Red Dot Artar 14" f9 at Infinity?

[neil poulsen]

I know that when properly stopped down, a 355mm G-Claron behaves well at infinity.

Can the same be said of a 14", f9 Red Dot Artar?

[Lachlan 717]

For which format, Neil?

[neil poulsen]

Primarily 4x5. A bit of 8x10.

[Vaughn]

Don't have to stop it down much for the beauty at infinity...the lens is designed for it. But not a whole lot of wiggle room for 8x10.

[neil poulsen]

That is very nice. Weren't they optimized for "near" distances? I've heard that they were a choice lens for product work.

I just purchased one mounted by S. K. Grimes in a Compur 2 shutter. It was listed for a very reasonable price on eBay, and it was described as being in excellent condition. I have a feeling this lens will be a gem.

For my use of 8x10, not much wiggle room is needed.

[Vaughn]

Not the "Red Dots". They have been optimized for far distances. And I will assume the S.K.Grimes knew how to space the elements properly in the shutter to insure that.

I use the 19" and the 24" Red Dots for 8x10 and 11x14 for landscape work -- sharp as a tack. No shutters like you lucky dog!

[Dugan]

From what I have read, only the 'pre-RD' Artars were optimized for closer focusing than infinity.

[neil poulsen]

Not the "Red Dots". They have been optimized for far distances. And I will assume the S.K.Grimes knew how to space the elements properly in the shutter to insure that.

I use the 19" and the 24" Red Dots for 8x10 and 11x14 for landscape work -- sharp as a tack. No shutters like you lucky dog!

I'm kind of stunned not to have known that. Makes me wonder about past buying habits, etc.

Thank you for correcting my false impression.

[John Layton]

...so if I were in the market for a 450mm Fujinon-C, but my current needs were for 5x7, then I might be at least equally well served by a 19" Red Dot Artar?

[David Lindquist]

I have a Goerz Optical Co. price list dated 10/10/67. It has the comment "For maximum RED DOT ARTAR performance order should specify the principal magnification ratio to be employed if other than factory setting." This price list then shows the factory settings for the barrel mounted and shutter mounted Red Dot Artars. The settings for the barrel vs. shutter mounted 14" RDA are respectively 8:1 and 10:1, so not much difference. Other focal lengths show a greater difference between barrel and shutter mount.

For sake of completeness: Focal lengths 4" through 12" barrel mounts were set at 10:1 and shutter mounts were set at 20:1. The 16 1/2" RDA was set at 3:1 for the barrel and 10:1 for the shutter. Both the 17 3/4" and the 19" RDAs were set at 3:1 and 8:1. And the 24" RDA settings were 2:1 and 5:1.

In addition to the barrel mount, this price list shows the 14" RDA available in a No. 4 Acme shutter or a No. 3 Electronic Compur. A 1970 price list shows the No. 4 Acme and the No. 3 Copal as the available shutters.

A circa 1967 leaflet I have on the Red Dot Artar indicates that the 14" at infinity covers a "plate diagonal" of 11.9 inches; at 1:10 reduction it covers 13.1 inches.

So that's what Goerz Optical Co. has to say. No personal experience with this lens; I'm not surprised that practical experience of others (see Vaughn above) shows it can cover 8 x 10 at infinity, albeit without much to spare.

I saw that lens on ebay, nice looking example and relatively late production by its serial number.

David

[David Lindquist]

...so if I were in the market for a 450mm Fujinon-C, but my current needs were for 5x7, then I might be at least equally well served by a 19" Red Dot Artar?

As a bit of trivia as much as anything else, Goerz made a 450mm Red Dot Artar. In their literature they refer to it as a 17 3/4 inch/450mm lens. Oddly enough the few examples I've seen (three, all on ebay) were engraved "45 cm" rather than the usual marking of the focal length in inches. In a shutter these, like the 19 inch RDA, will be in a No. 4 Acme so maybe not as desirable as the 450 mm Fujinon-C's No. 1 Copal. I have a No. 3 and and a No. 4 Acme. Their fastest speeds are, shall we say, aspirational but the speeds do test out as consistent.

David

[neil poulsen]

David, Thanks for the Red Dot specs. It's interesting.

Since my lens was mounted by S. K. Grimes, my suspicion would be that it was barrel mounted. But, it could have also been from a shutter that was beyond repair.

I'm curious, how does the magnification of a Red Dot compare with that of a typical Plasmat?

[John Layton]

Thank you David...interesting about that 45cm version and at some point I'll keep my eyes peeled for one. As for accuracy of higher shutter speeds, this is of little importance to me as I typically use anything quicker than about 1/15th, and usually much slower than this. But to the extent that I still often use timed speeds - the aspect of consistency is very important

[David Lindquist]

David, Thanks for the Red Dot specs. It's interesting.

Since my lens was mounted by S. K. Grimes, my suspicion would be that it was barrel mounted. But, it could have also been from a shutter that was beyond repair.

I'm curious, how does the magnification of a Red Dot compare with that of a typical Plasmat?

I looked through my Schneider and Rodenstock literature, my holdings aren't exhaustive but don't immediately see anything about their plasmats (Symmars and Sironars) being set-up for an optimum reproduction ratio. I mean maybe they are optimized for something like 1:20 resulting in excellent performance out to infinity and still good performance close-up? There are some forum members very knowledgeable about lens design who might have some ideas here.

Did come across a couple of things related to this subject. A bit of Rodenstock literature on the shutter mounted Apo Ronars says they are "ideal for taking close-up photos..." And furthermore that due to their correction for all types of aberrations they are also "ideally suited for photographing objects at infinity."

