11x14 Lens Options?

[AuditorOne]

I have been working almost exclusively with my 4x5 Monorail for the last several months but this afternoon I pulled out my 11x14 Century and dusted it off. I am seriously thinking of doing some winter field photography during the upcoming year so I have decided that I want to work with my big camera. I have done this type of thing before but never with the big camera. So if I go forward with this it will be a 4-wheel drive, snow chains, long johns, mittens and Parkas for me once Christmas is behind us. I did this type of thing once before a few years back when I followed the California Trail across Nevada; but it wasn't Winter, and I wasn't working with large format that time.

Right now I have a Wollensak 500mm Meniscus lens mounted with a Packard Shutter on the big camera but I want to go with a little different setup this year. Digging around in the drawer I found a 450mm Nikkor M and a Goerz Apo Artar 19 inch lens, both mounted in Copal #3 shutters. I haven't tested the shutters recently but they were pretty close to accurate the last time they were used, so I really don't expect any nasty surprises. They may need a little exercise to get back to normal but I need that myself so I don't consider that to be unusual.

So I have a couple of questions for the knowledgeable out there. Which of these lenses should I consider for this upcoming project and what should I be thinking about in order to keep the camera working effectively out in cold weather. Though I am pretty experienced with winter, mountains and cold weather, I have never worked out in cold weather with a large format camera for any length of time before.

Anyway, give me your thoughts and feel free to give me any advice you may think will be useful. I have about a month to put things together so I do need to get my behind in gear and get started.

[xkaes]

Sounds like a great venture & adventure.

But all your lenses are pretty much the same in terms of perspective -- normal. For scenery, I'd suggest considering at least a wide-angle, and at least a short tele.

How about a 300mm and a 600mm? Is that an option?

[diversey]

Kodak wide field 250mm covers 11x14 without movement. Cooke XV and XVa also cover 11x14 with 3 focal lengths, 12.25, 19 and 25.5 inches. Nikon-M 450mm is a nice lens in normal focal length for 11x14, which I use the most.

[AuditorOne]

That is an interesting thought. I do shoot the Cambo with a 90mm or 135mm occasionally. I have a few 300mm lenses but I honestly don't know which ones would cover 11x14. I will need to do a bit of research.

The longest is that 500mm Meniscus I have been using lately.

[Vaughn]

My main lens for the 11x14 is a Fuji W 360/6.3 -- not huge coverage at infinity, but sufficient for movements closed down below f16.

I would use my Red Dot Artars (19" and 24") more if they were in shutters, but they are fine under the redwoods where the light is low. A little tougher out under the open skies.

[jnantz]

I have been working almost exclusively with my 4x5 Monorail for the last several months but this afternoon I pulled out my 11x14 Century and dusted it off. I am seriously thinking of doing some winter field photography during the upcoming year so I have decided that I want to work with my big camera. I have done this type of thing before but never with the big camera. So if I go forward with this it will be a 4-wheel drive, snow chains, long johns, mittens and Parkas for me once Christmas is behind us. I did this type of thing once before a few years back when I followed the California Trail across Nevada; but it wasn't Winter, and I wasn't working with large format that time.

Right now I have a Wollensak 500mm Meniscus lens mounted with a Packard Shutter on the big camera but I want to go with a little different setup this year. Digging around in the drawer I found a 450mm Nikkor M and a Goerz Apo Artar 19 inch lens, both mounted in Copal #3 shutters. I haven't tested the shutters recently but they were pretty close to accurate the last time they were used, so I really don't expect any nasty surprises. They may need a little exercise to get back to normal but I need that myself so I don't consider that to be unusual.

So I have a couple of questions for the knowledgeable out there. Which of these lenses should I consider for this upcoming project and what should I be thinking about in order to keep the camera working effectively out in cold weather. Though I am pretty experienced with winter, mountains and cold weather, I have never worked out in cold weather with a large format camera for any length of time before.

Anyway, give me your thoughts and feel free to give me any advice you may think will be useful. I have about a month to put things together so I do need to get my behind in gear and get started.

if you can find out. look for a 13-20-25 wollensak triple it's a sleeper, beautiful and you will never be sorry ... ( it's in a betax so you know it is built like a brick sh*thouse ...)

