Which 360mm lens has the largest image circle

[wsit]

I am wondering if there is any 360mm lens that has 800mm+ imagine circle? Various discussions Nikkor 450mm might be ok stopped down but I want to know if something wider can cover 800mm+

For the sake of discussion, soft corner is ok

[David Lindquist]

The 360mm lens with the largest image circle is probably the 14 inch f/7.7 Dagor. My 1938 C.P. Goerz American Optical Company catalog claims this covered an angle of 87º at f/45. Doing the trigonometry you are asking for a lens that covers 96º.

Note this is not the same lens as the later 14 inch/ 360 mm F/8 Gold Dot Dagor made by/for Schneider, that lens had a rather smaller image circle.

Not sure when C.P. Goerz Am. Opt. Co. discontinued the 14" f/7.7 Dagor. Their 1951 catalogue shows it as well as the 16 1/2 and 19 inch Dagors. My circa 1960's literature shows the 12" f/6.8 Dagor as the longest focal length available.

David

[Oren Grad]

If you're willing to go to 390mm, perhaps the Series V Protar.

[xkaes]

The widest FUJINON that covers 800mm (31") -- for 20x24" -- is the A 600mm (24"). The Fujinon SW 300 (12") covers 720mm (28").

[Mark Sawyer]

A 200mm Goerz Hypergon covers 24x28. Good luck finding or affording one.

[Drew Wiley]

Very large image circle in a conventional relatively modern formulation, perhaps a 360/9 Kowa Graphic would be a contender. It was also sold under Computer and Apo Kyvttar labels.

[Oren Grad]

Very large image circle in a conventional relatively modern formulation, perhaps a 360/9 Kowa Graphic would be a contender. It was also sold under Computer and Apo Kyvttar labels.

Probably not the Graphic Kowa:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?10255-The-Computar-lens-and-ULF-coverage

Does the Computar exist in the 360mm FL?

[Oren Grad]

I am wondering if there is any 360mm lens that has 800mm+ imagine circle? Various discussions Nikkor 450mm might be ok stopped down but I want to know if something wider can cover 800mm+

For the sake of discussion, soft corner is ok

We should have asked at the start: what are you photographing, at what distance?

[xkaes]

Very large image circle in a conventional relatively modern formulation, perhaps a 360/9 Kowa Graphic would be a contender. It was also sold under Computer and Apo Kyvttar labels.

I believe you mean Computar and APO-Kyvytar. My info shows the 360mm f9 with an IC of 523mm at infinity & 600mm at 1:1.

[wsit]

We should have asked at the start: what are you photographing, at what distance?

Landscape. So I need the ic at infinity. I got 355mm g claron that I how can cover at 1x

[xkaes]

The lens was first labeled "Computar" and later "APO-Kyvytar" -- just to confuse people. You know, first Datsun then Nissan, etc. etc.

[Oren Grad]

Landscape. So I need the ic at infinity.

OK, thanks. That's going to be very difficult.

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. 360 mm or so. Covers >= 800 mm.

OP, you're dreaming. The lens of your dreams is Berthiot's 360/14 Perigraphe VIa, which covers ~ 890 mm at "small apertures." It was cataloged, whether any were made is unclear. Good luck finding one.

The 360/18 Protar that Oren mentioned will also do what you want. Cataloged image circle is 1,160 mm. Another unicorn.

Have you considered using a pinhole?

[Drew Wiley]

Computar f/9, Apo-Kyvvtar, and Kowa Graphic are all the same. Being originally marketed as graphics lenses, even the 1:1 specs are for stringent standards at f/22. In typical real-world LF use at smaller stops, the image circles are going to be significantly larger, even at infinity. Note Sandy's previous post relative to focal lengths quite a bit shorter than 360. Even the official specs for G-Claron lenses are cited relative to graphics standards, while the usable real-world image circle is considerably larger than the published one.

A lot also depends on your style of printing. Contact printers can get away with a lot more "usable" image circle than people who enlarge to a significant degree. That's also a factor when comparing similar lenses. Some have less mechanical vignetting due to larger shutters; but all that seeming surplus of image circle might not be of the same quality towards its periphery.

[Oren Grad]

Computar f/9, Apo-Kyvvtar, and Kowa Graphic are all the same.

They are not always the same, as discussed in the thread I linked. Some people who have purchased lenses labeled "Graphic Kowa", expecting to get the coverage of a Computar, have been very unpleasantly surprised. Caveat emptor.

