Looking at two lense for 4x5 to 8x10

[Steven Ruttenberg]

APO-GERMINAR 600mm f9 JENA Large Format LENS Carl Zeiss Rodenstock Artar Ronar,
Saw this on ebay for like 330 bucks. Good lens or crappy lens? Can it cover 8x10?

Really considering this lens. Have been for a while. Lens Voigtlander Universal Heliar 4.5/36cm 360mm 2800 bucks. Been on sale for a while. Maybe can get price down.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

How about this: Kodak Ektar 12" (305mm) F4.5 Lens in Ilex #5 Shutter (ULTRA FAST, COATED, 8X10), 1200 dollars and shutter can be use for the Voigtlander as well.

[Dan Fromm]

APO-GERMINAR 600mm f9 JENA Large Format LENS Carl Zeiss Rodenstock Artar Ronar,
Saw this on ebay for like 330 bucks. Good lens or crappy lens? Can it cover 8x10?

Fine lens but in barrel. Covers 8x10. skgrimes might be able to put it in a shutter for you.

[Tin Can]

The 3 lenses you are thinking about are very good.

Buy carefully. Research the seller.

Right after you buy any lens someone here will brag about how they bought for 20% of your purchase—

Ignore that!

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Fine lens but in barrel. Covers 8x10. skgrimes might be able to put it in a shutter for you.

Ok.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

The 3 lenses you are thinking about are very good.

Buy carefully. Research the seller.

Right after you buy any lens someone here will brag about how they bought for 20% of your purchase—

Ignore that!

Will do.

[Pere Casals]

APO-GERMINAR 600mm f9 JENA Large Format LENS Carl Zeiss Rodenstock Artar Ronar,
Saw this on ebay for like 330 bucks. Good lens or crappy lens? Can it cover 8x10?

This is a process lens, it may not be well optimized for infinite focus. I had to be made in the sovietic block, so QC could be less tight than in western germany was. It looks it's not multicoated, it may have "some kind" of coating.

The most interesting thing is the rings it has, that are not intended for LF view cameras. That gearing suggests it was not a taking lens at all.

I have Lomo O-2 600mm that it is much better than I thought it could be...

I don't like that workding in the offer: "AS IS, no returns, no refunds, please!" So it should be bought by somebody understanding what is this about,





Really considering this lens. Have been for a while. Lens Voigtlander Universal Heliar 4.5/36cm 360mm 2800 bucks. Been on sale for a while. Maybe can get price down.

The Universal Heliar is impressive for portraiture, sadly it is collectible so price is high. With it you have a large aperture, a supreme bokeh and a ring to add spheric aberration, adjusting coma to soften the image to the point you want. If you are to shot landscapes with all in focus then you will have no benefit and you'll experiement several drawbacks, like MC lack.

[paulbarden]

How about this: Kodak Ektar 12" (305mm) F4.5 Lens in Ilex #5 Shutter (ULTRA FAST, COATED, 8X10), 1200 dollars and shutter can be use for the Voigtlander as well.

I love my 12" f4.5 Kodak Ektar lens. I have the exact same lens/shutter as the one you are referring to (on fleabay). But even if its in pristine condition, $1200. is a bit steep. You should be able to get a very clean, functional version of this for $800 or less, if you're patient.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

This is a process lens, it may not be well optimized for infinite focus. I had to be made in the sovietic block, so QC could be less tight than in western germany was. It looks it's not multicoated, it may have "some kind" of coating.

The most interesting thing is the rings it has, that are not intended for LF view cameras. That gearing suggests it was not a taking lens at all.

I have Lomo O-2 600mm that it is much better than I thought it could be...

I don't like that workding in the offer: "AS IS, no returns, no refunds, please!" So it should be bought by somebody understanding what is this about,






The Universal Heliar is impressive for portraiture, sadly it is collectible so price is high. With it you have a large aperture, a supreme bokeh and a ring to add spheric aberration, adjusting coma to soften the image to the point you want. If you are to shot landscapes with all in focus then you will have no benefit and you'll experiement several drawbacks, like MC lack.

i was wondering why it looked "weird so to speak. I will probably pull the pin on the Extar and Voigt lens. I have been wanting a Voigt for a couple of years.

[Pere Casals]

I have been wanting a Voigt for a couple of years.


Me too!

[Dan Fromm]

This is a process lens, it may not be well optimized for infinite focus. I had to be made in the sovietic block, so QC could be less tight than in western germany was. It looks it's not multicoated, it may have "some kind" of coating.

The most interesting thing is the rings it has, that are not intended for LF view cameras. That gearing suggests it was not a taking lens at all.

Papa, investigate before posting. See Arne Croell's article on post-WW II CZJ lenses and his lens tests. The list has links to both.

