PDA

View Full Version : Verito 9 inch Diffused Focus F4



bracan
6-Aug-2012, 04:56
Anyone know the circle on this? Would it cover 8x10?

Thanks

Corran
6-Aug-2012, 05:04
The 11.5" barely covers so I doubt the smaller ones would.

You could try converting it by taking off the front element.

bracan
6-Aug-2012, 05:16
Does that mean if I taking off front element, I cant get diffused look?

Thank you Corran

Corran
6-Aug-2012, 05:33
It is still diffuse, at least when I've taken the front element off of my 11.5 it is very diffuse so I assume the same will be true of your 9".

bracan
6-Aug-2012, 05:51
Thanks a lot Corran!

goamules
6-Aug-2012, 07:30
My 7 1/2 inch covers wholeplate (6 1/2 X 8 1/2), so I'm pretty sure a 9 inch would cover 8x10. Veritos seem to cover a lot. I can check if you need, but if you have the 9" in hand, it will be easier for you to check.

bracan
6-Aug-2012, 07:51
Unfortunatelly dont have a lens in my hand:(
Anyway, Thanks!

eddie
7-Aug-2012, 03:37
Would it cover 8x10?

Thanks

no. It is a 5x7 lens at best.

goamules
7-Aug-2012, 05:55
no. It is a 5x7 lens at best.

Eddie, if a smaller 7.5" covers 6 1/2 X 8 1/2, why would a longer 9 inch only cover 5x7?! Maybe at your higher latitudes in NY they don't cover as much?

Paul Ewins
7-Aug-2012, 06:10
If you check the 1912 Wollensak catalog on Seth Broder's Camera Eccentric site ( http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/wollensak_9.html ) you will find the Verito on page 12. The 9" is listed as suitable for 5x7, for 8x10 you needed the 14 1/2" version.

William Whitaker
7-Aug-2012, 07:48
My 8 3/4" Verito covers 8x10. I had a 9" at one time, but never tried it on 8x10. I don't see why it wouldn't cover if the slightly shorter lens does. Does the OP have a 9" Verito or is he only considering buying one? 9" is kind of short for doing portraits on 8x10 (if portraiture is even the goal).

But that brings up another factor. If the lens is to be used as a portrait lens, then it will probably be used at extensions greater than the nominal focal length, which would allow for somewhat better coverage.

Speaking of coverage with regard to a Verito is a little misleading. Coverage is usually taken to refer to an area of critical sharpness inside the circle of illumination. And a Verito is not critically sharp anywhere. My experience with Veritos is that they do have a wide field of illumination, although the image tends to suffer the further off axis one goes. But again, subject matter and the way the lens is used has much to do with its suitability. If your subject matter is close to the center and the edges of the field are out of focus and darker anyway, then what the lens is doing out there isn't really noticeable anyway.

I'd like to ask the OP what he intends to photograph and what he's trying to accomplish before determining if a 9" Verito is suitable or not.

Removing the front cell will yield a lens with a longer focal length and a slightly slower speed, but with similar characteristics otherwise. I didn't find a conversion focal length listed for the 9" lens, but an 8 3/4" Verito converts to a 14" lens with the front cell removed. The 9" should be similar.

bracan
7-Aug-2012, 10:51
Yes Will, my intention is to use 9'' Verito for portraits on 8x10 and Im glad that you answer my question:)
Anyway I will take the lens, try it and share my knowledge here on thread:)
Thank you everybody on answers!

Mark Sawyer
7-Aug-2012, 11:07
Given a choice, I'd hold out for a 14". Even though the 9" converts to 14", it will be slower, and (I think) the Verito has a slightly nicer look unconverted.

To Will's excellent answer, I'd add that the Verito does have an area of "critical sharpness", but it's overlaid with the image from spherical aberration. The sharp image is important, as it keeps the soft image from looking just out-of-focus. You'll lose some of that sharpness in the corners with a 9-inch on 8x10, but on portraits it will seldom matter; it may even be an advantage holding interest more in the center.