<added later> I just checked to see the other I was using ... sadly it's a cheep no name brass lens .. thought I'd have another name for you .. ( that might not be pricy )

[ninadobrev]

I recommend using a lens hood. It will help protect your lens from snow and other debris. It will also help reduce glare and improve contrast. pokedoku (https://pokedoku.io)

[John Layton]

Don't shoot much 11x14 these days...but when I do, I find that my 305mm G-Claron, as a moderate WA, covers wonderfully. Versatile in that it is fine at infinity out to the edges - and great for close subjects as I don't run out of bellows!

244316

[Greg]

My experiences with 11x14 lenses over the years:

5.9” No. 5 Gray Periscope: Extreme WA. Tiny bit of movement is possible. Least used lens but there are times that it just works.
200mm f/6.5 TAYLOR-HOBSON Cooke Series VIIB WIDE ANGLE ANASTIGMAT: Very WA with a little bit of movement possible. Extremely sharp over the whole 11x14 format. Love to use this optic.
10 3/4" f/6.8 Goerz Dagor: Just got it back from SK Grimes (was put into a #3 Copal). I think that it will be my go to WA lens for this format
355mm f/9 G-Claron: classic. IMO the best 11x14 lens to acquire. Fortunately prices on it are reasonable and not inflated to sky high.
360 f/6.3 Nikkor W: Actually prefer it to the G-Claron. Really lights up the GG. Purchase price was too good to pass up on.
508mm f/7 Caltar: My first 11x14 lens acquired back in the 1980s. Most used optic till I acquired the KangRinpoche
600mm f/11.5 S KangRinpoche: Probably a third of the price of the FUJI when I bought it, and IMO just as sharp. My go to "long" lens for 11x14.

My first 11x14 was a B&J Commercial View. I had serious problems with internal reflections off the bellows increasing the density of my negatives along their edges. Using a round lens hood or shading the lens with the dark slide of little help. Second 11x14 was an Improved Empire State which had the same problem but to a lesser degree. Present camera is a Chamonix. When using it in the wintertime with snow on the ground, I always use a Sinar Hood Mask 2 (533.21) with its four roller blinds in front of the lens. It eliminated any problem with internal reflections off the inside of the bellows, but then this most probably is not a problem with the Chamonix. A Sinar Hood Mask 1 (533.11) might also work. Using a bellows lens hood would be the absolute ideal solution, but after using and setting it up one time on a very cold windy day, never again... also nothing like having a second bellows to act as a second "sail" in the wind. I actually have had very few problems with my equipment when photographing in the dead of winter. Only major one that I can think of was the time when I left my equipment in the car overnight and the temperature plummeted to below zero. Next day by noon it was well above freezing, and when I went to use my equipment I was plagued with condensation problems.

For me dressing in layers is an absolute must. Hiking in and breaking trail in a foot of snow is much different than essentially standing still while setting up the camera. I've always taken with me two plain water to hydrate when hiking in and out. Also a thermos of hot Constant Comment tea with plenty of honey in it to sip on when I stopped to set up my camera.

good luck

[AuditorOne]

Wow. Lots of info. Thanks everyone.

I am still digging into the old lens stash but right now I am looking at an Ilex Paragon Anastigmat 12 inch f6.3 in an old Ilex Acme #4 shutter and a Goerz Dagor 12 inch f6.8 in a nice Ilex No 4 Acme Synchro that was serviced by Carol Flutot a few years ago. I have no idea when or if the older No 4 Acme was serviced but it was being used right up to when I had surgery a little over two years ago. I suspect that old shutter will keep ticking for awhile yet. Besides, if all else fails I can always fall back on that old Packard.

And thanks a lot for your cold weather advice as well. Shit happens no matter how experienced we are so it never hurts to make sure you have the necessary equipment.

[Mark Sampson]

I believe that the 12" Ilex Paragon you mention is a Tessar-formula lens that will not cover 11x14 at infinity... can't comment on the 12" Dagor, but they are supposed to cover very well when stopped down. An Ilex Acme shutter that has been serviced in the last decade should be just fine.
There's a great deal of LF lens information on the front page of this site, if you want to wander around over there.