[ridax]

I've got my interest in really wide lenses back after I've put my 210mm f/9 Zeiss Dagor into a Compur #2 and tested it. I was impressed and thought it wouldn't be bad at all to have a longer lens as wide. This thread made me look for some information on the Computar / Graphic Kowa lenses that I have not put my hands on yet. The most useful data that I found was in this thread: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?134659-240mm-Graphic-Kowa-on-ULF-images-from-the-corner-(a-k-a-coverage). But sorry I agree with Dan Fromm's #4 message in that thread, and I don't consider the shown images sharp. Yes I see motion blur in the ferns but I don't suspect any motion in the big trees' bark as well as on the ground. What I see is an intolerable (for me) amount of astigmatism. That's at 87° and less. This thread is about 96°....

The old extreme wide-angles were to be used stopped down a lot, and that stopped-down coverage was for contact prints only. The f/18 series V Protars are of the same general formula as the f/9 series IIIa Protars but are far less sharp. The IIIa's cover far less but their sharpness is just as far better. The older f/6.8~f/7.7 Dagors usually illuminate more than the newer ones but their sharp coverage is very modestly larger. And that more field sharpness is traded for less mid-field sharpness as the only optical difference in their generations (except for the glass elements diameter that adds to the illuminated field but not to the sharp one) is the tiny difference is the cell spacing (just the same story as the one told about the Computars' spacing by Gordon Hutchings here: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?134659-240mm-Graphic-Kowa-on-ULF-images-from-the-corner-(a-k-a-coverage)&p=1361392&viewfull=1#post1361392). The older Dagors (and especially the Gugo Meyer Doppel-Anastigmat Dagor copies) that sharply cover somewhat more have their cells 0.5mm to 2mm (depending on the focal lengths) closer than the later Dagors that are optimized for the mid-field sharpness and cover less. Anyone can make these lenses' coverage and sharpness distribution exactly the same by changing the cell spacing.... And getting back to the 210mm f/9 Zeiss Dagor: mine is from the last batch manufactured for Luftwaffe. It's not optimized for the maximum field sharpness. It illuminates its nominal 100° but the corners are not sharp at all. The particular specimen is optimized for wide-open f/9 usage (the original barrel had no iris at all), and to get a really sharp image wide open, one has to sacrifice a bit of coverage. I have yet to try changing the cell spacing a bit to find the optimal compromise between the corner and the mid-field sharpness for my own needs with the lens stopped down to about f/22 and f/32.

Another point: with the same lens design, we get all the aberrations larger and more prominent when the lens gets longer in its focal length. A 90mm seris V Protar may make remarkably sharp 4x5" contact prints well stopped down, but a 360mm seris V Protar will have 4 times less sharp images at the same f-stops. For a lens designed for contact prints only, with a long enough focal length, the difference may get visible enough even in the contact prints.

That makes the above suggestion to try pinhole first look very reasonable - especially considering the costs of that big super-wide-angles and the efforts to find them.

[jnantz]

sometimes convertible lenses throw a large image circle when converted, I don't know of any that will cover 31-32 inches, that's a big circle. maybe one of Reinhold's Wollaston Meniscus lenses will do that.

[Bernice Loui]

Image circle about 800mm would be 20"x24" image format?

The 450mm f9 Nikkor M is a Tessar formula with about 52 degrees of image cone, at f22 it has an image circle of 440mm at f22... not even close to ~800mm and no, stopping down lots will not increase the image circle to any where near 800mm.

231819


For a 360mm focal lenght lens to make about 800mm image circle requires about 95 degrees if image circle cone or a "Biogon" or "wide field gasuss" lens design/formula or similar.. fact and reality IS, not gonna happen or it will be one of those rare single off lenses or have a lens designed specific to this need.

The other importaint bits of info, what exposure aperture, what are the image goal expectations, what about the shutter and all...?

Easier alternative would be to use a ..... pin hole.


Bernice




I am wondering if there is any 360mm lens that has 800mm+ imagine circle? Various discussions Nikkor 450mm might be ok stopped down but I want to know if something wider can cover 800mm+

For the sake of discussion, soft corner is ok

[xkaes]

Easier alternative would be to use a ..... pin hole.

Bernice

And a CND filter -- or two!

[Drew Wiley]

Oren, there were all kinds of things made under Computar label, and I get the impression that lots of the coverage complaints are either due to Computar Symmetrigon lenses being mistaken for their graphic ones, or else due to mechanical vignetting issues in smaller shutters, or perhaps an economy line of lenses. Graphics lenses by various manufacturers often had multiple series with coverage implications, whether we're talking G-Clarons, or Nikkor process lenses, Goerz, even Rodenstock. The existence of so many improperly listed things on EBAY doesn't help.

I've always wondered if the extra coverage of the old f/7.7 14 inch Dagors in terms of optical design is really any better than the final Kern versions, or simply due to their bigger shutters and less mechanical vignetting. A tradeoff.

