Qestions about 14in Artar image quality

[bvaughn4]

Hi all, relatively new ~1yr to LF I seem to be having trouble getting a sharp image in the GG of my 8x10 with my 14in Red Dot Artar. Is it possible that at some time in the past the lens cells have been removed for cleaning and reinstalled in the incorrect orientation? If so is there any way for me to tell the correct placement or do I need to send it somewhere for a check-up? Recommended shops?

Thanks
Bill

[Dan Fromm]

It is a dialyte. Elements should be () )( | )( (), where | is the diaphragm. I could be mistaken, but I think scrambling them is difficult.

[Chauncey Walden]

The first Artar I came across years ago had me wondering how they got such a good reputation. Figuring something was amiss I found a lens diagram and, sure enough, an element was reversed. It is a symmetrical lens so both halves should be the same and IIRC it was one of the outer elements that was reversed and that the stronger curve should be to the outside.

[Leigh]

The Red Dot Artar is a process lens, optimized for 1:1 reproduction and similar close work. I don't know how it will perform at long range.

It's always possible that somebody disassembled it to mount on a lensboard and lost the shims to set the cell spacing. Shims are not always used, but when present are definitely required. Re-assembling the lens without them will result in poor performance.

Proper adjustment of a lens of this length requires a very large collimator. I have a 48" that would work, but that's really too short for a 14" lens. If you suspect an optical problem it needs to go to a shop that has the proper equipment.

- Leigh

[Bob McCarthy]

Does a 14 inch artar cover 8x10 with sharpness to the edges, I thought not.

My G Claron does, but my 19 inch Artar is very sharp in trhe center but significant movement shows soft outer image circle.

bob

[bvaughn4]

Thanks for the information. I'll see if I can take it apart and see how it looks relative to the description provided. It's hard to tell if it is sharp to the edges, but looks like it covers with no movements.

[Jim Galli]

14" is not an 8X10 lens. You'll be soft on the edges and movements will compound that problem. 16" is a good number for 8X10 I think.

G'luck.

[bvaughn4]

I better keep an eye on the For Sale section...

[Michael Jones]

14" is not an 8X10 lens. You'll be soft on the edges and movements will compound that problem. 16" is a good number for 8X10 I think.

G'luck.

Gee, I used a 12" & 14" RD Artar at infinity for years on 8x10 and never had any issues. 16 1/2" was for my 8x20 with the same results.


Mike

[MIke Sherck]

Gee, I used a 12" & 14" RD Artar at infinity for years on 8x10 and never had any issues. 16 1/2" was for my 8x20 with the same results.


Mike

I also used a 14" RD Artar on 8x10 (on a monorail!) and never ran out of movements or had noticeably soft corners. These days I use a 16 1/2" RD Artar in an Ilex #4 and am very happy with it.

Mike

[Bob McCarthy]

Mike and Michael, are you contact printing or enlarging/scanning for enlargement?

Just looked up coverage and is claimed in the mid 40 deg. That will cover 8x10 with not a lot of room to spare at infinity. Of course focused closer in adds measurably to the image circle.

bob

[CP Goerz]

For years I've used a 10 3/4" Artar on my 8x10 with no problems with softness, ever. I compared my artar to the 250mm Fujinon and it was no contest for the artar. Longer Artars have even less (perceived) issues of coverage/sharpness when it comes to 8x10, I'm willing to bet you have an artar with a flipped element.

[Michael Jones]

Mike and Michael, are you contact printing or enlarging/scanning for enlargement?

Just looked up coverage and is claimed in the mid 40 deg. That will cover 8x10 with not a lot of room to spare at infinity. Of course focused closer in adds measurably to the image circle.

bob

Contact printing.

IMHO, few lenses are sharper than a properly focused RD artar. They are considerably sharper than my dagors, even the last batch of gold dot variants. But, Ektars give them a run for the money. Never forget that in its zenith, Eastman Kodak set the standard for all things photographic. They spared no expense in production.

Mike

[Dennis]

the 14 inch RD Artar is my main lens for 8x10. I never run out of movements and it is sharp at infinite. I mainly use mine for still life since that is what I mainly do, and the lens is amazingly sharp after one stop down.

[bvaughn4]

I must need to get it checked out the. I can't even seem to get a sharp image on the GG. Where should I send it and would the cost exceed the value?

Thank you all for the information!

[Craig Roberts]

I've been beat up over this topic a few times. I use a 14-inch RD Artar on 8x10 without any issues at all. I also use a 14-inch Ektar, which I really like. Many others disagree about the artar. Craig

[MIke Sherck]

Mike and Michael, are you contact printing or enlarging/scanning for enlargement?

Just looked up coverage and is claimed in the mid 40 deg. That will cover 8x10 with not a lot of room to spare at infinity. Of course focused closer in adds measurably to the image circle.

bob

Contact printing, and a lot of my work then was probably closer than infinity. Mine was mounted in a Copal 3 shutter.

Mike

[Chauncey Walden]

Bvaughn4, it's not rocket science - even though you're in the right place for that. Look at the curvature of the front of the lens and the back. Are they the same? Does one look slightly flatter than the other? If so, that one element is reversed. If both look the same, then both may be reversed. Take them out and turn them around. They are just single pieces of glass dropped in a holder with a screw in retaining ring.

[bvaughn4]

Hi Chauncey, looked at the outer elements. They appear to have the most curved side facing outward relative to the diaphragm. I'll try it again this weekend and if it doesn't work out for me on the film, will just retire it.