[Joseph Kashi]

12inch Dagor covers 11x14, at least mine does. Of course, there are many flavors of Dagors.

[Lachlan 717]

Is the Kang Rinpoche S 600 F11.5 still being sold?

[Greg]

Is the Kang Rinpoche S 600 F11.5 still being sold?

thread:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?149304-Kang-Rinpoche-S-600-F11-5-(Chinese-Fujinon-C-600mm-)
My best guess is that a few dozen of them were offered FS years ago. Possibly the mfg. acquired a batch of OEM Copal #3 shutters and mounted reproductions of the 600mm Fujinon-C in them. The one I acquired definitely was mounted in an original OEM Copal. I did hear years ago that a stash/batch of OEM Copals were sold by a NYC dealer to an overseas buyer... coincidental???

[David Lindquist]

Brett Weston used a 19 inch Dagor on his 11 x 14. I've seen a photograph of him with that camera in which that detail was discernible. His was mounted in a No. 5 Compound; they also came in the No. 5 Ilex Universal. This focal length would be roughly equivalent to 13 inch on 8 x 10. Not sure when Goerz discontinued the 19, 16 1/2, and 14 inch Dagors. They are in their 1951 catalog on the cameraeccentric website. A circa 1955 photographic supply house catalog I have shows 12 inch as the longest Dagor.

Of course finding one of these will be a bit difficult and the asking price is sure to be eye-watering.

David

[John Layton]

While I'd mentioned the 305 G-Claron that I still own...my very first lens for 11x14 was a 19.5 inch Eastman Anastigmat - very reasonably priced in a barrel, and quite nice!

I then moved on to an old 12" Berlin Dagor (series 3 I think?) mounted in a compound shutter, then later still a 14" Blue Dot Trigor - latest Kern-built version in a Copal #3 shutter...the cat's pajamas!

(Just prior to that Trigor...I'd taken "on trial" a 14" Kern-built Dagor - fantastic for 8x10 but for 11x14 the curvature of field was visible. So that lens went back to Lens and Repro, who'd then sent me the Trigor - which was flat, breathtakingly sharp, and had a nice signature (and wonderful for doing 4x5 color chromes!)

[Scott Davis]

Another option for an 11x14 is a 14" Commercial Ektar or the 355mm Caltar (a Commercial Ektar clone). Will Whitaker and I did a head-to-head test of the Caltar, a Commercial Ektar, and the Schneider Kern gold dot Dagor, and found that while the Kern had the highest contrast of the three, it had the ugliest out of focus areas. The Caltar had the best bokeh, but the least contrast, and the Commercial Ektar was the happy medium - slightly less smooth bokeh than the Caltar, but better contrast overall. I kept my CE and I think Will bought either a Caltar or the CE, and returned the Kern.

[AuditorOne]

Well I have searched what I can on-line and it seems the only 300mm lens I currently own that may cover 11x14 is that Dagor. Fortunately I do have some time to test it and find out if it works.

I have the 300mm Dagor, the Paragon Anastigmat (which seems to be a Tessar formula) and a Fuji 300 C.

[Lachlan 717]

A few years ago, I asked a question about the Schneider 165mm SA’s ability to cover 7x17 (circa same IC as 11x14”) as there was some speculation that it might; however, there was no definitive answer.

Guess I’ll pose it here as well, given the similarities in IC.

[Mark J]

I don't see it working -
https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/02156/02156.pdf
Image circle 393mm , enough to cover 10x12" with a little bit of wiggle room.

[Greg]

A few years ago, I asked a question about the Schneider 165mm SA’s ability to cover 7x17 (circa same IC as 11x14”) as there was some speculation that it might; however, there was no definitive answer.
.

Definitive answer is no... In the 1980s I had borrowed a 165mm SA for use on my 8x10. Tried it on my 11x14 for the heck of it and it definitely did not cover. I've also read that some 210mm SA's cover 11x14 and some do not.

[Lachlan 717]

Definitive answer is no... In the 1980s I had borrowed a 165mm SA for use on my 8x10. Tried it on my 11x14 for the heck of it and it definitely did not cover.

Thanks, Greg.


I've also read that some 210mm SA's cover 11x14 and some do not.

