Goerz Apo Red Dot Artar 16.5" 9.5, which shutter?

[cyberjunkie]

I have just acquired a Goerz Apochromat Artar 16.5in f/9.5 (Red Dot).
I would like to mount it in shutter.
From a lens database that i found on the Web i see that the 16.5" is one of the very few process lenses that were originally sold in shutter, as well as in barrel.
I suppose that the lens cells were the same (just a guess, though). If i'm not wrong, it should be possible to find a shutter that fits the lens without the need of expensive photo mechanic work.
Being Goerz stuff, i think that the best source would be the forum user who sports the same name as his personal ID. I have always found his posts very interesting and informative.
Of course any input is welcome (expecially barrel/shutter quotes, and any other measure that could be of some use).

As a sidenote, i have noticed a very strange thing:
Red Dot Apo Artars (and Apo-Ronars) get very high sale price when the focal length is very long, if not extreme, while more "earthly" focals get a lot less appreciation.
Why?
I got mine for $76 plus shipment, while 800mm and longer get premium prices, even if there are very few cameras that have enough bellows!

have fun

CJ

[Len Middleton]

CJ,

With respect to your sidenote, you have addressed only the demand side of the price determining supply and demand equation. Yes there are few cameras that can handle 800mm plus (31.5"), and therefore limited demand.

Not having worked in the graphics / reproduction industry I can only spectulate on the supply side relative to the availability of longer rather than shorter lens length.

I expect that others on this site can provide more authoritative information...

I have and use a number of process dialyte design lens on my 8x10 including a 355 Repro Claron, a 420 Apo-Nikkor, a 485 Apo-Ronar CL, and a 600 Apo-Ronar CL. Also have a 150, 210 and 305 G-Claron. All great lenses and purchased used for a small fraction of what they would have cost new.

Good luck,

Len

[John Schneider]

http://www.skgrimes.com/fits/index.htm is a great resource for shutter mounting options for barrel lenses. SK Grimes does amazing work, but because it's custom machining with a lot of threading, mounting a barrel lens into a shutter isn't cheap. :eek:

[dentkimterry]

I have one of these lenses and its mounted in an ACME No. 4 shutter. I have never used the lens having just had the shutter repaired by Carol Flutot. I hope to try it soon.

Terry

[dentkimterry]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/18215608@N08/4796829001/

Here's a picture I can't seem to display.

Terry

[MIke Sherck]

Mine is also in a #4 Acme Synchro shutter. I've seen a couple of these in Copal #3, but I doubt they came from the factory that way! The Copal is likely a better shutter, if you have a choice.

Mike

[erie patsellis]

Depending on what camera you shoot with, for the cost of mounting a lens to a shutter, you can buy a Sinar Shutter. Less expensive options include a Packard Shutter, hat and lenscap.

[Steve Barber]

I do not have the 16 1/2" lens, but I do have 12", 45cm and 19" lenses, all of which were mounted in Copal shutters by S. K. Grimes and only the 12", in a Copal #1 shutter, was in a shutter less than the #3 size. There is a smaller shutter that will work with the 19" lens, but it is an older one, an Alphax. Good shutter, but not so available, today, as the Copal shutters.

As to the smaller focal lengths, I think you will find that the 210mm equivalent, the 8 1/2" Artar is the shortest Artar that is usable in the 4x5 format with a 19" or larger focal length Artar needed for the 8x10. Beyond that, the Artars and Ronars seem to be the only lenses that have that kind of resolution that will cover the ultra large formats and there are not very many on offer.

