PDA

View Full Version : What is a Wide Lens for 14x17 besides Dagor?



rknewcomb
16-Oct-2007, 07:08
Hello,
Besides the obvious 14 inch Dagor that is probably too expensive for me, does anyone know of what might be a slightly wide or moderate wide angle lens that will cover the 14x17" format? Barrel mount is Ok for me and it need not be modern or particularly extra sharp.
thank you!
Robert

Ole Tjugen
16-Oct-2007, 07:11
A 360mm Symmar is likely to be cheaper than a 14" Dagor. don't know how well it covers though - I know mine covers my 12x16". Same with the 355mm G-Claron.

Hugo Zhang
16-Oct-2007, 07:19
Protar v f/18 265mm and 325mm lenses should cover at their small apertures.

Dave Wooten
16-Oct-2007, 07:58
355 G Claron

Jim Galli
16-Oct-2007, 08:20
Protar v f/18 265mm and 325mm lenses should cover at their small apertures.

May as well buy the Dagor. Protar's have crossed over into exotic land. Convertible Symmar in a shutter may be one of the best bargains. I just got one in an Ilex 5. Large Marge. Also a cheap solution might just be a single 16 1/8" element of a Protar VII. They are still relatively cheap.

sanking
16-Oct-2007, 10:20
May as well buy the Dagor. Protar's have crossed over into exotic land. Convertible Symmar in a shutter may be one of the best bargains. I just got one in an Ilex 5. Large Marge. Also a cheap solution might just be a single 16 1/8" element of a Protar VII. They are still relatively cheap.


The problem with Dagors is that they were made over a long period of time by many different lens manufacturers and in practice you will find that both coverage and performance varies quite a bit among specimens of the same focal length. I have owned three 14" Dagors and only one of those would cover 12X20 or 14X17. However, if you can find one with enough coverage it will almost certainly cost less than a Series IV or V Protar.

I agree with Jim that the 355 or 360 Convertible Symmar is a good bargain for this format. It will cover at least as much as the 355 G-Claron and is a lot less expensive. Plus, the large aperture (f5.6) makes focusing and composing very easy. The only disadvantage is the large front diameter, which requires really big filters and lens shades. The newer non-convertible Symmar does not have as much coverage as the convertible model.

Sandy King

rknewcomb
16-Oct-2007, 12:52
Would one element of say a 240 symmar be about a 14 inch length and might that cover a 14x17?

sanking
16-Oct-2007, 12:54
Would one element of say a 240 symmar be about a 14 inch length and might that cover a 14x17?


I don't believe that the circle of illumination of a 240 Symmar is large enough to cover 14X17, but even if it is performance at the edges would be awful.

Sandy King

Kerry L. Thalmann
16-Oct-2007, 22:39
Robert,

As Sandy mentioned, the 360mm Symmar Convertible is probably your best bet in a lens in this focal length range that will cover 14x17 - if you don't mind the size and weight. Older samples came in Compound or Ilex shutters and were labeled as 360mm f5.6. Late samples from the early 1970s came in Copal No. 3 or Compur Electronic No. 3 shutters and were labeled 355mm f6.8. I've also seen them mounted in the huge Compur 5FS electronic shutter.

The last couple shutter mount samples sold on eBay for about $280 (one in a Compound and one in a Compur Electronic) and a barrel mounted sample on a Sinar board sold for less than $100. These are truly bargain prices for a lens with this much coverage. The good news is they are plentiful on the used market and most 8x10 and smaller shooters seem to prefer newer, multicoated lenses. So, that keeps the price of these older single coated samples down.

I personally have a late Copal mounted sample. I bought it from a seller in Germany and even after the unfavorable exchange rate (due to the weak dollar) and the shipping costs (it's a HEAVY lens), I paid less that $400 (IIRC the lens itself was about $335). That's near the high end, but it was a late near mint sample and the Copal No. 3 shutter alone is worth nearly that much. You can read a whole lot more about this lens, including a picture of mine, at this thread that Sandy started on APUG earlier this year:

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum187/39131-360-620-f-5-6-schneider-symmar-convertible.html

In order to cover 14x17, a 360mm lens would need to cover 75 degrees. You'd probably want at least 80 degrees of coverage to allow a bit for movements. The 355mm G Claron meets this requirement and is considerably smaller and about half the weight of my 355mm f6.8 Symmar. It's probably the best combination of size/weight and coverage in a 355mm/360mm lens, but will cost you 2x - 3x as much as a shutter mounted Symmar.