Are you sure you don’t mean Angulon, rather than Super Angulon? My 210mm SA out-covers my 7x17’s movements, including with maximum tilts. I don’t think there would be that much of a difference between samples.

[Oren Grad]

Are you sure you don’t mean Angulon, rather than Super Angulon? My 210mm SA out-covers my 7x17’s movements, including with maximum tilts. I don’t think there would be that much of a difference between samples.

The specification for late-model 210 Super-Angulons is 500mm image circle at f/22, so even being conservative there should be no problem with 11x14 or 7x17. My own recollection is that if there's an issue, it's with Angulons.

[Mark Sampson]

The 'problems' with the 210/8 Super-Angulon are its great size, weight, rarity, and cost. I know, not the lens' fault.
But in a past career I occasionally used its junior-varsity brother, the 165/8 SA, on 8x10. And I thought that one was a monster! A great performer, it was, as I assume the 210 is also.
I suppose that the Schneider 360 convertible Symmar would cover 11x14 as well, especially in converted form. Maybe someone has used that lens and will speak up.

[Vaidotas]

My wish list for 11x14:

Dallmeyer Stigmatic Series II No6 ~270mm f/6,3
E.Busch Leukar 307mm f/12
Zeiss Protar Series IIIa No8 ~ 407mm f/9
Rodenstock Apo-Ronar 600mm f/9

[Greg]

Thanks, Greg.



Are you sure you don’t mean Angulon, rather than Super Angulon? My 210mm SA out-covers my 7x17’s movements, including with maximum tilts. I don’t think there would be that much of a difference between samples.

I stand to be corrected, yes referring to Angulon and not SA

[Michael Kadillak]

Agree that the 355 G Claron is a must for 11x14. Yes, it is very wide angle on this format (equivalent to a 26mm on a 35mm camera), but it does not feel shooting with it that it is that wide. Likely the enormous GG in play. I find the 450M Nikon more contrasty than the 19" Red Dot myself hence it goes to work more often as a result. The other lenses that I use are the 35" Red Dot Artar in Ilex #5 and the 30" Docter Apo Germinar in a Copal #3. The Docter is f14.5, but still lights up the GG well. A good substitute for the 24" and the 30" lens are the Apo Nikkor lenses which are very nice to work with. You can put a Packard Shutter in front of them and save some big bucks. Hard to wrap your head around the fact that a normal lens on 11x14 is right at 30" which is why one also has to remember that bellows corrections are another variable that one has to contend with when shooting with an 11x14. Thin negatives are a dead give away that one had to take this unique condition into proper consideration. Enjoy!

[Vaughn]

Agree that the 355 G Claron is a must for 11x14. ...Hard to wrap your head around the fact that a normal lens on 11x14 is right at 30" ...

I thought normal for 11x14 was around 480mm, or 19". Edit to add -- corner to corner of an 11x14 negative is 450mm.

But the 355 G Claron is a winner...and for me, also, does not feel that wide. Below is a 11x14 carbon print from a 11x14 neg and 355 G Claron combo. It was on a home-made 11x14 I had borrowed for awhile a touch over 20 years ago.

[Michael Kadillak]

I thought normal for 11x14 was around 480mm, or 19".

But the 355 G Claron is a winner...and for me, also, does not feel that wide. Below is a 11x14 carbon print from a 11x14 neg and 355 G Claron combo. It was on a home-made 11x14 I had borrowed for awhile.

You are correct, I was looking at the chart column for 8x20 instead of 11x14. The normal lens for 11x14 is the 19" (480 mm).

[Kiwi7475]

You are correct, I was looking at the chart column for 8x20 instead of 11x14. Yes, the normal lens for 11x14 is the 24" (600 mm).

Wait… normal is usually the format’s diagonal, so for 11x14 something like 450mm. That’s about 18”, but probably 17-19” is considered normal.