[Vaughn]

Computar Symmetrigon lenses...wonderful lenses, but certainly Drew is correct -- their coverage was average for the focal length. Sharp and good contrast, especially using the supplied lens hood.

[Oren Grad]

Oren, there were all kinds of things made under Computar label, and I get the impression that lots of the coverage complaints are either due to Computar Symmetrigon lenses being mistaken for their graphic ones, or else due to mechanical vignetting issues in smaller shutters, or perhaps an economy line of lenses.

Nothing to do with the Symmetrigons nor with the shutters. The issue is specifically f/9 process lenses labeled Graphic Kowa that look cosmetically identical to the f/9 Computars but are different optically and have smaller coverage. Again, the details are teased out over the course of the discussion in the thread I linked.

[Lachlan 717]

I have a barrel 240mm Graphic Kowa that I can’t edge out at full movements on 7x17…

Trouble is, it’s fixed in the barrel. No way to Copal shutter mount it without significant machining.

[ridax]

I've always wondered if the extra coverage of the old f/7.7 14 inch Dagors in terms of optical design is really any better than the final Kern versions, or simply due to their bigger shutters and less mechanical vignetting. A tradeoff.

I don't have the particular f/7.7 14" American Dagor version but as I said above, I am sure the total illuminated field in Dagors depends on the glass elements size but the sharp covered field depends on the cell spacing only. My 360mm f/7.7 German Dagor from the 1920s is really an f/7.7 but my 19th century f/7.7 480mm pre-Dagor is actually a f/6.8 lens with the aperture mechanically stopped at f/7.7. That 480mm has considerably larger glass elements (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?170030-Goerz-Doppel-Anastigmat-Series-III-No-1-Question&p=1655316&viewfull=1#post1655316).

But sharp-covered field is another story. The lower left graphs here http://dioptrique.info/OBJECTIFS7/00334/00334(.GIF are for the astigmatism and field curvature. In f/6.8~f/7.7 Dagors, astigmatism gets visible enough at about 40° (20° on the scale as the scale shows half of the field), then disappears and then gets really prominent again beyond about 60° (30° to each side of the center). Put the lens cells at a slightly larger distance from each other, and the mid-field astigmatism at 40° gets smaller, and the 60°+ astigmatism gets bigger - as in the later Dagors that are sharper in the mid field but have their total sharp-covered field smaller.

I have compared older Dagors and pre-Dagors to the Hugo Meyer Görlitz Doppel-Anastigmat Dagor copies in 210 to 240mm and in 300mm focal lengths and to a later Goerz American 210mm Kenro K Dagor. The Meyer copies had the largest sharp-covered field but had to be stopped to f/32 instead of the original Dagors' f/22 to get the same mid-field sharpness. The Kenro was the sharpest mid-field and had the worst sharpness at the very edges. And moving any of the lens cells out approximately one full turn of the threads, made the Meyers' sharpness distribution exactly equal to the older Dagors' one, and one more turn made them all equal to the Kenro.

The change in the astigmatism correction over the years was not only due to the fact that enlargements became more important than in the 19th century but more due to the emergency of panchromatic and especially of the color films. Please note the difference of the Dagor's astigmatism for the red and for the blue rays in graphs linked above. In red, it is nearly twice worse at 40° and a lot better at 60°+. So they had to change the cell spacing just to make the later Dagors perform the same in the full spectrum as the original Dagors performed with blue-sensitive emulsions.

[ridax]

But with all that spacing manipulations - personally, I still would not go beyond 80° with f/6.8~f/7.7 Dagors as the mid-field sharpness is also important for me, and it decreases quite rapidly with the attempts to get a larger coverage. I still don't know how close can I get to the f/9 Dagor's declared 100° if I put its cells closer.

I also would consider buying a proper Computar if its edge performance were anywhere near to a f/9 Dagor's, and I would appreciate any proof of that.

[Corran]

Image circle about 800mm would be 20"x24" image format?

The 450mm f9 Nikkor M is a Tessar formula with about 52 degrees of image cone, at f22 it has an image circle of 440mm at f22... not even close to ~800mm and no, stopping down lots will not increase the image circle to any where near 800mm.

231819


For a 360mm focal lenght lens to make about 800mm image circle requires about 95 degrees if image circle cone or a "Biogon" or "wide field gasuss" lens design/formula or similar.. fact and reality IS, not gonna happen or it will be one of those rare single off lenses or have a lens designed specific to this need.

The other importaint bits of info, what exposure aperture, what are the image goal expectations, what about the shutter and all...?

Easier alternative would be to use a ..... pin hole.


