Voigtländer Euryscop No. 6 Series IV Real World Coverage ?

[maxi0909]

I just bought this huge and lovely Viogtländer lens, but my dark room is just in progress. I would be happy if anyone used this lens on a ULF camera and coul tell me the highest possible Coverage of this lens (maybe in portrait and landscape option)

Thanks a lot, can´t wait for your answers :)

[karl french]

http://www.antiquecameras.net/1890lenscatalogue.html

See page 7. It covers 14x17 wide open and 18x22 with a smaller stop. I suspect it would cover 20x24 with a small stop. It's a 21.3" (542mm) lens and does throw a large sharp image circle. Though keep in mind that a rapid aplanat like this will have quite a bit of field curvature wide open. It does flatten as you use smaller stops.

I think you should be thinking more about focal lengths for the type of portraits and landscapes you want to shoot. Generally, portraits are more flattering when shot with a lens slightly longer then the standard focal length. I also have a Euryscop IV No. 6. Which I bought with slightly wide 12x20 landscapes and 12x15 portraits in mind.

[maxi0909]

http://www.antiquecameras.net/1890lenscatalogue.html

See page 7. It covers 14x17 wide open and 18x22 with a smaller stop. I suspect it would cover 20x24 with a small stop. It's a 21.3" (542mm) lens and does throw a large sharp image circle. Though keep in mind that a rapid aplanat like this will have quite a bit of field curvature wide open. It does flatten as you use smaller stops.

I think you should be thinking more about focal lengths for the type of portraits and landscapes you want to shoot. Generally, portraits are more flattering when shot with a lens slightly longer then the standard focal length. I also have a Euryscop IV No. 6. Which I bought with slightly wide 12x20 landscapes and 12x15 portraits in mind.

Thanks a lot, I would say my maximum Coverage should be 16x20, this is my largest camera.

There is a american guy names Giles Glement who uses a Goerz 500mm 4.5 Dogmar lens. This lens also should just cover 11x14, but he does 16x20 portraits with it and I love the look of this focal length... Has this lens more Coverage? If yes, should I buy this lens instead?
Otherwise it´s 40mm less than the Voigtländer... This diffuses me.

[Hugo Zhang]

Different max f stops, different looks and different focal lengths.

[maxi0909]

Different max f stops, different looks and different focal lengths.

Okay, do you have more information about both lenses?

So longer focal length doesn´t mean more Coverage...

[Hugo Zhang]

https://www.cameraeccentric.com/catalogs

https://www.antiquecameras.net/1890lenscatalogue.html

Usually longer lenses are better for portraits. In old days, you add width and length of the format together and use a lens of that focal length. For example, for 8x10 portraits, a lens of 18" is preferred. Some people even go further by adding the longer wide of the format together, a 20 inch lens for 8x10 portraits.

I have Euryscop IV #6 and and an earlier 19" Celor which was also made by Goerz. Both are great for 8x10 head and shoulders and full body for 11x14.

[maxi0909]

https://www.cameraeccentric.com/catalogs

https://www.antiquecameras.net/1890lenscatalogue.html

Usually longer lenses are better for portraits. In old days, you add width and length of the format together and use a lens of that focal length. For example, for 8x10 portraits, a lens of 18" is preferred. Some people even go further by adding the longer wide of the format together, a 20 inch lens for 8x10 portraits.

I have Euryscop IV #6 and and an earlier 19" Celor which was also made by Goerz. Both are great for 8x10 head and shoulders and full body for 11x14.

Did you ever tried your Voigtländer lens in bigger formats than 11x14? :)

[Hugo Zhang]

I looked at reflected upside down head/shoulder images on my 16x20 ground glass and didn't make the exposure. It covers and I think you can even use 14x17 if not for head/shoulders.

[maxi0909]

I looked at reflected upside down head/shoulder images on my 16x20 ground glass and didn't make the exposure. It covers and I think you can even use 14x17 if not for head/shoulders.

I don´t understand well, you said it covered 16x20 with head and shoulders. But why not 14x17 for head and shoulders? 14x17 is smaller than 16x20?

[Hugo Zhang]

It covers both 14x17 and 16x20 for head/shoulder shots, but the pictures don't look pleasing because the lens is too short for these formats.

[Hugo Zhang]

To give you an example: would you use a 250mm lens for 8x10 head/shoulder shots? Do they look good? Yes you can use a 250mm for 8x10 portrait, but only at a distance, maybe 15-20 feet away. Many excellent 8x10 portraits have been made with 250mm or even wider lenses. Think of Jock Sturges.

[maxi0909]

To give you an example: would you use a 250mm lens for 8x10 head/shoulder shots? Do they look good? Yes you can use a 250mm for 8x10 portrait, but only at a distance, maybe 15-20 feet away. Many excellent 8x10 portraits have been made with 250mm or even wider lenses. Think of Jock Sturges.