[Scott Davis]

Agree that the 355 G Claron is a must for 11x14. Yes, it is very wide angle on this format (equivalent to a 26mm on a 35mm camera), but it does not feel shooting with it that it is that wide. Likely the enormous GG in play. I find the 450M Nikon more contrasty than the 19" Red Dot myself hence it goes to work more often as a result. The other lenses that I use are the 35" Red Dot Artar in Ilex #5 and the 30" Docter Apo Germinar in a Copal #3. The Docter is f14.5, but still lights up the GG well. A good substitute for the 24" and the 30" lens are the Apo Nikkor lenses which are very nice to work with. You can put a Packard Shutter in front of them and save some big bucks. Hard to wrap your head around the fact that a normal lens on 11x14 is right at 30" which is why one also has to remember that bellows corrections are another variable that one has to contend with when shooting with an 11x14. Thin negatives are a dead give away that one had to take this unique condition into proper consideration. Enjoy!

Michael-

Is that App-Germinar you have from the Kerry Thalmann deal those some years ago? I have the 24" that I want to put in an Ilex 5, but when I talked to Grimes about it they said it might not be able to be put in a shutter because of the barrel design.

[Michael Kadillak]

Great question Scott. I purchased a 600mm 24" Apo Germinar barrel lens from Kerry like you did, but it was quite a bit wider and shorter than my Apo Germinar. I ended up selling it when I found a 600mm Fuji C lens. The 30" Apo Germinar I have came from the factory in Copal #3 as a F14.5 optic and is much narrower and longer than the 24". If I am not mistaken, the 600mm Apo Germinar was an F9 design lens which could explain its difference. Your options may me limited to a Packard shutter or a black hat.

[Scott Davis]

Great question Scott. I purchased a 600mm 24" Apo Germinar barrel lens from Kerry like you did, but it was quite a bit wider and shorter than my Apo Germinar. I ended up selling it when I found a 600mm Fuji C lens. The 30" Apo Germinar I have came from the factory in Copal #3 as a F14.5 optic and is much narrower and longer than the 24". If I am not mistaken, the 600mm Apo Germinar was an F9 design lens which could explain its difference. Your options may me limited to a Packard shutter or a black hat.

Yes, the 24" is an f9. It might be possible to front-mount (or rear-mount) the Ilex #5 without too much mechanical vignetting. I'll just have to send it off to Grimes and see what they say once they get their hands on it. I don't care if it ends up being an f11 once it's mounted in the shutter - I'll most likely be shooting it somewhere around f16-f22. Until then my 450 Nikkor M will get the job done on my 14x17.

[AuditorOne]

Lots of good information for me to sort through. Thanks a lot.

Just a point of interest. I'll be out in the field scouting the elk for the next couple of days so will be off line. Don't want anyone to think I am ignoring this.

[MAubrey]

My 11x14 lenses:

Schneider Angulon 210mm f/6.8 (late production serial#)
Schneider Xenar 300mm f/4.5
Fujinon A 360mm f/10
Rodenstock Ronar MC 480mm f/9
Nikon Nikkor-T 800mm f/12

Some of these I'm technically using "out of spec", but they all have coverage good enough for what I'm doing.

Other 11x14 lenses I've used:

Schneider Symmar 360/620mm f/5.6/12 Convertible
Fujinon 360mm f/6.3

For me, the Angulon 210, Fujinon 360, and Ronar 480 ended up being my primary set—small and light, at least relative to the camera. The Xenar and the Nikkor-T are for portraits when I get the chance for them.

[neil poulsen]

As others have commented, the 355mm G-Claron is an excellent choice.

I had a 600mm Fujinon C, but it burned a hole in my pocket. Sold it for $3450 and purchased a 610mm coated Repro Claron in an original shutter for $325, or close to that. The former lens is an absolutely outstanding, multicoated, etc., lens. That said, I felt I got pretty much everything that I needed in a 600mm focal length from the Repro-Claron.

[Joseph Kashi]

Does anyone here have any actual experience / thoughts about the usefulness of a 7” / 183mm B+L Protar Series V wide angle coverage on 11x14 used only for contact prints ?

[Greg]

Not with a 183mm on 11x14 but a f/18 140mm Protar on an 8x10. Experience should be similar. Focusing was a bear... never did figure out a way to positively determine when I was in perfect focus. I used to refocus a few times and mark a piece of white masking tape on the bed. Usually three or four times and the marks was never overlapped. Then used to set the focus in the middle of all the marks. Stopped down to f/36, f/45, or f/50 (forgot which). Negatives were always plenty sharp enough for contact printing. On my particular lens the f/stops seemed to be about a stop slower than marked... probably was me more than the lens. I was looking for a Protar for my 11x14 but the prices were too heed for my pockets. For a lot less money I found a barrel 5.9" No. 5 Gray Extreme WA Periscope and had SK Grimes mount it in a Copal #3. Never looked back. The Gray's maximum aperture is marked at f/14, but the iris opens up additionally to almost f/11 for focusing only as I was told by SK Grimes. I second their recommendation.