Bernice

OP, you will get wildly different information, often from "experts" who cite manufacturer specs, other times from those who have actually used the lenses in question. Always test your own. Some may view image quality differently...I see one person citing poor performance on images I see extremely good performance from.

From my personal experience, the Schneider 360mm Symmar (non-S) covers 12x20 with a good amount of movements (rise/fall). I have not hit hard edge vignetting with it on my Wisner. The 450mm Nikkor-M is the same and many reports of even larger formats exists from users. The Nikkor is the most useful general-purpose ULF lens, hence their continuous upwards price movement.

Computars and Graphic Kowas are also excellent performers but research heavily. Best purchased from an experienced user or with a generous return policy. I'm not selling mine :).

[Tin Can]

I am not an EXPERT

However I can read

NIKON Brochure attached link below shows a NIKKOR 360 f6.5 has significantly more coverage than the 450 f9 Page 15

I bought one and not the 450 by reading actual published data

https://www.mr-alvandi.com/downloads/large-format/nikon-large-format-lenses.pdf

[ridax]

I see one person citing poor performance on images I see extremely good performance from.

I see at least two. :)

But we don't need to have identical opinions on any facts. What we need is to understand each other. That's why I like to cite aberrational curves: those represent facts, those are understandable with some experience, and they may be interpreted to be great to acceptable to inappropriate by each person for each particular task.

Detailed images like those posted in that older thread are also a great source of information to make one's own decisions on. Myself, I really would get the Graphic Kowa if those images looked differently. Others like them as they are. And that's perfectly OK.

[ridax]

Well yes I should admit it's hard to evaluate a lens itself at f/64, with the diffraction limit that severe and with no means to detect which of the subject parts were actually in focus. May be I liked the lens if I saw something shot at f/32....

[Bernice Loui]

When does a "lens" become a pin hole non-lens?

Given the example of 450mm f9 Nikkor M stops down to f128... what is the actual image circle at f9 -vs- f128? This question applies to any lens with an adjutiable aperature that goes past f64.. and goes back to reply# 18 asking the OP and others about exposure aperture. This essentially fixes the optical requirements of this question.. Ponder what an optical device would be like to deliver 100 degrees of image cone to over 800mm at it's focal plane and exposure aperture of f1.0... or using a pin hole with an effective exposure aperture of f256 or smaller_?_

Oh, 12"x20" requires a image circle about 588mm (wil that 450mm f9 Nikkor M fully cover 12"x20" at f9..stopping down the lens aperture is not allowed), which is smaller than 20"x24" or what this "discussion" was about based on the OP's inquiry.

This presentation on pin hole or lenless image making and lenses used to make images is a worthy read and study. Does a nice explanation of how this stuff works.
http://graphics.cs.cmu.edu/courses/15-463/2019_fall/lectures/lecture3.pdf

One recent example of wide angle pin hole image making for digital cameras..
https://thingyfy.com/blogs/news/the-most-astonishing-wideangle-pinhole-camera-lens-in-the-world

Typically, ULF images are contact printed, not projection enlarged. This bends the optical needs lots as 5 lpm is enough resolution for a contact print or exposure apertures of f90 and smaller can be absolutely good enough. If the same f90 plus mind set/value system film image is projection magnified-enlarged about 100x, would the image results be acceptable?

~Much a matter, opinion and more about image making goals, no?

Back to the quesstion of lenses with 800+ mm diameter of image circle.. Schneider introduced their XXL "fine art" series of lenses in the late 1990's as their answer to the lens question from the ULF folks. This was about the time when there was growing interest in ULF up to 20"x24"...

Schneider made a 550mm (dagor), 1100mm (artar) and later a 770mm. All three in Copal# 3 shutter, all three had a spec image circle of 900mm @f22 (yes, still a lens at f22, not a pin hole).
http://linhof.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Fine-Art-CS-engl.pdf


Bernice








Well yes I should admit it's hard to evaluate a lens itself at f/64, with the diffraction limit that severe and with no means to detect which of the subject parts were actually in focus. May be I liked the lens if I saw something shot at f/32....

[Tin Can]

I am working on 1.6 mm pinhole at 20 to 24"

Used famous historical sizing math from the 15th century

Bought a fancy hole, been reading a lot of pinhole theory

My goal as already stated is 14X36" X-Ray

A big wood box with adjustable innards

I may add a bellows for a real lens

Now into winter work as



Winter is coming

[Drew Wiley]

Depends on usage. I mainly enlarge, do quite a bit of color work, and most of this being outdoors, prefer lighter equipment options. Still, my 8x10 daypack runs around 45 lbs, since I do also keep a reasonable amount of weather-related clothing and emergency items in there too. But my largest format is 8x10, so my personal requirement in a 360 lens need only serve that size well. I currently have four different lenses that focal length suitable for 810 usage. My favorite and most versatile is a Fuji A 360/f10. The greater image circle of the similarly designed 355 G-Claron simply seems to be due to the lesser mechanical vignetting of its no.3 shutter versus the no.1 on the Fuji A, which has a generous image circle for 8x10 itself, but would be only marginally useful for 11X14 head-on without any spare wiggle room for movements. But 11X14 and 12X20 format shooters nearly always contract print anyway, so there you have it.

