11x14 lens recommendations?

[olwick]

Hi,

I'm considering an 11x14 camera, but it's tough to find recommendations on lenses that would cover it.

I've heard about the 450 F9 NIKKOR-M being a good choice for a "normal" lens, plus it has the Copal 3 shutter.

Are there other good alternatives?

My only criteria is that it not be "too" overly heavy and that I can use it with a shutter (Copal 3?).

I know that there are vintage lenses with "character" and modern lenses with possibly more sharpness. I'd probably prefer the latter, but am open to anything.

Thanks in advance for the advice.

Mark
(P.S. I did do a search and look at the home page info already, but it was tough to find 11x14 specific info).

P.P.S. I notice that some 11x14 makers offer lens board size choice. Is one better than the other?

[eddie]

here is a list of the "modern" lenses in shutters:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenseslist.html

you will need just over 420mm of coverage for 11x14.

what do you intend to shoot?

the bigger the lens boards the better if you plan to shoot portraits with some of the bigger older, brass glass.

also be aware that 11x14 does not have standard film holders so be sure to get film holders with the camera or be sure you get a camera that takes the standard holders.

eddie

[olwick]

Thanks Eddie,

I found this link off of the page you sent:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF11x14in.html

I'm confused though about the Nikkor 450 M In the "excess coverage" for 11x14, it has a negative value, despite having a 440mm image circle. Wouldn't a negative value mean you wouldn't have any movements at all? (or am I being dense, which is a real possibility)

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Mark, I've been using process lenses for my 11x14. Now I normally shoot Efke 25 or x-ray film at ISO 80 so shutters are not an issue for me. I have an Ilex 15" and 21 1/4" Process Paragon lenses that are light and sharp as hell. I also have several brass lenses fro portrait work. Just got a 22" projector lens off of e-bay for $2.25 that lights up the 11x14 and swirls. Plenty of options both expensive and cheap.

Jim

[olwick]

Hi Jim,

This is very educational and begs even more questions, so I appreciate your indulgence.

The thinking behind moving to 11x14 is to do contact prints for platinum/paladium.

The "Swirl" you mentioned greatly intrigues me. I plan on doing nature/landscape work, but my style is more towards the "dreamy" side of things (see the art images section of my site, which are all MF Holga www.olwickphotography.com). So any lens recommendations there, for lenses that would handle, from say 8 ft to infinity (in other words, I'm not doing much close-up or portrait work).

With regards to the film you mentioned, when I go to Freestyle or B&H, all I see in 11x14 is FP5+. How do you get other films, like the Efke you mentioned?

Thanks again,

Mark

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Mark, over the years I've kept my eyes out for brass lenses that will cover 11x14. I have a few. Not as many as Eddie, Jim Galli or some of the others here but I have some nice old lenses to shoot. If you want the dreamy look just shoot them wide open or stopped down a bit. A big Petzval and others will give you a nice soft out of focus area. Some of the lens gurus can help with recommendations.
I just love the look of Efke 25 for my type of work. It has and old look and feel to it that I find interesting. Freestyle has it in 8x10 but what I did to get some in 8x20 was to put together a group buy. Efke will sell 10 boxes of 11x14 to anyone. Freestyle even will do this. It then just has to be broken down and shipped to everyone who participates. I'd like to get some 11x14 Efke 25 but I'm putting some of my spare cash toward a couple of 14x17 holders right now. I hope this helps a bit.

Jim

[eddie]

A big Petzval and others will give you a nice soft out of focus area.

Jim

i big petzval for 11x14 will need a big lens board adn this is the challenge. i use a studio camera to solve the problem. they take 8x8 and 9x9 lens boards. if you get a "portable" camera you may not want to try and use such monster lenses as the cameras were simply not designed for such work....you can do it but.......

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I would highly recommend a 360mm f5.6 Symmar convertible. They are reasonably priced (I spent $200), relatively bright (f5.6), tons of movement (apparently covers 12x20), slightly wide (like a 35mm in miniature format, or 180mm for 5x7), and are relatively light because of their Compound shutter. I also like their bokeh. Of course, it is also convertible, but I don't particularly like it as such--rather dull and ugly. I also have a 355mm G-Claron, but find it has no particular advantages with 11x14 over the 360mm Symmar.

The 450 f9 Nikkor-W is a wonderful lens, I have used it for portraits (a bit too sharp), but find it a tad too long for everyday use.

I also use older brass lenses, but few of these are in shutter, and they aren't a great place to start with ULF; most are fussy and as others point out, require large lensboards and big wallets.

[Oren Grad]

I'm confused though about the Nikkor 450 M In the "excess coverage" for 11x14, it has a negative value, despite having a 440mm image circle. Wouldn't a negative value mean you wouldn't have any movements at all? (or am I being dense, which is a real possibility)

Two things you need to be aware of:

1) Different sources quote slightly different required image circles for different formats. Sometimes they're measuring the actual diagonal of the exposed image area on a negative, which can vary slightly across different holders. Sometimes they're being sloppy and just calculating from the nominal film size, which will give a number that's too large.