But my 8 3/4" Verito makes a nice soft landscape or close-up lens on 8x10. It's also very sharp with a lovely smooth look at f/32. You may need a 9" and a 14"! :)

goamules
7-Aug-2012, 11:39
During lunch I checked my 9" Verito, and it does cover 8x10 easily. But like everyone says above, it's not really meant to be an 8x10 inch lens. This setup would be useful as a slight wide angle for landscapes, but not for portraits because of the perspective.

bracan
8-Aug-2012, 03:31
Hello Garrett, can you post, if you have, some photographs from 9" Verito on 8x10? I am curious about perspective in portraits?
Thanks!

goamules
8-Aug-2012, 09:00
Sorry, I have not taken any on 8x10 with the 9". But here is one on wholeplate with a 7.5"

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7251/7647676914_0f5a6c1bc2_c.jpg

bracan
8-Aug-2012, 09:42
Excellent! Thanks Garrett!
Wholeplate of 8x10?

goamules
8-Aug-2012, 10:16
Wholeplate is 6 1/2 X 8 1/2 inches.

bracan
8-Aug-2012, 14:48
Thank you Garrett!

eddie
11-Aug-2012, 16:23
Using a 7 or 9 inch lens for portraits is far far from ideal.

The perspective is way off!

Just cause it "lights" the corners does not mean it covers.

As posted on page one the 9 inch is designed for 5x7. Use them as u would. But please stop apreading mis information.

REALLY? Come on guys. U know better! Most non wide angle lenses in 7 to 9 inches are NOT suitable for 8x10. Even many wide angle lenses in 7 inches do not do 8x10 well. The 165mm super angulon DOES cover very well.

Eddie

goamules
11-Aug-2012, 16:29
Quick, someone delete this thread! The edge effects police and anti-vignetting photography guild might come get us for even suggesting a short lens will cover more than the old catalogs suggest.

eddie
11-Aug-2012, 17:08
Yes. Please delete the thread before the misinformation gets any worse. Pretty soon 5 inch lenses will cover 8x10.......but it lights the corners.....doh!

Soon you guys will be saying the 9 inch verito will cover 11x14! Mayne even 12x15!

*slapping forehead*

goamules
11-Aug-2012, 17:38
Anyone know the circle on this? Would it cover 8x10?

Thanks


no. It is a 5x7 lens at best.


Yes. Please delete the thread before the misinformation gets any worse. Pretty soon 5 inch lenses will cover 8x10.......but it lights the corners.....doh!

Soon you guys will be saying the 9 inch verito will cover 11x14! Mayne even 12x15!

*slapping forehead*

*wondering why you're slapping yourself* I did say a 9" will cover a lot better than a 5x7, and can prove it, and it's been verified by a lot of photographers who have actually used them. I also said it won't be a good length for portraits on 8x10. We all know the catalogs were conservative, and that a lot of lenses cover a lot more than they recommended. Why are you so concerned people might choose shorter, and cheaper length Veritos? Are you going to suggest using a "too short" petzval is bad too? Many photographers are doing that every day, going against the vendor's 100 year old recommended focal lengths. Is swirl, vignetting or edge aberrations "wrong?" I think not, but I'll Let the User Judge.


My 8 3/4" Verito covers 8x10.


...But my 8 3/4" Verito makes a nice soft landscape or close-up lens on 8x10...

eddie
11-Aug-2012, 17:43
Lighting corners does not prove anything.

That photo actually looks pretty bad. the very center is worthy. The rest looks like crap.

Really. Better cull what crap images you post. It does not make your point so well. That photo strengthens what i am saying.

Now post one taken with a 14 1/2 inch verito.... I bet it is far more asthetically pleasing.

goamules
11-Aug-2012, 18:04
Lighting corners does not prove anything.