There are several other more modern 360mmm plasmats from Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon and Fuji that are all rated to cover around 70 - 72 degrees at f22. A couple may hit the corners of 14x17, but have less coverage than the Symmar and G Claron. Sandy (and others) have reported that the 360mm f6.3 Fujinon-W covers 8x20 and just misses the corners of 12x20. So, it should hit the corners of 14x17, but won't allow much in the way of movements - less than both the Convertible Symmar and the G Claron. The advantage is that it's considerably smaller than the Convertible Symmar (86mm filters vs. 105mm for the Convertible Symmar) and typically costs less than the G Claron. I've seen several multicoated samples in near mint condition in Copal No. 3 shutters go for less than $500 on eBay. Personally, I'd chose either the Convertible Symmar if weight was no object, or the G Claron (if size/weight was a consideration) due to the greater coverage, but the Fujinon is another possibility. Here's another APUG thread that discusses the various 360mm Fujinon lenses:

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum187/35558-fujinon-360mm-f-6-5-lens.html

In barrel lenses, I know of several, besides the 14" Dagor that cover 7x17 (and likely 8x20), but I'm not sure how many cover 14x17 (I haven't built my 14x17 camera yet). The 14" Blue Dot Trigor covers 7x17 and is reported to cover 8x20, but it usually sells for even more than a 14" Dagor. The 360mm W.A. APO Nikkor is a 6/4 process plasmat like the 355mm G Claron. Again I've read reports that it covers 8x20, but I'm not sure if it will cover 14x17 or 12x20. I've seen a couple go for less than $400 in the last year, but there's one currently on eBay that's already bid up to $600. It's bigger and heavier than a G Claron, but unlike the G Claron isn't a direct fit in any standard shutter. The 360mm APO Gerogon is yet another 6/4 f9 process plasmat. Again, I've read reports that it will cover 8x20, but haven't read any claims that it will cover more. It's fairly common on the used market, and thus usually quite affordable. Size-wise it's comparable to a 355mm G Claron, but isn't a direct fit in a standard shutter. Other than a barrel mounted Convertible Symmar, it's probably one of the least expensive, readily available lenses that cover at least 8x20. I have two different versions of this lens and will test them on 14x17 when I get around to building my camera.

In wider lenses, there is the 305mm f9 Computar, but these days this lens is anything cheap (the last one sold on eBay, in a Copal No. 3S shutter, went for $1750). Too bad, it has tremendous coverage - more than even a Dagor and is a very compact, lightweight lens that's a direct fit in a modern Copal 3S shutter.

This focal length is pretty wide on 14x17 (about like an 85mm would be on 4x5 - the 14"/355/360mm focal length is similar to a 100mm on 4x5 - wide but no ultrawide). A 12" Dagor should cover 14x17 with a tiny bit to spare. It will cover as much as 87 degrees at f45, for an image circle of about 575mm - 580mm. Coverage varies based on age and mount. Some newer Dagors cover less than older samples. Due to these variations, it's best to test for coverage of individual samples. I've seen older, uncoated barrel mount samples sell for less than $200 in the last year. A nice sample in a Compound shutter recently sold for $305 on eBay and a single coated barrel mounted sample went for $202.50. The 12" Dagor is much more common than the 14". So prices are still reasonable (as long as it doesn't have a gold dot or gold rim). Of course, coverage and performance won't be as good as the 305mm Computar, but it costs a whole let less money and is probably the most affordable option in a lens this wide that may hit the corners of 14x17.

In a slightly wide focal length (about like a 125mm on 4x5), the 450mm Nikkor M will cover with quite a bit to spare. It's a modern, multicoated lens in a Copal No. 3 shutter. It's no longer available new, but clean used samples can still be had for about $700.

Kerry

Nick_3536
17-Oct-2007, 02:36
Sandy (and others) have reported that the 360mm f6.3 Fujinon-W covers 8x20 and just misses the corners of 12x20. So, it should hit the corners of 14x17, but won't allow much in the way of movements - less than both the Convertible Symmar and the G Claron. The advantage is that it's considerably smaller than the Convertible Symmar (86mm filters vs. 105mm for the Convertible Symmar) and typically costs less than the G Claron. I've seen several multicoated samples in near mint condition in Copal No. 3 shutters go for less than $500 on eBay.

Wouldn't most [all?] the multicoated Fujis be the later CMW model?

wfwhitaker
17-Oct-2007, 06:32
...what might be a slightly wide or moderate wide angle lens that will cover the 14x17" format?

I'll second Kerry's last suggestion for the 450 M-Nikkor. When I was using 14x17 that was the first lens I'd grab (aside from some portrait softies). The perspective is pleasantly wide, but not excessively so. The focal length is the long side of the format, a rule of thumb I've long found useful (on formats other than panoramic) to describe a pleasing (to me) wide-angle focal length. 60mm on the Hasselblad, 120mm on 4x5, 10" WF Ektar on 8x10. The Nikkor fits 14x17 the same way.

A note for Kerry's benefit (since I know he has this lens) is that the 12" Wray wide-angle will just cover 14x17. In searching my own emails (I can't even remember what I've written - now I have to search for it) I found this bit which I'd written to someone:


"Wide open... [the Wray 12" wide-angle] illuminates the corners [of 14x17] at infinity although the aperture is a pretty severe cat's eye. At f/22 the full aperture is visible from the corners, so looks like stopping down is in order to use it on that format. But max is f/6.3 which makes it much nicer for composing than a Protar V."