[cyberjunkie]

Thanks for all your replies.
I will watch for a No. 4 Acme shutter. It's a little cheaper than a Copal No. 3, and there is chance that the cells will fit with no need for two adapter rings.
As soon as i get the lens i will immediately take all the measures with a caliper with digital readout. I even have a comparator somewhere, for very precise readings, but i'd in need of some kind of frame, shaped in right way to take lens barrel measures.
Unfortunately i still have to find a good machinist willing to take complex one-shot works. In the past i knew a true lathe artist, retired but still in possession of many nice machines, who had no problems taking that kind of work.
When it comes to complex cup-shaped adapters i have nowhere to go at the moment, but simpler adapters should be well within the capabilities of anybody who know how to operate a simple lathe. With long focals (that need long "tubes"), and with a shutter that has thread diameters larger than the cell's attachment, it should be perfectly doable.
Until now i could always find the right solution (read shutter) for my lens cells, but with the 16.5" Apo Artar i am very tempted to try my luck:
if physics (diameters) allow it, i'll make a sketch of the two "tubes" and try to find somebody who builds them.
I have a No. 3 Compur Electronic with a missing battery compartment; until i find it, it's a perfect testing bench for the Artar, every voltage from 3V to 6V should work.
If the tubes are not made within the necessary tolerances, it should be fairly easy to correct the spacing with very thin shims, or by having the rim of the "tube" lapped until the measures are corrected.
If somebody has some advice/warning, i'd be very grateful.

On the last post is suggested that only 19" (and longer) Apo Artars are good for the 8x10". I think that the reference is for infinite focusing, of course.
It's strange that other posts about these lenses report a bigger coverage.
I understand that older lenses had no physical vignetting to restrict coverage to the "usable" portion of the projection circle, and i guess that Red Dot Artars, even if produced more recenlty and coated, should be built the same way. But it's still puzzingling that in some posts Artars with focals shorter than 16.5in are reported as perfectly fit for the 8x10in format!
I don't know if there is a definitive answer or not, but i'd be very happy to read the opinions of the experts out there. :confused:

have fun

CJ

[John Kasaian]

16-1/2" would be a fine 8x10 lens and at $78 that is a steal! Even a 14" Artar will cover 8x10. Is the barrel brass or aluminium?

[cyberjunkie]

16-1/2" would be a fine 8x10 lens and at $78 that is a steal! Even a 14" Artar will cover 8x10. Is the barrel brass or aluminium?

Aluminium, i think. It's in black.
I don't think that Red Dot lenses were made with brass barrels, but i'm not an expert at all...:)

As soon as i get the lens, i want to make some kind of attachment to test the performance before the end of my vacation days:p
I live in Italy, where No. 4 Acme shutters are rare birds, but with little patience one could show off on Ebay.
In the meantime i must devise some kind of adapter that allows to place a big Silens shutter behind a Sinar-like lensboard. Unfortunately that kind of solution would allow to use the lens only with the 8x10 De Vere (made before 1965). All my other cameras use Technika/Wista lensboards, per se or via adapters. The most elegant solution would be to use the Silens shutter behind the Sinar lensboard, and have some kind of Technika lensboard adapter on the front.
I have still to take any measure, but i am afraid the shape of the front standard and the front "mouth" of the bellows would make it almost impossible. I am afraid that putting everything on the front would be very difficult as well.
The big Silens shutter i have at home is somewhat different from other samples i have seen. For example, i have another one, very small, that has the typical three screws that allows to fix the shutter in front of a (small) lens. Of course it can be used only with lenses that have a small front diameter, but the screws allow to adapt to different sizes.
The "big" Silens is very similar, as it offers B, Instant, and manual opening of the shutter blades. Both should be operated by both flexible shutter releases and pneumatic ones, but the reach of the flex release must be so long, that only one of the shutter releases i own can operate the "small" Silens, and none has enough reach for the "big" (the most i could get was barely moving the shutter blades).
The other difference is very important, because it shows that the bigger one was not made to be fixed on top of a lens! It has two "passing" holes, so it must be fixed via two nuts/bolts to the front or back of a lensboard. If there was a provision for mounting it on top of a lens, the needed hardware is missing, but i doubt it.
As a final note, there is a strange black screw on the side of the shutter. That screw is missing from the small one, and i could not identify its function.