2) Reference tables generally quote just the manufacturer's specified image circle for the lens set to f/22 and focused at infinity. However, there are lenses that gain substantial usable coverage beyond the manufacturer's specification when stopped down beyond f/22; the G-Clarons and the Nikkor M series are probably the most commonly cited examples. It's difficult to specify image circles precisely in that case, since different users will have different preferences for "good enough" image quality toward the edges. However, the 305 and 355 G-Claron and the 450 Nikkor M are affordable modern lenses that are very widely used by photographers working in ULF.

Of course, every lens also gains coverage as you focus in from infinity. There are lenses that would be inadequate for landscape work but are practical for studio use.

[Michael Jones]

I'm confused though about the Nikkor 450 M In the "excess coverage" for 11x14, it has a negative value, despite having a 440mm image circle. Wouldn't a negative value mean you wouldn't have any movements at all? (or am I being dense, which is a real possibility)

Specs sometimes differ from reality. The 450mm Nikkor (and 355mm G Claron ) are the "go to" lenses you can be certain will cover nearly anything you can purchsse film for today. They can cover up to 20x24 at very small apertures.

But as Jason points out, if you can find an older 360 Symmar, you'll have the same experience, but it will much easier to focus.

Good luck.

Mike

[AlexGard]

This thread has been pretty helpful. Sorry to dig it up, though.

I've got an 11x14 on order that's going to be used exclusively for wet plate. I do already have a couple of lenses for it, but in the future should I be wanting another lens I want to be paying more attention to the softness of the out of focus areas as opposed to how sharp they are in the in-focus areas. Are there any particular lens makers/brands that really stand out in this field? I've found a lot of the modern lenses I have are absolutely underwhelming in this area in wet plate (sure, great on film but the images made with them in wet plate tend to look like it's been printed or something) and I will soon be offloading them.

[Louis Pacilla]

This thread has been pretty helpful. Sorry to dig it up, though.

I've got an 11x14 on order that's going to be used exclusively for wet plate. I do already have a couple of lenses for it, but in the future should I be wanting another lens I want to be paying more attention to the softness of the out of focus areas as opposed to how sharp they are in the in-focus areas. Are there any particular lens makers/brands that really stand out in this field? I've found a lot of the modern lenses I have are absolutely underwhelming in this area in wet plate (sure, great on film but the images made with them in wet plate tend to look like it's been printed or something) and I will soon be offloading them.

A Proper size Petzval Portrait lens, say 20-25"f4-f6 by ANY quality manufacturer gone by. Now the trouble is finding one that does not set you back 3-5 grand in usd.

[Sal Santamaura]

This thread has been pretty helpful. Sorry to dig it up, though...Please do not apologize! That was exactly the correct thing to do. Adding on to an existing, relevant thread rather than starting a new, redundant one keeps the archive clean and more readily searchable.

[AlexGard]

A Proper size Petzval Portrait lens, say 20-25"f4-f6 by ANY quality manufacturer gone by. Now the trouble is finding one that does not set you back 3-5 grand in usd.

One of the lenses I have is a giant 18" voigtlander f/4.5, as well as a Fuji-L 420mm f/8 and an old, cheap 24" JC Somerville rapid rectilinear. The voigtlander obviously being the winner here. I was hoping in most cases to be able avoid forking out the big $$ for antique lenses, I'm not entirely fussed about having them for the sake of bragging rights, more interested in the image produced, so I was wondering if there were any modern makers/designs that have the same or similar softness in the bokeh as the old brass? A 13" f/3.5 darlot petzval I own makes the dreamiest images, it's quickly becoming the only lens I use on 8x10. I have a Nikkor of a similar focal length that comparatively makes awful images, for wet plate at least (although was fine on film)

Of course I could have more than the lenses I'll ever need for the format, but it would be nice to know which ones to look at in future should I decide ever to go larger.

[Randy]

Alex, a couple years ago I acquired from another member here, a B&L 1C 11X14 f/4.5 Tessar. Large, heavy lens, like 6lbs, lots of glass. I use it for 8X10 and really enjoy it. I think I paid a tad over $200. May want to keep an eye out for one of those.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Alex, research like we all do. Don't rush it. The answers are out there. Many of us have spent years looking for lenses that Louis mentioned. If you have deep pockets you can find something. Find image qualities you like and see which lens was used. The lenses and their personality thread can be helpful. Just remember that the people you ask are your competition. :)

[Lachlan 717]

Alex,

My 14" Verito illuminates my 7x17" (bit bigger IC than 11x14").

Haven't shot with it, though.

It covers heaps more with the front element removed.

[Lachlan 717]

BTW, I'll probably be in Tassie in late April if you'd like to see it.

[AlexGard]

Lachlan that would be great. I should be finished work by late april so definitely get in touch!

For the format I'll probably try avoiding wider lenses. Having experimented with wide, normal and longer lenses I think my style tends to lean towards the longer ones. The red dot artar's keep popping up in research. seem affordable enough. are they worth it, though?

I just don't want to feel like I'm 'magic bullet' chasing all the time, but it would be nice to get some guidance as opposed to stumbling blind.

I'm not a fan of soft focus personally, however I am becoming increasingly aware of the qualities of out-of-focus areas and this is becoming the focus (no pun intended) of my lens hunting.

[AlexGard]

by the way thanks all for the tips... much appreciated. Understand it's a hungry market...