Oh, yeah. Now I remember! So I did try that lens on 14x17! Never made an exposure with it, though, so all I know is that it does illuminate to the corners. (Actually I recall thinking that f/16 would probably be usable). Don't count on much movement, however.

Kerry L. Thalmann
17-Oct-2007, 08:26
Wouldn't most [all?] the multicoated Fujis be the later CMW model?

No.

The original Fujinon-W series was single coated and introduced in the early 1970s. These are easy to identify as they use what I call "inner lettering" for labeling the lens. Here's an example of a 150mm f6.3 Fujinon-W with "inner lettering":

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/images/Fuji_150.jpg

Starting in the late 1970's Fuji began multicoating the Fujinon-W. In some literature, they refer to these lenses as NW or NWS, but the lenses themselves are labeled simply Fujinon-W. The difference is these multicoated lenses use "outer lettering" to label the lenses. Here's an example of a 360mm f10 Fujinon A that uses "outer lettering":

http://thalmann.com/Ebay/360_Fujinon_A_521401.JPG

I don't have all my Fujinon literature in front of me, but I do know that the 360mm f6.3 Fujinon-W is listed as EBC multicoated in a brochure published in January, 1979. This version of the Fujinon-W series continued to be offered until the early 1990s. Again, I don't have it i n front of me, but I believe the last brochure I have that lists this version of the Fujinon-W was from around 1994. That makes sense as the 360mm Fujinon CM-W was introduced in that same year.

So, the EBC multicoated Fujinon-W was in production for at least 15 years from 1979 to 1994, and during at least 10 of those years, Fujinon had an official North American distributor (D.O. Industries) that actively advertised and promoted their lenses. During that time, they were available from most major photo dealeras, including B&H and Calumet.

D.O. Industries ceased to be the Fujinon North American distributor around 1990, and Fujinon hasn't had an official distributor, or advertised their large format lenses in any North American photo publications since. Thankfully, they are still available through a couple of dealers who import them directly from Japan. As a result, the 360mm f6.5Fujinon CM-W is much less common on the used market than the multicoated 360mm f6.3 Fujinon-W.

The CM-W line is easy to indentify as they are clearly labeled CM Fujinon-W ("outer lettering"). And, in the case of the 360mm focal length, the maximum aperture is f6.5 rather 6.3.

Kerry

Nick_3536
17-Oct-2007, 08:29
I've always assumed mine was single coated. Haven't really had the time to look too closely at it plus until I decide to get an 11x14 won't really need it.

Kerry L. Thalmann
17-Oct-2007, 08:33
A note for Kerry's benefit (since I know he has this lens) is that the 12" Wray wide-angle will just cover 14x17. In searching my own emails (I can't even remember what I've written - now I have to search for it) I found this bit which I'd written to someone:


"Wide open... [the Wray 12" wide-angle] illuminates the corners [of 14x17] at infinity although the aperture is a pretty severe cat's eye. At f/22 the full aperture is visible from the corners, so looks like stopping down is in order to use it on that format. But max is f/6.3 which makes it much nicer for composing than a Protar V."

Oh, yeah. Now I remember! So I did try that lens on 14x17! Never made an exposure with it, though, so all I know is that it does illuminate to the corners. (Actually I recall thinking that f/16 would probably be usable). Don't count on much movement, however.

Will,

Thanks for the info. It would be great if the 12" Wray Wide Angle would cover 14x17, as that would offer another affordable option in this focal length. I don't yet have a 14x17 camera to try mine one, but I have put it on the 7x17 and it appears to cover with a lot to spare.

The biggest complaint I've heard about the Wray wide angles is that they have rather low contrast. This is especially true of older, uncoated samples. I got lucky with mine as it's multicoated. I'm pretty sure a previous owner had this done, but I recently learned that Wray was still making large format lenses in the 1970s. So, it is possible (but unlikely) that it was factory multicoated.

Kerry

Kerry L. Thalmann
17-Oct-2007, 08:38
I've always assumed mine was single coated. Haven't really had the time to look too closely at it plus until I decide to get an 11x14 won't really need it.

Nick,

Multicoated Fujinons make some nice, pretty, colorful reflections:

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/images/Fuji_EBC.jpg

But, even without looking at the reflections, it's easy to tell by the location of the lettering: "inner letter" = single coated; "outer lettering" = EBC multicoating.

Whether yours is single, or multicoated, it should make a very nice lense for 11x14.

Kerry

otzi
9-Apr-2008, 19:46
Interesting. I have in my havnd a Fiji SWD 65. Reflections show cyan and magenta, thou mostly cyan. The lettering is, as you put it, Inner ring. I thought SWD was a later rendition.