I know almost nothing about Silens shutters, i purchased them long ago, and since then i haven't used them, mostly because the small one is too smal, and i still don't have a pump/hose to operate the big one.
If you have any reference, manual, Internet URLs, and the like, i would appreciate any help from the forum members.
With regard to the adaptation of a Silens shutter to a Sinar lensboard, if you have any picture to show, i am sure i would benefit from seeing how the work was done by others, before me.
I have seen simiar works done for Packard shutters, used on the back of the lens; i can take some ideas but i am fraid that the shuttersare too different to use the same concept:(

have fun

CJ

[erie patsellis]

As a data point, my 19" RD Artar is in a brass barrel, so there are some.

[Steve Barber]

...On the last post is suggested that only 19" (and longer) Apo Artars are good for the 8x10". I think that the reference is for infinite focusing, of course.
It's strange that other posts about these lenses report a bigger coverage.
I understand that older lenses had no physical vignetting to restrict coverage to the "usable" portion of the projection circle, and i guess that Red Dot Artars, even if produced more recenlty and coated, should be built the same way. But it's still puzzingling that in some posts Artars with focals shorter than 16.5in are reported as perfectly fit for the 8x10in format!
I don't know if there is a definitive answer or not, but i'd be very happy to read the opinions of the experts out there...CJ

The determination as to whether the coverage of a lens is adequate is a subjective one and would vary, as you said, depending on aperture and focusing. My reasoning, not being an expert, that a 19” Artar is the minimum for 8x10 is just based on my experience using them. Just now, I put my 45cm (17 ¾”) RD Artar, which I use on a 4x5, on the 8x10 to see if I thought it covered the 8x10 format. Wide open, focused at infinity, it does not cover and if I close it down to f22, I still think the image is too soft at the edges to be acceptable.

I think of the Artars and Ronars as being interchangeable, although I would give the nod to the later, factory shutter mounted, Ronars as being, maybe, a little better for my use. I have a 480mm Ronar mounted in a shutter that was, originally, a barrel mounted process lens. I use it for 8x10 and I know it is a sharp lens where I use it at f22. I put it on the camera to see how it compared when used wide open. I would say that it is not as sharp at the edges wide open as it is at f22, but it might be acceptable that way, depending on the subject. I, also, put a factory shutter mounted 360mm Ronar on the 8x10 and compared it both wide open and at f22. That lens does not cover an 8x10 negative; even closed down to f22 it is too soft at the edges. If that lens, the equivalent of a 14” Artar, does not cover, then I do not think a 14” Artar will, either.

Based on what I can see, I would say that a 19” Artar, focused at infinity and used at f22 or a smaller aperture, is the shortest Artar that I would recommend for use on an 8x10. Also, if you look at the Rodenstock literature for their Ronars you will find that their recommendation is that, using them as a taking lens, the focal length of the lens should be twice the length of the long side of the negative. I think that is better guidance than what the Goerz literature gives for the Artars, which is for their use as process lenses, with the magnification ratios shown from 1:10 to 1:1, and not as taking lenses.

Regarding mountings, I think all of the Artars I have are brass mounted and I do not remember any in aluminum. Most of the Ronars have been in brass, but the 360mm is in aluminum and I seem to remember reading, somewhere, that the factory shutter mounted lenses were typically mounted in aluminum to keep the weight down.

[cyberjunkie]

Regarding mountings, I think all of the Artars I have are brass mounted and I do not remember any in aluminum. Most of the Ronars have been in brass, but the 360mm is in aluminum and I seem to remember reading, somewhere, that the factory shutter mounted lenses were typically mounted in aluminum to keep the weight down.