And a blurb I have on the Super-Symmar XL Aspheric (definitely not a plasmat) notes their "high tolerance for different magnification ratios..."

David

[neil poulsen]

I looked through my Schneider and Rodenstock literature, my holdings aren't exhaustive but don't immediately see anything about their plasmats (Symmars and Sironars) being set-up for an optimum reproduction ratio. . . .

That's what I was thinking . . . 1:20 or so. (Versus 1:8; but, definitely not 1:1.) That's ideal for my needs.

Again, thanks.

[Luis-F-S]

From what I have read, only the 'pre-RD' Artars were optimized for closer focusing than infinity.

So are the G-Clarons, they still work fine at infinity. L

[Greg]

Used one on my whole plate and at infinity many a time. Consistently stopped down to F/64. The contact prints were excellent in every way. I read once that for using the optic at infinity the lens spacing should be adjusted... in my experience totally theoretical for making contact prints. Now if I were enlarging the whole plate negatives, it might be another story. If memory serves me well, I thought that Fred Picker used the same or similar focal length Artar for shooting 4x5s. Maybe he had some thoughts on the optic in his news letters?

[Mark Sampson]

i have used a 19" RD Artar on an 8x10 camera for work at infinity. It was extremely sharp and provided plenty of resolution to make 30"x40" color prints. This was on the job (although I would have liked to use the setup for personal work).
It had been my understanding that the Artar, being a symmetrical design, would perform equally well for both close and distant subjects. Apparently I was wrong about that... but I still would have no hesitation to use a Red Dot Artar at any focus distance.

[neil poulsen]

Used one on my whole plate and at infinity many a time. Consistently stopped down to F/64. The contact prints were excellent in every way. I read once that for using the optic at infinity the lens spacing should be adjusted... in my experience totally theoretical for making contact prints. Now if I were enlarging the whole plate negatives, it might be another story. If memory serves me well, I thought that Fred Picker used the same or similar focal length Artar for shooting 4x5s. Maybe he had some thoughts on the optic in his news letters?

I have one of Fred Picker's photo books, and I have almost all of his news letters. The former includes a photograph of the side of an old, rustic building (door, window, etc.) Each photograph in the book is coupled with a description of what he was after, equipment used, etc. For this photograph, he used an 8x10 camera with one of his favorite lenses, a 12" Red Dot Artar. He commented that the lens just covers 8x10 at whatever aperture he used.

We'll see what coverage I get. Based on Fred Picker's comment, were mine mounted in a Copal 3, I would expect some additional movement. But being mounted in a Compur 2, I'm not so sure. But of course, there will be no lack of coverage for 4x5.

One of my reasons for purchasing this lens, I look forward to photographing a very old violin. I'll begin with 8x10, which will be a magnification of about 1:4. But if photographed on 4x5, I'll hit the sweet spot for this lens at 1:8 magnification. T'will be interesting to see how it comes out. I know that I want a razor sharp image.

[Drew Wiley]

A 450 Fuji C will be more compact in a smaller shutter, yet have a significantly larger image circle. But both are 4-element airspaced "dialyte" design optimized for infinity. But the Artar will probably perform better at very close (near macro) range than the Fuji C. The Goerz Artar series was extenuated under Schneider Artar labeling with more modern shutters.

As a backpacker type, conscious of weight and bulk, I opted for the Fuji C as opposed to Apo Artars or Apo Ronars. I get a lot of use out of it for both 8x10 and 4x5 formats.

[Don Dudenbostel]

I’ve owned several RDA’s including a 12”, 14”, 16.5” and 19”. I owned and used them in studio and in the field for several decades. Currently I only own a 14” that was factory mounted in an Ilex shutter. RDA’s we’re specifically designed as a process lens for high resolution flat field copy work and color separations on a process camera but they perform quite well at infinity. About fifteen years ago I owned a Schneider 14” Gold Dot Dagor and did a comparison on 8x10. I was unable to see any difference with shots made in the field and the RD covered with plenty of movements stopped down. I wound up selling the Dagor and still have the RD that I have had since the 70’s. They are excellent all round lenses.

[neil poulsen]

I'm encouraged by your experience that your RDA 14" covers 8x10 well stopped down. (I'll see if that's the case with mine, given that it's mounted in a Comper 2 shutter.)

But based on what we've learned in the thread, maybe not quite a "process" lens. I think of a process lens as being optimized for 1:1, whereas this lens is optimized for 1:8. I found the following on the BHPhotoVideo site . . .

"Red Dot Artars in shutters are optimised for medium distance rather than 1:1 and should be just fine at infinity."

This is consistent with what we've learned above, given the 1:8 magnification.

This is exactly the lens that I need. I want to be able to use it for infinity; yet, I also want to photograph a violin at a medium distance.

[Drew Wiley]

Gold Dot Dagors were intended for general photography, and aren't great either very close up or at severe tangential tilts; G-Clarons are way better at that kind of thing, and have a significantly larger image circle too. Goerz had a process version called a Blue Dot Trigor. I've owned several 14 inch Dagors. What Dagors offer is only four air/glass interfaces, so highest contrast of any lens formula available, with superb microtonality, especially the last of the series - the multicoated Kern. It proved just too contrasty for me, so I reverted to the single-coated Kern. Artars are 4-element airspaced dialyte design, so with 8 air/glass interfaces. Not much difference if well stopped down and efficiently shaded, unless the character of out of focus background and subtle nuances of edge rendering come into the conversation.