Similarly, I have quite a bit of experience with the later Kern 14 inch Dagors, both single-coat and multi-coated. They are extremely well color corrected, though not quite to the same apo degree as Fuji-A's and G-Clarons, and certainly not like the extreme correction of Apo-Nikkor, which I also own in its 360 version. But the Dagors have less tangential resolution than the Fuji A or GC, affecting more serious tilts or swings, and are not as well close-range corrected either. Where they excel, however, is in sheer contrast (sometimes too much so, especially for color chrome work). So for my own 8x10 use, these are all fine, plus a 360/9 Zeiss barrel process lens I keep on hand for its excellent "bokeh" characteristics. But none of the above except the GC can be recommended by me for ULF work - anything larger than 8x10. I don't personally own a GC in that particularly focal length, but otherwise have plenty of experience with them.

Another factor : sometimes stopping a lens way down is essential simply due to the increasing amount of film sag risk the larger the film becomes, unless you've taken the trouble to make a precision vacuum or adhesive film holder option. Then there are very serious depth of field issues with the longer lenses associated with very large film formats. So stopping way way down often simply comes with the territory. But since 1X contact prints are generally in mind, that's not such a serious issues at all except for the significantly longer exposure times involved.

[Vaughn]

...
Another factor : sometimes stopping a lens way down is essential simply due to the increasing amount of film sag risk the larger the film becomes, unless you've taken the trouble to make a precision vacuum or adhesive film holder option. Then there are very serious depth of field issues with the longer lenses associated with very large film formats. So stopping way way down often simply comes with the territory. But since 1X contact prints are generally in mind, that's not such a serious issues at all except for the significantly longer exposure times involved.

I remember when Thomas Cooper asked Ansel if he (Thomas) should move up from his 5x7 to 11x14. AA recommended against it for the same reasons. Almost a half century after I heard that story, Thomas is still using his old 5x7...and I bought a beautiful Chamonix 11x14.

[Bluegrass Photographics]

231847231848

[ridax]

When does a "lens" become a pin hole non-lens? <...> or what this "discussion" was about based on the OP's inquiry. <...> Typically, ULF images are contact printed, not projection enlarged. This bends the optical needs lots as 5 lpm is enough resolution for a contact print or exposure apertures of f/90 and smaller can be absolutely good enough. <...> ~Much a matter, opinion and more about image making goals, no?

Yes indeed. Personally, I don't abide by the f/64 group philosophy; I prefer my wide-angle images (yes, especially the wide-angle ones) to have a limited depth of field and have something out of focus at the background as well as in front of the focus plane. And I often tilt my lenses so far that the equidistant out of focus subject parts are rendered as the background in one parts of the picture and as the foreground in the other parts of the frame. That means (1) not too small the apertures even in the ULF; (2) at least reasonably good out of focus rendition in both the background and the foreground, and (3) really good sharpness within the (small enough) chosen depth of field.

I like to watch my contact prints with a magnifier. I find the impression of seeing a single tree leaf bent by the wind (a sharp one, as the shutter speed was enough to avoid any motion blur, and the aperture was wide enough to avoid any diffraction-caused unsharpness) in a landscape with lots of such trees, in a landscape that looks fine as a whole without any magnifier - I find that just amazing. I think that's the LF is for. Otherwise, why not make that landscape with a DSLR? As a whole, it wouldn't look worse. But what will you see in a print from a DSLR image with a magnifier? Nothing but pixels. With an LF contact print, a magnifier is a powerful tool for further exploration.

I was really disappointed when I saw some genuine Ansel Adams 8x10" contact prints at an exhibition for the first time. I was not disappointed by his compositions. I was disppointed by the lack of sharpness in his 8x10's. Because I remembered my own 6x8" image made with a common 210mm Convertible Symmar at f/16 just a couple of months before.... Yes I was one of the rare freaks that came to any exhibition with at least a 5x loupe in their pockets....

No I don't like any f/64 images. Yes that certainly affects my lens preferances....

[wsit]

When does a "lens" become a pin hole non-lens?