Thanks.
I already admitted that my knowledge about Artars (and about process lenses in general) was very limited. So it comes as no supreise that i made the wrong assumption: i thought that the most part of post-WW II lenses were assembled with aluminium barrels. From the two answers i have got, i am starting to believe that most "in shutter" lenses were indeed housed in aluminium barrels, probably to contain weight (as was already pointed out), but for process lenses weight was not a constraint, and the majority of them were not originally made in shutter (while some were housed in a shutter at some point during their long life) :p
So a brass barrel makes sense... as i have discovered the hard way with an old 6.5in Dagor i purchased time ago.
I don't want to revive an old post, but explain my findings here:
when i saw the picture of the lens, a 6.3/6.5" old Dagor in an original (C.P. Goerz marked) dial-set Compur, it was very clear that the optics were vert dirty. There was also a scratch on the back barrel, probably from trying to open the lens with unappropriate instruments. I didn't trust too much the vendor, who wrote that "with the right tools" the lens would come apart, but i decided to buy it cause the price was nice.
When i finally got the lens in my hands i found that the two cells were practically welded: both threads were in aluminium, and long years of oxidation made them a single thing!
A friend, who does photo mechanics for fun, but who's very good at it, tried every trick, but decided against applying too much force for the fear of breaking either the shutter or the lens housing.
Fortunately it's a Dagor: two groups only! So opening the shutter allowed to clean the two cells "from the inside"!
After i got back the lens the 1sec. speed was still stuck, and the dial that sets the speed was quite hard to turn. Some drops of lighter fluid, from the outside, and taking care that the optics won't be affected, cured the problem... at least so far.

I learned two lessons in one time:
1) don't buy lenses with stuck cells, if there is an all-aluminium construction
2) thanks to their construction (one group per side) with Dagors there is at least the chance to open the shutter in two halves, and reach the "inside" of each cell for cleaning

Now i go for a question, maybe somebody knows the answer.
After learning that 16.5" Red Dot Artar was made both "in shutter" and "in barrel", and that those in shutter were reportedly housed in Acme No. 4 or similar shutters, i still don't know if there were any differences between the two versions. Were the cells the same? Is it possible to unscrew them from the barrel, and...voila, magically fit them in the right shutter keeping the exact spacing, as with Schneider optics?
I found a No. 4 Acme shutter with a 4.5/190mm "Luminized" Ektar. I understand that the lens is a nice one, but i have already the 7.7/203mm, so if i decide to buy it, it would be just for the shutter!
I'd be a lot happier if i could learn a new lesson on this forum, with the help of some nice fellow, instead of paying with badly spent money.
Trial and error is always an effective way to learn new lessons... but sometimes it could be a real pain :mad:

have fun

CJ

[Craig Roberts]

I am a pragmatist (prag·ma·tist –noun
1. a person who is oriented toward the success or failure of a particular line of action, thought, etc.; a practical person).
In response to questions like this I like to try them out and report on what I find. I use a 14-inch RD Artar in a shutter for 8x10. I have no problem with coverage at infinity. I also use a 16-1/2-inch RD Artar with 8x10. I have used a 19-inch RD Artar with 12x20.
As Fred Picker used to say, try it!
There are plenty of opinions with out substance.
Craig

[Simon Benton]

I have had a number of 16 1/2 inch red dot Artars and in my experience they only fit an Ilex 4 with the special machined flanges - they are not a direct fit. Hiowever with all the ones I had - and the one I have now - the front of the Artar lens will screw into the back of the Ilex 4. This gives you the shutter mounted on the front of the lens but it works just fine. Also works on the 19 inch red dot.

[Steve Barber]

As Fred Picker used to say, try it!
There are plenty of opinions with out substance.
Craig

So, I should believe you or my lying eyes?

[erie patsellis]

Steve, I think a lot hinges on personal expectations and aesthetic considerations. We all know that a tessar only covers so many degrees, but I have found that some of the shorter ones I have (105 to 115) cover with room to spare for certain subjects, where absolute sharpness and correction is not needed across the entire frame. Granted, technically I suppose it doesn't "cover", but for the intended image and aesthetic, it works magnificantly.

That is the essence of Fred Picker's (and other's on this board) "try it" comment.
FWIW, My 19" RD thoroughly illuminates 16x20 at infinity, I'd imagine with the right subject, where sharpness wasn't needed at the periphery, it would be a great lens. Witness the proliferation of Petzvals used for much larger formats than intended for, etc.

[Steve Barber]

Steve, I think a lot hinges on personal expectations and aesthetic considerations. We all know that a tessar only covers so many degrees, but I have found that some of the shorter ones I have (105 to 115) cover with room to spare for certain subjects, where absolute sharpness and correction is not needed across the entire frame. Granted, technically I suppose it doesn't "cover", but for the intended image and aesthetic, it works magnificantly.

