casals]

Of course... I guess that angle of coverage and focal vs circle tells that quickly. You have seen a lot more cases that me...