[FrancisF]

My experiences with 11x14 lenses over the years:

5.9” No. 5 Gray Periscope: Extreme WA. Tiny bit of movement is possible. Least used lens but there are times that it just works.


Greg - You make refernce to a lens - 5.9” No. 5 Gray Periscope.

I do not know much about optics or the history of lenses. I bought a ULF lens (1000 mm) that was described as a "periscope" lens. What does this style of lens mean?

[Greg]

Greg - You make refernce to a lens - 5.9” No. 5 Gray Periscope.

I do not know much about optics or the history of lenses. I bought a ULF lens (1000 mm) that was described as a "periscope" lens. What does this style of lens mean?

Quote from an ad for the lens:

GRAY'S EXTREME ANGLE PERISCOPE: "Is conceded to be superior to all Wide-Angle Lenses, both in illuminating power and angle of definition. They admit of the use of so large a diaphragm as f/10, which is sufficient for instantaneous views, and when stopped down,cover sharply an angle of 115 degrees.
No. 3. 4.2 inches covers 8x10
No. 5. 5.9 inches covers 11x14
No. 6. 7.1 inches covers 14x17
No. 7. 8.4 inches covers 16x20
No. 8. 10.0 inches covers 20x24

Sold between 1880 and 1890. Our museum has two framed 20x24 contact prints which I am 95% sure were made with the No. 8. The prints are truly impressive. Some rise was done with the front standard for one of the prints and there is no vignetting! I have been looking for a No. 6, No. 7, or a No. 8 for years with no luck.

[Scott Davis]

Great question Scott. I purchased a 600mm 24" Apo Germinar barrel lens from Kerry like you did, but it was quite a bit wider and shorter than my Apo Germinar. I ended up selling it when I found a 600mm Fuji C lens. The 30" Apo Germinar I have came from the factory in Copal #3 as a F14.5 optic and is much narrower and longer than the 24". If I am not mistaken, the 600mm Apo Germinar was an F9 design lens which could explain its difference. Your options may me limited to a Packard shutter or a black hat.

Well, over the weekend I managed to open up the barrel on that Apo-Germinar. After looking at it I suspect that it is one that cannot be mounted into a shutter. The design of the barrel is such that while the rear element can be separated from the front, the aperture mechanism is of a unit with the front element housing, and might well require too much engineering to remove and re-mount. I think in the new year that I'll send it up to Grimes along with the Ilex #5 and have them look it over. Might be able to front-mount the Ilex 5 or put a Packard on the front.

[fuegocito]

I'll add a couple more lens options that have not been mentioned, to begin with the wide end, a 9" Wollensak 11x14 Series IIIa Velostigmat EX WA. I have also used the 150mm Nikon SW on 11x14, but it had to be dead centered with zero movements. But my most used WA lens is the 240mm F/9 Computar. And my standard lens is the Caltar 508mm

[Kiwi7475]

I'll add a couple more lens options that have not been mentioned, to begin with the wide end, a 9" Wollensak 11x14 Series IIIa Velostigmat EX WA. I have also used the 150mm Nikon SW on 11x14, but it had to be dead centered with zero movements. But my most used WA lens is the 240mm F/9 Computar. And my standard lens is the Caltar 508mm

How much movement do you get with the 240mm Computar? Is it tight too?

[fuegocito]

How much movement do you get with the 240mm Computar? Is it tight too?

Fairly liberal amount of coverage, about 2-3 inches, really could be a bit more but I never really venture that far into the outer realm :P It being such a wide angle on 11x14, stopping down to F/22ish almost guarantee sharpness across the entire image. The most I do is if there is building and vertical lines needed to be straightened.