Given the example of 450mm f9 Nikkor M stops down to f128... what is the actual image circle at f9 -vs- f128? This question applies to any lens with an adjutiable aperature that goes past f64.. and goes back to reply# 18 asking the OP and others about exposure aperture. This essentially fixes the optical requirements of this question.. Ponder what an optical device would be like to deliver 100 degrees of image cone to over 800mm at it's focal plane and exposure aperture of f1.0... or using a pin hole with an effective exposure aperture of f256 or smaller_?_

Oh, 12"x20" requires a image circle about 588mm (wil that 450mm f9 Nikkor M fully cover 12"x20" at f9..stopping down the lens aperture is not allowed), which is smaller than 20"x24" or what this "discussion" was about based on the OP's inquiry.

This presentation on pin hole or lenless image making and lenses used to make images is a worthy read and study. Does a nice explanation of how this stuff works.
http://graphics.cs.cmu.edu/courses/15-463/2019_fall/lectures/lecture3.pdf

One recent example of wide angle pin hole image making for digital cameras..
https://thingyfy.com/blogs/news/the-most-astonishing-wideangle-pinhole-camera-lens-in-the-world

Typically, ULF images are contact printed, not projection enlarged. This bends the optical needs lots as 5 lpm is enough resolution for a contact print or exposure apertures of f90 and smaller can be absolutely good enough. If the same f90 plus mind set/value system film image is projection magnified-enlarged about 100x, would the image results be acceptable?

~Much a matter, opinion and more about image making goals, no?

Back to the quesstion of lenses with 800+ mm diameter of image circle.. Schneider introduced their XXL "fine art" series of lenses in the late 1990's as their answer to the lens question from the ULF folks. This was about the time when there was growing interest in ULF up to 20"x24"...

Schneider made a 550mm (dagor), 1100mm (artar) and later a 770mm. All three in Copal# 3 shutter, all three had a spec image circle of 900mm @f22 (yes, still a lens at f22, not a pin hole).
http://linhof.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Fine-Art-CS-engl.pdf


Bernice

Thanks for the info. I got the long end cover. The shorter end I have is 450mm nikkor and 600c fuji. According to my previous research, I kinda realised that anything shorter at the 360mm ish is basically unicorn like other post has suggested. But never hurt to ask if I missed something obvious. Pinhole is possible but I much prefer to have a real lens if there is one.

[wsit]

231847231848

Thank you!

[Hugo Zhang]

There is no 360mm lens with 800mm image circle. Protar V 39cm has the largest coverage and will cost you 3-4k. It is very sharp stopped down at F/64. There is no 360mm Protar v. A 305mm Protar V will cover 16x20 at infinity with no movement and with dark corners. The sharpest 360mm lens for ULF work with decent coverage is 14" Trigor. 14x17 at infinity with dark corners.

Zeiss Dagor F/9 lenses are very sharp with tons of coverage. A 24cm F/9 will cover 11x14 with movement.

[Mark Sampson]

It looks like that 13" Wollensak will do the job. Now the OP's challenge will be to find one for sale.
It certainly seems that, across the board, the longest focal lengths in a manufacturer's lens line were made in the smallest numbers. (I have no data to support that surmise, though).
Perhaps member Whir-Click will speak up... the ad and chart shown above came form his site, and he knows a lot about Wollensak lenses.

[wsit]

It looks like that 13" Wollensak will do the job. Now the OP's challenge will be to find one for sale.
It certainly seems that, across the board, the longest focal lengths in a manufacturer's lens line were made in the smallest numbers. (I have no data to support that surmise, though).
Perhaps member Whir-Click will speak up... the ad and chart shown above came form his site, and he knows a lot about Wollensak lenses.

Which website is that

[ridax]

I got the long end cover. The shorter end I have is 450mm nikkor and 600c fuji

A 450mm lens covering 800mm is 83°, and a 600mm lens is just 67°. With that reasonable angles, you have far more choices then the two lenses mentioned above. If those angles are acceptable, I'd choose between the most desired pictorial qualities (such as the out of focus rendition) and the availability/price of the glass.

Protar IIIa 407mm f/9
Dagor 420mm f/7.7
Dagor 480mm f/7.7
Protar IIIa 505mm f/9
etc....

[Jody_S]

If money is no object, I'll wager Harrison made a 14" Globe lens.

[Mark Sawyer]

If money is no object, I'll wager Harrison made a 14" Globe lens.


The largest Globe lens was the 16-inch, rated by Harrison & Schnitzer at 19x23. (The historic Mammoth Plate size is 18x22.) According to Dan Colucci, 4 or 5 are known to still exist.

[Hugo Zhang]

Many times there are big differences among claims of coverage of the same lens between lens makers.

For example, Zeiss claimed that their 39cm Protar f/18 lens covered 12x15 in 1929 while Bausch & Lomb claimed the same lens covered 22x27 in 1919. All at small stops. Which one do you believe? Same lens.

