Goerz Artar 420 9,5

[C_M]

Someone could help me with this lens. Cover 8x10?. Fine for Portraits??
I had never seen one with waterstops...

[Mark Crabtree]

Way more than adequate coverage. I was happy enough with my 14" on 8x10. And the coverage will increase at portrait distances. Is it coated? It doesn't really look like it, but hard to know from pictures. Some were, but most pre "red dot" were not coated. 8 air/glass surfaces so the possibility of high flare. I did have an uncoated 19" and don't recall any problems, but that is a lens design where I'd prefer to have coating.

It will be fine for portraits if you like them sharp. F9.5 is going to be a little dim for focusing portraits in normal indoor light levels, but not hopeless. I can think of a lot of lenses I'd rather have for portraits, but they will tend to be more money.

Waterhouse type stops I believe were to allow different aperture shapes for printing industry needs. Does it have an adjustable iris too?

Mark

[Dan Fromm]

Per P-H Pont's Goerz chronology, the lens was made between 1915 and 1920, very possibly before 1918. Uncoated from the factory, coating hadn't been invented yet.

[Mark Crabtree]

Wow! Looking at it I would never have dreamed it was anything like that old. I thought my 1928 42cm Apochromatic Claron was old. That was my main lens on #10 Cirkut for decades. Coated at some point before I got it.

[C_M]

Thanks Mark,

It has no iris and as Dan says it´s not coated. Only the slot for waterstops.
I read somewhere that they were made with iris and a slot that allowed to use filters in graphic arts work, but this only has the slot for aperture waterstops. I've never seen one like this ...
Length: 7cm
Diameter: 6.5cm

[C_M]

Per P-H Pont's Goerz chronology, the lens was made between 1915 and 1920, very possibly before 1918. Uncoated from the factory, coating hadn't been invented yet.

Many thanks Dan.

I agree with the date.
This lens was attached to an old studio camera that belonged to a photographer who did wedding studio portraits.
What do you think about the transition between sharp - unsharp and shallow deep of this lens in B&W.???

[Dan Fromm]

What do you think about the transition between sharp - unsharp and shallow deep of this lens in B&W.???

Total ignorance. I've never had an Artar.

I have and have used dialyte type Apo-Nikkors and Apo-Ronars, always at distance. I like what they do but I'm a certified ignorant barbarian insensitive to the fine points (took the course, passed the exam, have the certificate) so can say nothing about bokum.

You have the lens, ask it.

[John Kasaian]

Artars are quite desirable IMHO. I have 14"& 19" Artars and am very satisfied with them both, but what Dan Fromm said---it's your lens!

[C_M]

Total ignorance. I've never had an Artar.

I have and have used dialyte type Apo-Nikkors and Apo-Ronars, always at distance. I like what they do but I'm a certified ignorant barbarian insensitive to the fine points (took the course, passed the exam, have the certificate) so can say nothing about bokum.

You have the lens, ask it.


.... Ummm!!!, the problem is that I am also a true Celtic barbarian ...
I just asked him a question and he answered this ... but I'm a rookie.

Thanks, Carlos Mendez.
Fomapan 100

[C_M]

Artars are quite desirable IMHO. I have 14"& 19" Artars and am very satisfied with them both, but what Dan Fromm said---it's your lens!

Thanks John.
It's not my lens, just a loan.
What do you think???

[Mark Crabtree]

The picture looks good. If that is with the Artar, then the overall flare level appears very reasonable. That is a challenging shot to keep the shadows free from density from overall flare. I don't know what you plan, but for the portraits I do it wouldn't worry me. Hurrell used a Goerz Celor that I believe had the same number of air/glass surfaces. Here's a link that should take you to a relevant page in a book about Hurrell:
https://books.google.com/books?id=3T79AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=goerz+celor+hurrell&source=bl&ots=Wu8WpzECTI&sig=ACfU3U115O9gZm7ByQyOObzvHoGRNOhIow&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiyjKm2qfXfAhUro1kKHZ5tB9EQ6AEwCHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=goerz%20celor%20hurrell&f=false

I don't know if it is helpful, but here's some discussion about the designs:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?100915-What-is-the-difference-between-Goerz-Artar-Celor-amp-Dogmar

I used mine for panoramic Cirkut camera photos so don't personally know about the sharp/unsharp, but there were plenty on portrait cameras. The biggest potential issue to me is the speed; I'd rather have faster, but think you'll be fine. F9.5 is a nice aperture for portraits, but dimmer viewing. It will effectively be about a stop slower at likely portrait distances due to the bellows extension. Fairly shallow depth of field, but I often use f4 to f6 for portraits, so that wouldn't bother me.

[C_M]

The picture looks good. If that is with the Artar, then the overall flare level appears very reasonable. That is a challenging shot to keep the shadows free from density from overall flare. I don't know what you plan, but for the portraits I do it wouldn't worry me. Hurrell used a Goerz Celor that I believe had the same number of air/glass surfaces. Here's a link that should take you to a relevant page in a book about Hurrell:
https://books.google.com/books?id=3T79AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=goerz+celor+hurrell&source=bl&ots=Wu8WpzECTI&sig=ACfU3U115O9gZm7ByQyOObzvHoGRNOhIow&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiyjKm2qfXfAhUro1kKHZ5tB9EQ6AEwCHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=goerz%20celor%20hurrell&f=false

I don't know if it is helpful, but here's some discussion about the designs:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?100915-What-is-the-difference-between-Goerz-Artar-Celor-amp-Dogmar

I used mine for panoramic Cirkut camera photos so don't personally know about the sharp/unsharp, but there were plenty on portrait cameras. The biggest potential issue to me is the speed; I'd rather have faster, but think you'll be fine. F9.5 is a nice aperture for portraits, but dimmer viewing. It will effectively be about a stop slower at likely portrait distances due to the bellows extension. Fairly shallow depth of field, but I often use f4 to f6 for portraits, so that wouldn't bother me.

Thanks for the references Crabtree.

>>> I know the book.

>>>Yes, it's with the Artar and a Wide Angle Lens Hood

>>>The idea is a series of portraits of very old people.
Practically only head. Dark and well contrasted, trying to highlight the passage of time on their faces. Fresnel light.
Any advice???

[John Kasaian]

Thanks John.
It's not my lens, just a loan. The owner sells it for 60 dollars.
What do you think???

Do you want to put it in a shutter? Make a set of Waterhouse stops for it?
That certainly sounds like an interesting project.
We don't discuss valuations here as per forum rules.

[C_M]

Do you want to put it in a shutter? Make a set of Waterhouse stops for it?
That certainly sounds like an interesting project.
We don't discuss valuations here as per forum rules.

Thanks John.

Sorry for talking about money, I'm really a rookie.
I'm thinking about making a set of waterstops if finally buy the lens. The lens comes with one that I think is the middle of the aperture range of the lens. Maybe f / 22. I'm not sure.
The attached photo was exposed for an opening f / 22 with readings taken with my Gosen spotmeter.
I do not know if it will be the right lens for this type of project. I have not found portraits made with this lens to get an idea...

[John Kasaian]

Artars are sharp. If you want wrinkles, I suspect you'll get 'em!