Lenses Suitable for 11x14 Wet Plate

[WaltNewman]

Hi,

I'm new to LF (and this forum) and decided to go about things the hard way and start out with 11x14 wetplate. I've been looking for lenses suitable for that format and ones with will give a period look to my plates. I found this one on ebay and was wondering if anyone had any input on whether or not this might be a good lens to start out with. I have an 11x14 studio camera so the front standard is really big and can handle the big lenses.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Giant-450mm-f4-Brass-Cannon-Petzval-for-11x14-and-ULF_W0QQitemZ150063166707QQihZ005QQcategoryZ15248QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

thanks,

Walt

[Jim Galli]

That one ought to work just fine. Looks like it's re-assembled cockeyed to me though. Seems like the slot for the waterhouse stops should be inside the cut out portion of the outer barrel.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I have some questions about the guy's calculations; If it were really a 450mm f4 lens it would have a FRONT (rear is irrelevant to these calculations) diameter of 112mm or so, not 86mm.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

On second glance, after reading Jim's post, I think this is a lens to be wary of; it looks very wrong, the element could possible be reversed, and I have no idea what that slot is doing there.

Perhaps you should keep on looking. My suggestion for a cheaper (relatively) and compact 11x14 lens is a 19" f6 Dallmeyer 5D.

[william linne]

It's my lens and there is nothing wrong with it. The slot for stops was added later. The elements ARE not reversed. I used f4 as a basis when shooting wide open and the it worked fine when shooting tri-x. I develop by inspection, so I may have been slightly off (my wife would say more than "slightly"!). As I said in my auction, the glass is very very clean and throws an 18" image circle, of which 11x14 is certainly sharp when shot at infinity. It's a marvelous lens. It is very very similar (almost identical) in appearance to the larger Dallmeyer I've used when shooting 11x14.

[Ole Tjugen]

If a 450mm lens covers 11x14" (17.8" diagonal, no practical difference from 18"!) sharp at infinity, it's no Petzval. A Petzval would have a sharp image circle of about half that!

It could be an "extra rapid rectilinear" or something like that, though. But the full 53 degrees (coverage equal to focal length) is still unrealistic.

Also, with a front element that much smaller than the rear element it looks like a lens assembled from spare parts - front and rear cells are most likely unmatched.

[Jim Galli]

On second glance, after reading Jim's post, I think this is a lens to be wary of; it looks very wrong, the element could possible be reversed, and I have no idea what that slot is doing there.

Perhaps you should keep on looking. My suggestion for a cheaper (relatively) and compact 11x14 lens is a 19" f6 Dallmeyer 5D.


I wish 5 D's were cheap or even relatively cheap. I let one get away with an 11X14 I sold :(

I haven't been able to replace it yet.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I wish 5 D's were cheap or even relatively cheap..

Well, yeah, ok, even relative is relative, right? I have seen 11x14 Petzvals sell on eBay for close to $1000, so a $500 5D is then relatively cheap, no?

I for one am glad I did my Brass Shopping a few years back.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi Walt,

"I've been looking for lenses suitable for that format and ones with will give a period look to my plates. "

If you're still looking, I do have a B&L Universal Protrait #3 in very fine shape. It's a 16" f/4 petzval type with adjustable soft focus and convertible. If I get the time I'll take some pics and post it in the 'For Sale' section this weekend.

Have fun with the wet plates.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Sorry Paul, but a 16" Petzval won't cover 11x14 without significant vignetting.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi Jason,

"Sorry Paul, but a 16" Petzval won't cover 11x14 without significant vignetting."

Right and wrong at the same time, wonderful. :eek: I agree with you for infinite focus landscapes but I doubt it would have 'significant vignetting', more likely a soft-focus 'swirly bokeh' effect.

I had assumed that Walt would be using this in a studio for portraits. Most of the appeal of 11x14 for portraits is life size on the film, 1 - 1 macro range. That would put a 16 inch 32 inches from the sitter, an 18" at 36" and a 20" at 40", just a slight change in perspective from each, from 'up close and personal' to 'cool and aloof'.

Or from the Wollensak catalog:

" The scope of the Vitax is large heads, busts, three-quarter and full lengths; also small groups. Larger groups should be formed in a semi-circle to allow for the curved field of the lens. For child photography the Vitax stands supreme.

We do not list sizes with the Vitax, as the different numbers are used on different plates, from 5x7 to 11x14, according to the class of work, an selection depends upon this and the size of the studio generally must govern focal length.

No. ...........................Equivalent focus
1 ........................... 10"
2 ........................... 13 1/2"
3 ........................... 16" "

Wollensak suggested their 16" Vitax for 11X14" since they called it a 'Royal Portrait 3.8'. I wonder if they knew what they were doing with portrait lenses.

Just a thought.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

It was for just this purpose Wolly made a 20" f5 front element which replaced that of the 16" for 11x14.