[Kiwi7475]

Fairly liberal amount of coverage, about 2-3 inches, really could be a bit more but I never really venture that far into the outer realm :P It being such a wide angle on 11x14, stopping down to F/22ish almost guarantee sharpness across the entire image. The most I do is if there is building and vertical lines needed to be straightened.

Got it, thank you!

[Michael Kadillak]

Fairly liberal amount of coverage, about 2-3 inches, really could be a bit more but I never really venture that far into the outer realm :P It being such a wide angle on 11x14, stopping down to F/22ish almost guarantee sharpness across the entire image. The most I do is if there is building and vertical lines needed to be straightened.

I have shot with my 240mm Computar on 11x14 recently and was surprised that I clipped the corners. Need to check it in more detail. I can't believe that the mounting in a Copal 3S shutter has any adverse effect to its coverage per se, so it could be: 1) I did not properly center the front lens board on the camera (ie had a bit of a rise the may be been exacerbated with a forward tilt) or 2) my UV filter on the lens could have restricted the coverage a bit? Thinking #1 is more likely. Will give it another go and see what happens.

[Kiwi7475]

I have shot with my 240mm Computar on 11x14 recently and was surprised that I clipped the corners. Need to check it in more detail. I can't believe that the mounting in a Copal 3S shutter has any adverse effect to its coverage per se, so it could be: 1) I did not properly center the front lens board on the camera (ie had a bit of a rise the may be been exacerbated with a forward tilt) or 2) my UV filter on the lens could have restricted the coverage a bit? Thinking #1 is more likely. Will give it another go and see what happens.

I find that a lot of these wide angle lenses that should cover 11x14 are limited by mechanical vignetting, ie it looks like it illuminates the GG but then you look from the corners of the GG and the aperture is obscured either by the front or the back of the lens. With such wide angles in 11x14 I always check all the corners. Sometimes I need to go to F64 just to avoid mechanical vignetting rather than for focusing purposes….

[Lachlan 717]

How much movement do you get with the 240mm Computar? Is it tight too?

Heaps of movement on my Kowa Graphic 240mm (barrel) on 7x17”. Impressive lens.

There are reports that not all GK’s offer the same IC, though.

This one doesn’t allow the front cell to be removed.

[FrancisF]

Quote from an ad for the lens:

GRAY'S EXTREME ANGLE PERISCOPE: "Is conceded to be superior to all Wide-Angle Lenses, both in illuminating power and angle of definition. They admit of the use of so large a diaphragm as f/10, which is sufficient for instantaneous views, and when stopped down,cover sharply an angle of 115 degrees.
No. 3. 4.2 inches covers 8x10
No. 5. 5.9 inches covers 11x14
No. 6. 7.1 inches covers 14x17
No. 7. 8.4 inches covers 16x20
No. 8. 10.0 inches covers 20x24

Sold between 1880 and 1890. Our museum has two framed 20x24 contact prints which I am 95% sure were made with the No. 8. The prints are truly impressive. Some rise was done with the front standard for one of the prints and there is no vignetting! I have been looking for a No. 6, No. 7, or a No. 8 for years with no luck.

Greg - could you provide a link to see the 20x24's in your museum?

[miloniro]

Here is an example with a Schneider Angulon 210mm f/6.8 lens, but only stopped down to f/32:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/miloniro/48720857433/in/album-72157703102782191/
As you see with f/32 it is extremely soft in the corners.

Of course, the SA 210 f/8 covers everything perfectly.

[Greg]

Greg - could you provide a link to see the 20x24's in your museum?

Here is one of the photographs. I will get and post better images in the future

[fuegocito]

I have shot with my 240mm Computar on 11x14 recently and was surprised that I clipped the corners. Need to check it in more detail. I can't believe that the mounting in a Copal 3S shutter has any adverse effect to its coverage per se, so it could be: 1) I did not properly center the front lens board on the camera (ie had a bit of a rise the may be been exacerbated with a forward tilt) or 2) my UV filter on the lens could have restricted the coverage a bit? Thinking #1 is more likely. Will give it another go and see what happens.

Hi Michael, given even the Computar 210mm can fully cover(or as the fashioned word here, illuminate) 11x14 dead centered straight on, so in theory corner clipping should not have happened with the 240. But crazier things have happened in this world :P Hope you get to sort it out.