That photo actually looks pretty bad. the very center is worthy. The rest looks like crap.

Really. Better cull what crap images you post. It does not make your point so well. That photo strengthens what i am saying.

Now post one taken with a 14 1/2 inch verito.... I bet it is far more asthetically pleasing.


You go ahead and post one of yours!

bracan
11-Sep-2012, 11:00
Ok guys, My Verito is arrive and can cover 8x10:)
Sorry for bad image, it was on hurry without flashmeter, Sinar P8x10, shoot on expired Polaroid 809 on f6.

80330

goamules
11-Sep-2012, 14:08
Delightful image!

William Whitaker
11-Sep-2012, 14:37
Nice!

Paul Ewins
11-Sep-2012, 16:07
Delightful image!
Really?? Do you think the distorted proportions are actually attractive? I would have called this a classic example of why you don't use a wide angle lens for portraits.

goamules
11-Sep-2012, 16:34
Really?? Do you think the distorted proportions are actually attractive? I would have called this a classic example of why you don't use a wide angle lens for portraits. What do you care what I think is delightful? I like sushi, do you like sushi? Wait, don't answer that, cause I could care less.

Louis Pacilla
11-Sep-2012, 18:29
Really?? Do you think the distorted proportions are actually attractive? I would have called this a classic example of why you don't use a wide angle lens for portraits.

I was thinking the same thing. Not to be critical it's just way to short a FL to be used as head and shoulders portrait lens for 8x10. Now don't forget that You can use the rear cell by itself for a FL of 14 1/2" f5.6 that will still have nice diffusion wide open and a much better drawing.

premortho
12-Sep-2012, 14:41
I wish Bracan had shot it both ways, 9 and 14 1/2 to see the difference in drawing. I don't think the 9 inch draws very well. My first thought when I saw the portrait was to wonder if her grandfather was Hank Saur, 1950's era outfielder for the Chicago Cubs of whom it was said no one would throw him a brushback pitch as he could hit singles with his nose. But I think this the result of the drawing of the 9 inch lens
I was thinking the same thing. Not to be critical it's just way to short a FL to be used as head and shoulders portrait lens for 8x10. Now don't forget that You can use the rear cell by itself for a FL of 14 1/2" f5.6 that will still have nice diffusion wide open and a much better drawing.

bracan
12-Sep-2012, 15:22
Yes, you right. Its not for portraits but I just tested. I was curious about coverage. One of these days will try with rear cell.
Thank you everybody and remember, dont fight. No reason:)
PS. Girl have a big nose:)

premortho
12-Sep-2012, 16:38
Maybe her grandfather WAS Hank Saur!
Yes, you right. Its not for portraits but I just tested. I was curious about coverage. One of these days will try with rear cell.
Thank you everybody and remember, dont fight. No reason:)
PS. Girl have a big nose:)

Mark Sawyer
12-Sep-2012, 16:52
It would be pretty good for portraits on 5x7, and perfect on 4x5. I agree with the suggestion to try the 14.5" conversion for portraits on 8x10. And it's still a fine soft lens on 8x10 for distant-portrait and non-portrait work.

retnull
12-Sep-2012, 17:59
A feisty thread indeed.
I'm enjoying the action from back here in the cheap seats.

bracan
24-Sep-2012, 02:46
Sinar P4x5, Wollensak Verito 9 inches f4 wide open on Fuji FP3000B 45.

80951

Jim Graves
24-Sep-2012, 15:55
Beautiful!

Louis Pacilla
24-Sep-2012, 16:05
I like the 9" FL on the 4x5 Fujiroid. Nicely done. Bravo!

bracan
25-Sep-2012, 03:37
Thanks guys!
It was just fast check on Fujiroid.

premortho
25-Sep-2012, 13:08
Yes, that portrait really shows off the softness potential of the much maligned Wolly glow. Much maligned by those who don't use them, I mean.