[Pere Casals]

Papa, investigate before posting. See Arne Croell's article on post-WW II CZJ lenses and his lens tests. The list has links to both.

Dan, thanks

Yes... "They are at least as good as their Apo-Ronar, Apo-Artar, or Apo-Nikkor counterparts and were sold on Western markets at a premium price" (https://www.arnecroell.com/czj.pdf)

I was looking in the wrong pdf for czj: https://www.arnecroell.com/eastern-block-new.pdf

[John Kasaian]

How long are the bellows on your 4x5?

A 210 G Claron will do nicely on a 4x5 and cover 8x10 when stopped down
A 190mm Kodak Wide Field Ektar will also cover 4x5 and 8x10.
If you have accommodating 4x5 bellows, a 240 G Claron should be an excellent long 4x5 and semi wide 8x10
Just sayin'

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I can use the 210 G with my 4x5 and bag bellows. Also on 8x10 with bag bellows. I can go to about 300 to 360mm on my 4x5 with standard bellows. Need to get an 8x10 with a regular bellows possibly to use the big lenses, like 450 and up, looking at extar 14 in and the Voigtlander 12 Heliar in as mentioned earlier. I like the 210 on my 4x5. Have not tried a 240 but would.

[Drew Wiley]

There are several lenses in the 240/250 range that nicely double as either longish normal on 4x5 or moderately wide for 8x10 with realistic wiggle room for movements. I happen to use both a 240 Fuji A and a 250 G Claron. Both are precise all the way from macro to infinity. Both are also quite small and lightwt, suited for portability. The Fuji is a bit contrastier due to its multi-coating, but both lens series share a similar optical design. The big brother 360 Fuji A is my favorite 14 inch lens, but it's rather rare and expensive now. Even it is small and portable for its focal length.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I think I saw at my local camera shop today a fuji 420 for around 899 I think. I might be wrong on focal length but it is a fuji or is that Fujinon? They also had a caltar. And another older one both were big as hell probably like a copal 5. The shutter was as big as my hand and then somebb

[Tin Can]

After a while you will buy more lenses than is reasonable.

Lenses are easy to buy and hard to sell for the same price.

I have read about the past when Pro Shooters could sample iterations of the same lens, select the best and return the lesser.

Which implies many famous lenses are not so good...

I cannot find my Burke & James Chicago Lens Rental pages from about 1967. Amazing variety. Very low prices.

I bet Dan Fromm has a copy.

[Dan Fromm]

I bet Dan Fromme has a copy.

Sorry, wrong again.

[Tin Can]

Correct.


Sorry, wrong again.

[Jim Galli]

It's difficult to predict if a lens is "good" or "crappy" if we don't understand what you're trying to achieve. All of this is very subjective. I happen to think a Gundlach Hyperion is a good lens. Dan Fromm would tell you it's perfectly awful. We're both right. I make images with a single element of a Turner Reich that's nearly worthless that I think are spectacular. $money$ and hyperbole mean very little. No Kodak 12" lens is worth $1200. Not even a NOS Kodak Portrait lens in the Yellow box should fetch that number. Be careful. I sold a lovely Kodak Commercial Ektar 12" 6.3 in the big shutter for $365 and thought I did well. I never liked Ronar's much but I do like RD Artar's. So there you go. All subjective because Dan will tell you if you made identical negs with those two brands it would be literally impossible to determine which lens did what. Both are heavy enough to kill you if they hit you at a good velocity.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

At least now I know what possibly should be a more reasonable price for the Extar lens. I am looking at the 14 inch Extar and 12 inch Universal Heliar Voigtlander. As for what is good and what is bad, beyond a technical or engineering standpoint it comes down to preference. I have a 15mm IRIX for my 35mm lens. Cost about 800 dollars, I think it perform as well as any zeiss lens out there and tests from others bear out some of this. I have friends who think it is not that great because it doesn't have a name like Zeiss or Canon.

As for the Extar another friend of mine thinks it is a great lens if you want the vintage 50's look since they are not multi-coated and he feels they are not as contrasty. Maybe he is right, but then it all comes down to ones personal preferences. Short of just plain horrible optics, it really is in how one intends to use a lens and what they prefer.

Yes, If not careful it would be quite easy to end up with many shelves of lenses and cameras. In fact, I have thought about creating a mini museum in my home of lenses and cameras that are also fully functional with a little info card for each one. In the field though, I am quite practical. I will take only what I need once I leave the car/tent.