Okay, now I understand

Thank you for your answer. Then I would say I could have some fun with my Voigtländer for 16x20 portraits :)

[Hugo Zhang]

Yes in the style of Sturges. Like when you use a 240mm-250mm lens with 8x10 portraits. You have to understand a 24" lens is considered normal lens for 16x20 format, just like a 12" in the case of 8x10.

[erian]

You can think of lens coverage in the following terms.

Lens have two basic properties. The lens has angle of view in the front of the lens. This depends on the lens focal length. The lens has angle of coverage in behind of the lens. This depends on the lens design (i.e. Petzval has one size, Tessar has another and Dagor has something different; it also varies inside the lens design of course, for example f/6.3 Tessar may have larger angle of coverage than f/4.5 Tessar and so on).

You could imagine it like two cones. Angle of view cone and angle of coverage cone.

If you think of angle of coverage cone then closer the image pane is to the lens the smaller is the image the lens can project (intersection of the image pane and the cone becomes smaller).

For example if you focus 500mm to infinity then your lens is 500mm from the image pane. When you now focus closer (say 1000mm at 1:1) then your lens is further away from the image pane and the cone of coverage also projects larger image (the difference between infinity and 1:1 is twice the sides i.e. when lens covers 8x10" at infinity then it will cover 16x20" at 1:1 (there are other factors that come from lens design and focal length i.e. lens good at infinity may not be good at 1:1, 300mm lens puts the subject too close to the camera etc)).

The same is with the focal length. If you assume the same lens design, that is, the same cone of coverage, then 500mm lens is further away from the image pane than would be say 300mm lens and therefore also the cone of coverage projects larger image.

[erian]

Normal lens for given format (X x Y, say 8 x 10) is roughly square root of (X squared + Y squared) (i.e. Pythagoras theorem). So for 8x10" it is square root (8 square + 10 squared) = square root (64 + 100) ~= 12.8" ~= 325mm (so 300mm would be a little wide angle in my opinion, approximately 45-46mm on 35mm camera).

For 16x20" it is then square root of (16 squared + 20 squared) = square root of (256 + 400) ~= 25.6" ~= 650mm i.e. twice the length of 8x10" (because also all the sides are double).

[erian]

Another useful concept to have is that the subject distance for the 1:1 image (that is when the subject in front of the lens is the same size as the image) is double of focal length from the lens focal point (i.e. somewhere in the middle of the lens mostly (for simple lens)). The distance of the image pane is the same length to the other side.

This means that the distance of the subject depends on the lens focal length. The longer the lens the further away you could put your subject.

When using the same focal length lens then moving the subject further away makes the image smaller and moving the subject closer makes the image larger (of course one must also also reposition the image pane to focus).

1:1 on 16x20" is head and shoulders + little bit of body portrait (upper part of breast). 1:1 on 20x24 is upper body portrait. Head and shoulders is about 12x15".

This means for example that if you want 16x20" head and shoulders then you have to magnify a little.

[maxi0909]

Another useful concept to have is that the subject distance for the 1:1 image (that is when the subject in front of the lens is the same size as the image) is double of focal length from the lens focal point (i.e. somewhere in the middle of the lens mostly (for simple lens)). The distance of the image pane is the same length to the other side.

This means that the distance of the subject depends on the lens focal length. The longer the lens the further away you could put your subject.

When using the same focal length lens then moving the subject further away makes the image smaller and moving the subject closer makes the image larger (of course one must also also reposition the image pane to focus).

1:1 on 16x20" is head and shoulders + little bit of body portrait (upper part of breast). 1:1 on 20x24 is upper body portrait. Head and shoulders is about 12x15".

This means for example that if you want 16x20" head and shoulders then you have to magnify a little.

Tha´t´s really a good explanation, thank you for your time, that was very helpful :)

space is no problem at my home, but like I said I loved the look of th Goerz 500 4.5.... So I would also be happy with my Voigtländer and don´t need a 650mm...
There is only the problem like you said that lenses could be different in Coverage apart from focal length... Maybe the Goerz one is better.

[Jimi]

Theory is one thing, and one can go half-mad with all the perhaps and what-ifs. Try the lens you have in your hands first. See what it really can do. Maybe you find yourself down another road in practice than you thought would be possible in theory.

[erian]

Theory is one thing, and one can go half-mad with all the perhaps and what-ifs. Try the lens you have in your hands first. See what it really can do. Maybe you find yourself down another road in practice than you thought would be possible in theory.

I second to this.

[erian]

So did you end up getting the 500mm Dogmar or it was somebody else? When you did then congratulations. When you did not then do not worry because it makes sens to test with what you already have at hand.

[maxi0909]

So did you end up getting the 500mm Dogmar or it was somebody else? When you did then congratulations. When you did not then do not worry because it makes sens to test with what you already have at hand.

No, sadly it wasn´t me :(

But I would say I pray to god my Voigtländer does the same job, because it also looks better :D