[Mark Sampson]

I was referring to alphaxbetax.com- owned and operated by forum member Whir-Click. An invaluable resource on Wollensak lenses and products.

[Bernice Loui]

Marketing, zero differnce being done to this day. Much about foisting what folks want to hear instead of what the reality, truth and un-bendable ways of Nature.

Yet, few if any of these hundred plus young lens ads tell much about actual lens performance other than "recommended" plate/sheet film size. It is much about user/buyer be-aware...

~Then there is the overly desirable market brand.. Zeiss, which neither plus or minus depending on the speciic item..

Whopping lens image circle is as desierable today for some sheet film folks as it was over one centruy ago. Not a lot if anything has changed since then due to the innate needs of big sheet film. There was a time when ULF was not even on the Foto-dar, today due to the rise of digital, alternative image making process (contact printing and such) and foto hobby in general, the surge in ULF has become a "thing".. These lenses once forgotten or ignored have now become sought after desierable by the very few..


Bernice




Many times there are big differences among claims of coverage of the same lens between lens makers.

For example, Zeiss claimed that their 39cm Protar f/18 lens covered 12x15 in 1929 while Bausch & Lomb claimed the same lens covered 22x27 in 1919. All at small stops. Which one do you believe? Same lens.

[Bernice Loui]

Very real reasons why there were many 400+mm process lenses made, there was a time in foto film history when BIG process cameras were extremely common. These process cameras exposed BIG sheets of film by the millions per year as they were in intergral part of the printing process back in the day. At some point, Semiconductor mask making via process camera became a thing. During these connected beginnings semiconductor fab mask were created by artistic hands in Whopper sized sheets (8 feet x 10 feet was common) of rubylith or similar which was shrunken down via BIG process camera. Printed Circuit Boards (PCB) were created in a similar way using specialized tape and shapes as needed. With the passage of time and changes in technology, this method of semiconductor mask making and PCB making died.

It is also why these APO process lenses offered Uber optical performance in too many ways. Many of these optical performance aspects of APO process lenses were and remain today not fully appreciated by foto folks. Sure seems what so many LF sheet film foto folks seek and highly desier to this day is BIG image circle for a given focal lenght with all other optical parameters secondary.

~Does a Tessar design/formula lens really have the ability to produce a optically proper image circle of greater than 60 degrees? This is defined as near equal optical performace from center to edges of the image circle, no exceptions.

Bernice



A 450mm lens covering 800mm is 83°, and a 600mm lens is just 53°. With that reasonable angles, you have far more choices then the two lenses mentioned above. If those angles are acceptable, I'd choose between the most desired pictorial qualities (such as the out of focus rendition) and the availability/price of the glass.

Protar IIIa 407mm f/9
Dagor 420mm f/7.7
Dagor 480mm f/7.7
Protar IIIa 505mm f/9
Apo-Tessar 600mm f/9
... etc., etc., etc....

[Greg]

Up for suggestion is a 10 inch GRAY's No. 8 Extreme Angle Periscope. From the literature I have on GRAY's lenses, it is listed as covering up to 20x24.

I have and use a 5.9 inch inch GRAY's No. 5 Extreme Angle Periscope. The same literature lists it as covering up to 11x14. I can attest that the 5.9 inch optic indeed does cover 11x14 with a wee bit of movement possible.

[Mark Sawyer]

If you reverse-mounted a 180-degree fish-eye lens, would it cover everything?

[Bernice Loui]

Easily "covers" 20x24, "just get closer.."

Bernice




If you reverse-mounted a 180-degree fish-eye lens, would it cover everything?

[Bernice Loui]

To be pondered...

This entire discussion about 360mm/14" lens with a HUGE image circle (800+ mm) is much about lens choices as the sheet film or plate format goes up-size. This discussion should serve as a harsh remainer of what happens to lens choice as sheet film or plate sizes goes up, the selection and choices for lenses shrinks to fewer to trying to discover nessie, big foot or a platnium unicorn..

Ultimate answer to this lens/optic need is to have a lens designed, built to the specific needs.. Then size, weight and all that is forced into this direction of any specially designed then built lens/optic.

It's all a set of trade offs with nothing being ideal to what any image maker wants to believe..


Bernice

[Mark Sampson]

In the 1980s, Douglas Busch built a 40X60" field view camera. He had Rodenstock design a lens to cover the format; they made the glass, and Melles-Griot did the final assembly. His work, and his camera, were featured in "View Camera" magazine c.1990. IIRC, his lenses were offered for sale (in very small numbers).
So yes, it's been done, and perhaps could be done again. As they saying the auto racing world, "Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go?"
I wish the OP all the best in their quest...