[Bernice Loui]

Contrasty is deceptive, it can and often delivers a perception of increased "shapes" trading off contrast rendition and "micro-contrast" for a visually hard hitting image. This is one of the reasons why I've given up on the modern multi-coated Plasmat and similar as these were designed and intended to be used for commercial color transparency advertising work that had to have that hard hitting image personalty that became common in advertising LF work back in the day. I've got Kodak sales samples of their color transparency films from back in the day. All of them were produced using modern lenses with a hard hitting image personality typical of color commercial ad work from that era. Other common requirement holding perceived focus on the entire image which related to stopping down to f16 and smaller for 4x5 and other sheet film formats. When combined with camera movements, this more often than not achieved the needed perceived focused image.

More than a few believe max contrast is the only way, others vintage non-coated is the only way.

What I'll say is try and decide. There is no other real way to decide.

As for the Universal Heilar, these have become collectable and now pricy, in the four figure range.


Bernice




As for the Extar another friend of mine thinks it is a great lens if you want the vintage 50's look since they are not multi-coated and he feels they are not as contrasty. Maybe he is right, but then it all comes down to ones personal preferences. Short of just plain horrible optics, it really is in how one intends to use a lens and what they prefer.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Yep, the one I am looking at is going for almost 2200 dollars, but it is in good shape. Everything I have ever read about that lens is great. It also will work very well for my wanting to work portraits and I believe it will do well for architecture/landscape type work as well. Either way, it is a great lens to have imo.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Just bought and Extar 14 in commercial in an ilex 5 shutter with original box for 500. Images looked good, clean glass, etc. Doesn't mean I didn't get screwed. Should be here Wed . I could in theory use on my Chamonix 45H-1, but that would be pushing the camera to the limits and I doubt the front standard could handle the weight. But is for the 8x10 and maybe a 5x7 if I don't stick with 8x10. Although, it will easily work on my Toyo 4x5 camera. Thing is built like a brick sh*t house.

[Jim Galli]

You did fine. The 14's go for a magnitude more than the 12's because they cover 11X14.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Cool. It looks really good. Can't wait to try it out! I need to start making money at this, it is an addictive hobby.

[Tin Can]

This old thread has SergeiR using a Heliar and others using SF. https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?105808-August-2013-Portraits&p=1057015&viewfull=1#post1057015

Scroll around the thread as he also uses it with 8X10 slide film Same model.

You will also find 'KAV' did some interesting shots in Afghanistan.

[Pere Casals]

This old thread has SergeiR using a Heliar and others using SF. [/url]

Impressive...

[John Kasaian]

At least now I know what possibly should be a more reasonable price for the Extar lens. I am looking at the 14 inch Extar and 12 inch Universal Heliar Voigtlander. As for what is good and what is bad, beyond a technical or engineering standpoint it comes down to preference. I have a 15mm IRIX for my 35mm lens. Cost about 800 dollars, I think it perform as well as any zeiss lens out there and tests from others bear out some of this. I have friends who think it is not that great because it doesn't have a name like Zeiss or Canon.

As for the Extar another friend of mine thinks it is a great lens if you want the vintage 50's look since they are not multi-coated and he feels they are not as contrasty. Maybe he is right, but then it all comes down to ones personal preferences. Short of just plain horrible optics, it really is in how one intends to use a lens and what they prefer.

Yes, If not careful it would be quite easy to end up with many shelves of lenses and cameras. In fact, I have thought about creating a mini museum in my home of lenses and cameras that are also fully functional with a little info card for each one. In the field though, I am quite practical. I will take only what I need once I leave the car/tent.

Oh man, you got it bad, don't you?:rolleyes:

[John Kasaian]

Just bought and Extar 14 in commercial in an ilex 5 shutter with original box for 500. Images looked good, clean glass, etc. Doesn't mean I didn't get screwed. Should be here Wed . I could in theory use on my Chamonix 45H-1, but that would be pushing the camera to the limits and I doubt the front standard could handle the weight. But is for the 8x10 and maybe a 5x7 if I don't stick with 8x10. Although, it will easily work on my Toyo 4x5 camera. Thing is built like a brick sh*t house.

I started shooting 8x10 with a 14" Commercial Ektar in a No.5 Universal.
An excellent choice IMHO!
I added some Lee poly filters with that rubber band holder thing.
Save those wide blue rubber bands bunches of Asperagus come with.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Oh man, you got it bad, don't you?:rolleyes:

Yep. :)

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I started shooting 8x10 with a 14" Commercial Ektar in a No.5 Universal.
An excellent choice IMHO!
I added some Lee poly filters with that rubber band holder thing.
Save those wide blue rubber bands bunches of Asperagus come with.

Will look into that.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

This old thread has SergeiR using a Heliar and others using SF. https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?105808-August-2013-Portraits&p=1057015&viewfull=1#post1057015

Scroll around the thread as he also uses it with 8X10 slide film Same model.

You will also find 'KAV' did some interesting shots in Afghanistan.

Very nice!

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Just received the lens. Damn that shutter is big! I like the self cocking of the ilex.