That is the essence of Fred Picker's (and other's on this board) "try it" comment.
FWIW, My 19" RD thoroughly illuminates 16x20 at infinity, I'd imagine with the right subject, where sharpness wasn't needed at the periphery, it would be a great lens. Witness the proliferation of Petzvals used for much larger formats than intended for, etc.

I agree. I did say that whether a lens covers a certain format is a matter of opinion and depends on how it is being used:


The determination as to whether the coverage of a lens is adequate is a subjective one and would vary, as you said, depending on aperture and focusing. My reasoning, not being an expert, that a 19” Artar is the minimum for 8x10 is just based on my experience using them. Just now, I put my 45cm (17 ¾”) RD Artar, which I use on a 4x5, on the 8x10 to see if I thought it covered the 8x10 format. Wide open, focused at infinity, it does not cover and if I close it down to f22, I still think the image is too soft at the edges to be acceptable.

As you recognize, the word “cover” has a specific meaning. Generally, it is shorthand for the diameter of the image circle of good definition of a lens focused at infinity using an aperture not smaller than f22 being able to completely “cover” the diagonal of the format in question. In their data sheets, this can be derived from what the manufacturer shows as the “image circle” and the “field angle” of the lens and knowing either will enable you to calculate the other—tangent of ½ the field angle times the focal length equals ½ the diameter of the image circle.

Schneider gives the field angle for their APO-Artars as 46 degrees. Rodenstock describes their APO-Ronars as having field angles of approximately 48 degrees, but the image circle they give for their 360mm equates to a field angle of 47.7 degrees and the image circle they give for their 480mm lens is what you would calculate using a field angle of 44.8 degrees. Either way, both describe their 360mm lenses as being suitable for up to 5x7 and the 480mm lenses as being suitable for up to the 8x10 format. Goerz does not give the field angles or image circles for their Artars, the charts they present for their lenses are for various magnifications, from 1:10 to 1:1 showing the formats that are covered by the lens for each of the ratios given. Goerz, also, does not state the f stop that is used, showing only the maximum value for each lens. The image circles for the Artars listed in the lens charts produced by Gudzinowicz generally calculate to a field angle averaging closer to 46 degrees and that is the figure given for them in the Vade Mecum.

http://graflex.org/lenses/lens-spec.html

Unfortunately, I have not found any image circles given for the 16 ½ inch, 45cm, or 19 inch Artars. I do not have a 16 ½ inch lens, but I do have the 45cm RD Artar and the 19 inch as well as a couple of the 480mm APO-Ronars along with a 360mm APO-Ronar and these were what I used on the 8x10 to see if I thought they “covered” that format. As to the 480mm APO-Ronars, I had already compared them to the 19 inch and 45cm Artars and decided to use the Ronars on 8x10 and the Artars on 4x5. I think the Ronars shade the Artars by a little and they are in Copal #3 shutters, so they are bulkier and heavier and better used on the larger camera rather than the smaller one. Even so, as I said, I took the 45cm lens and put it on the 8x10 just to check before I posted what I did.

To sum up, I have followed Picker’s dictum of “try it and see” and the results, for me, are that the 19 inch Artar will cover the 8x10 and the smaller focal length Artars will not. I do not think that my standard is unreasonable in that it conforms to what Schneider and Rodenstock claim for their lenses of similar construction and the published information I can find regarding the field angles of these lenses and a comparison of the image circles, calculated using those field angles, to the diagonal of the format. I can easily see where you and others (and me) might use these lenses in certain ways on larger formats with good results, but saying that a lens is usable for a given format is not the same thing as saying that it covers that format. There is a difference between generally pleasing results and specific standards of performance and the two should not be confused or used interchangeably. If you tell a potential buyer of your lens that it covers a given format, he has a right to expect a certain level of performance from that lens and has a basis for comparing it to other, similar lenses. On the other hand, if you tell a buyer that the lens covers a given format when what you mean is that the way you use the lens you are happy with the results, what basis does the buyer have for comparison? What will you tell him when he complains that the lens will not give an enlargeable image (on the format that you told him it would cover) when he uses it focused at infinity and stopped down to f22? Are you going to tell him that he is wrong and, if he would just use it focused with the bellows stretched out about 9 feet and stopped down to f128 that he will get a usable image? Just try it and see?