[Tin Can]

I have read and seen pics of the Giant Busch Camera

He made a special tripod with big wood platform and 6 Majestic sticks

Made in Dekalb IL

[Drew Wiley]

Cameras larger than all the above were in use in Frontier times. One was so big that a crew of carpenters had to go along to assemble the "tripod" for every shot. I've seen 4 ft wide contact prints from another Frontier photographer who also needed to have camera support built for each location shot. Now people turn RV's and semi trailers into pinhole cameras, and back and jack them into position. And for a price, any kind of lens can be made, even another Hubble telescope if you can afford. It can be done even in my own neighborhood; just show them your NASA i.d. and credit card without a limit on it. But the whole question in this case is whether or not you need a forklift for any lens with sufficient coverage at the same time as a reasonably wide enough aperture to focus with. A 360 lens is going to be a distinctly wide an angle of view on any camera larger than 11X14; there is far more hypothetical choice in longish focal lengths instead. How about a 1200mm Fuji A? I do believe more than one of those was made; perhaps two? Dunno.

[xkaes]

How about a 1200mm Fuji A? I do believe more than one of those was made; perhaps two? Dunno.

I've seen estimates of as many as eight -- or 12. Who knows? It didn't last long, of course, and was probably made just to prove that they could -- for good advertisement. It was a special order anyway.

[ridax]

Does a Tessar design/formula lens really have the ability to produce a optically proper image circle of greater than 60 degrees? This is defined as near equal optical performace from center to edges of the image circle, no exceptions.

Sorry I was mistaken in the angle calculations for the 600mm focal length in my previous message (just edited it out).

Process Apo-Tessars cover 57°. Their sharpness is good up to the edges but vignetting comes fast.

[neil poulsen]

They are not always the same, as discussed in the thread I linked. Some people who have purchased lenses labeled "Graphic Kowa", expecting to get the coverage of a Computar, have been very unpleasantly surprised. Caveat emptor.

At one time, I had both a Kowa 210mm f9, and a Computar 210mm f9. In comparing the two, the Computar clearly had greater coverage.

[Drew Wiley]

Were both the Kowa and Computar in the same style shutter, Neil, or different?

[Dan Fromm]

Process Apo-Tessars cover 57°. Their sharpness is good up to the edges but vignetting comes fast.

Are you sure? Arne Croell has published 43° for Apo-Tessars and Nikon claims 45°-35°, depending on focal length, for tessar type Apo-Nikkors.

[ridax]

Process Apo-Tessars cover 57°. Their sharpness is good up to the edges but vignetting comes fast.

Are you sure? Arne Croell has published 43° for Apo-Tessars and Nikon claims 45°-35°, depending on focal length, for tessar type Apo-Nikkors.

Yes I am sure. Those officially published specs (1) are too conservative and (2) for these lenses, are for critical process work. For that application, absolutely flat field and negligible distortion are a must. Distortion rises along with the field angle - even in the best corrected lenses. Those strict requirements are never needed in general photography.

I've used later CZJ Apo-Tessars in 240, 300, 450, 600 and 900mm as well as the Soviet Industar-11M's (which are copies of the previous generation CZJ Apo-Tessars and are identical in coverage) in 300, 450 and 600mm focal lengths. I've not tried tessar-type Apo-Nikkors but I think they also cover more than the specs suggest, at reasonably smaller f-stops.

[Drew Wiley]

I have a Zeiss-made 360 f/9 which easily covers 8x10 format at infinity with reasonable room for tilts etc, and with high resolution way out to the corners per that format, and it's a standard tessar, not wide-angle. My guess is that is realistically around 60 degrees of coverage, just like ridax noted above, but perhaps even more given smaller stops. Once again, let it be reiterated, specifications for graphics applications are not only far more stringent than for general photography, but are generally standardized at f/22, while in the real world, we generally use somewhat smaller apertures for film 8x10 and larger.

I have no experience with the Nikkor cheaper line of process lenses based on the tessar formulation (have never even seen one) but do have a set of their superior symmetrical dialyte Apo Nikkors, which again have a far larger image circle applicable to general photography than what they officially cite relative to strict graphics color separation applications. But I predominantly use them on enlargers, with even the 240/9 having ample coverage for 8x10 film format; but in that case, it's obviously not an infinity application, nor involves movements; but even by f/11 easily achieves a good image circle, and by f/16, a very high level of sharpness, near perfect evenness of illumination (given an even mixing box above), and strict apochromatic performance, well past the corners of the field. But for view camera operations per se in the field, I don't think I'd choose an Apo Nikkor shorter than 360mm. I have Sinar boards for them, so have indeed tested their performance in that respect.