[David Lindquist]

Goerz does not give the field angles or image circles for their Artars, the charts they present for their lenses are for various magnifications, from 1:10 to 1:1 showing the formats that are covered by the lens for each of the ratios given. Goerz, also, does not state the f stop that is used, showing only the maximum value for each lens. The image circles for the Artars listed in the lens charts produced by Gudzinowicz generally calculate to a field angle averaging closer to 46 degrees and that is the figure given for them in the Vade Mecum.

http://graflex.org/lenses/lens-spec.html

Unfortunately, I have not found any image circles given for the 16 ½ inch, 45cm, or 19 inch Artars. I do not have a 16 ½ inch lens, but I do have the 45cm RD Artar and the 19 inch as well as a couple of the 480mm APO-Ronars along with a 360mm APO-Ronar and these were what I used on the 8x10 to see if I thought they “covered” that format. As to the 480mm APO-Ronars, I had already compared them to the 19 inch and 45cm Artars and decided to use the Ronars on 8x10 and the Artars on 4x5. I think the Ronars shade the Artars by a little and they are in Copal #3 shutters, so they are bulkier and heavier and better used on the larger camera rather than the smaller one. Even so, as I said, I took the 45cm lens and put it on the 8x10 just to check before I posted what I did.

To sum up, I have followed Picker’s dictum of “try it and see” and the results, for me, are that the 19 inch Artar will cover the 8x10 and the smaller focal length Artars will not. I do not think that my standard is unreasonable in that it conforms to what Schneider and Rodenstock claim for their lenses of similar construction and the published information I can find regarding the field angles of these lenses and a comparison of the image circles, calculated using those field angles, to the diagonal of the format. I can easily see where you and others (and me) might use these lenses in certain ways on larger formats with good results, but saying that a lens is usable for a given format is not the same thing as saying that it covers that format. There is a difference between generally pleasing results and specific standards of performance and the two should not be confused or used interchangeably. If you tell a potential buyer of your lens that it covers a given format, he has a right to expect a certain level of performance from that lens and has a basis for comparing it to other, similar lenses. On the other hand, if you tell a buyer that the lens covers a given format when what you mean is that the way you use the lens you are happy with the results, what basis does the buyer have for comparison? What will you tell him when he complains that the lens will not give an enlargeable image (on the format that you told him it would cover) when he uses it focused at infinity and stopped down to f22? Are you going to tell him that he is wrong and, if he would just use it focused with the bellows stretched out about 9 feet and stopped down to f128 that he will get a usable image? Just try it and see?

I have a 1967 (if what I think is a date code is in fact a date code) Goerz Red Dot Artar brochure that gives full field angle, plate diagonal covered at infinity and the "optimum f/no." for Red Dot Artars in focal lengths of 4 through 70 inches. Artars from 4 through 24 inches in focal length have a full field angle of 46 degrees, field angles of the longer focal lengths become increasingly smaller, down to 35 degrees for the 70 inch lens. The plate diagonals covered by the 16 1/2, 17 3/4 (45cm) and 19 inch Artars are given as 14.0, 15.1 and 16.1 inches respectively. Presumably these values are for the optimum f/no. for these focal lengths, i.e. f/22. (Didn't do the trig to see how closely the plate diagonals covered agree with the full field angle given.)

These published values not withstanding, I agree with Steve (and others) that determination of coverage ultimately depends on the "try it and see" principle and the individual photographer's requirements. Personally if I were in the position of selling one of these lenses (none of which I own nor have any experience with) I'd want to send the buyer a contact print showing full negative taken at infinity and at a clearly defined f/ stop before completing the deal.
David