PDA

View Full Version : Lens for 11X14 format



norm the storm
21-Dec-2012, 09:27
Hi

If you have choice for a lens to do lanscape, mostly rural with a 11 x 14 camera (Seneca) and you choose just 1 lens. What will be your choice? For me, I'm looking for a moderate wide angle. My choices are Dagor 300 f6.8 or 360 f7.7, Symmar-S 300 or 360 5.6 and a Nikon-W 360 f6.5. I just want one lens for now. What is your choice between these? Are they optimized for infinite?


Thank you. Any advise will be appreciated.
Happy new year!!

mdm
21-Dec-2012, 13:41
Pick the cheapest one and go with it. Should be fine.

evan clarke
21-Dec-2012, 13:51
355 G Claron

Len Middleton
21-Dec-2012, 14:02
My choices are Dagor 300 f6.8 or 360 f7.7, Symmar-S 300 or 360 5.6 and a Nikon-W 360 f6.5. I just want one lens for now.

I do not know the 11x14 seneca, but given the size and weight of some of those plasmat lenses you are looking at (Symmar S, Nikon W 300 & 360/5.6 or 6.5), I would check how rigid my front standard was and whether it is able to support that weight.

For that reason, Evan's suggest of a 355 G-Claron is a good one.

Erik Larsen
21-Dec-2012, 14:27
355 is a pretty wide view on 11x14 IMO. If I were stuck with only one lens I think I would get a 420 or 480 like an RDA or similar.
Regards
Erik

Lachlan 717
21-Dec-2012, 15:08
Rodenstock Grandagon 200mm. Crop where necessary.

Jim Fitzgerald
21-Dec-2012, 20:45
15" Ilex process Paragon. It is in a barrel but has great coverage, is light and cheap. I use one on my 8x20 as well.

Kirk Fry
21-Dec-2012, 23:44
The diagonal is 17.8 inches. A 14 in Commercial Ektar is reported to cover straight on.

Phil Hudson
22-Dec-2012, 15:39
Nikkor-M 450/9 is relatively light without feeling too "wide"......

Michael Kadillak
22-Dec-2012, 15:59
I shoot 11x14 and the directive of "moderate" wide angle takes you into the 15-17" range where the process lens that Jim mentioned is spot on or the Nikon 450M as Phil recommended is equally exceptional. The 450M has great coverage, contrast (multi coated) and is small and light. Normal on 11x14 to me seems to be 24". Yes, the 355 G Claron is kick ass for coverage but on 11x14 it is a true wide angle - no moderate about it.

Michael Kadillak
22-Dec-2012, 16:05
The diagonal is 17.8 inches. A 14 in Commercial Ektar is reported to cover straight on.

It barely covers with little room for any movements. The minute you employ any forward tilt it starts to sputter and cough. I love the lens dearly but it is a better choice for 8x10 IMHO. The 355 G Claron has such massive coverage and sharpness it is my go to lens on 8x20, 11x14 and 12x20 when I can't take any steps back and I need the shot. Stop down to f45 and smile when the shutter trips......

evan clarke
22-Dec-2012, 17:25
It barely covers with little room for any movements. The minute you employ any forward tilt it starts to sputter and cough. I love the lens dearly but it is a better choice for 8x10 IMHO. The 355 G Claron has such massive coverage and sharpness it is my go to lens on 8x20, 11x14 and 12x20 when I can't take any steps back and I need the shot. Stop down to f45 and smile when the shutter trips......


Yep, the 355 g is the best solution.

norm the storm
22-Dec-2012, 18:50
Yep, the 355 g is the best solution.

I read in the Leslie Stroebel's book that the 355 G Claron is not designed for infinite shots but I'm sure you're all right about sharpness and coverage.

By the way, the bellow sags at moderate extension or shorter. In some pictures, I saw a kind of bracket that holds the bellow on the side.


http://www.piercevaubel.com/cam/seneca/sennewvar2.htm

Is it possible to buy this and to install it on the camera?

Thank you

norm the storm
23-Dec-2012, 07:01
I read in the Leslie Stroebel's book that the 355 G Claron is not designed for infinite shots but I'm sure you're all right about sharpness and coverage.

By the way, the bellow sags at moderate extension or shorter. In some pictures, I saw a kind of bracket that holds the bellow on the side.

http://www.piercevaubel.com/cam/seneca/sennewvar2.htm

Michael Kadillak
23-Dec-2012, 08:42
I read in the Leslie Stroebel's book that the 355 G Claron is not designed for infinite shots but I'm sure you're all right about sharpness and coverage.

By the way, the bellow sags at moderate extension or shorter. In some pictures, I saw a kind of bracket that holds the bellow on the side.

http://www.piercevaubel.com/cam/seneca/sennewvar2.htm

Does not surprise me that Stroebel arrives at that conclusion. Within that academic condition every "process" lens would be deemed as less than optimal. However the real world of making quality photographs has long known of the fact that these process lenses are absolutely marvelous in LF and ULF photography. Specifically just stopping down the G Claron to f22+ is all that one needs to do to minimize some of the optical aberrations that could come into play. What Stoebel does not tell you is that the G Claron design is essentially a modern Dagor. I am inherently more confident in what I see over what I read when it comes to LF photography and the G Claron is about as good as it gets. Spend time talking to fellow photographers about their experiences making photographs as that is what this forum is all about and I can promise you much success in what works.

As far as the bellows sag, if in fact you experience some put a cloth under the bellows and make your photograph. Most times simple is the best solution because it works. I would also keep a dark cloth over your camera back when you have a film holder inserted and you are pulling the dark slide to make an exposure. It is incredibly easy to fog ULF sheet film.

c.d.ewen
23-Dec-2012, 10:03
Norm: Just so that you, a fellow Senecan, know that these existed, I'll post a picture.

I'm feeling guilty, once again, about not using the toys I've had laying about for the last umpteen years; never looked through this lens. I can't recall what the focal lengths of this lens are. Maybe that's a task for a quiet Christmas afternoon.

Charley

Dan Fromm
23-Dec-2012, 11:16
What Stoebel does not tell you is that the G Claron design is essentially a modern Dagor. I am inherently more confident in what I see over what I read when it comes to LF photography and the G Claron is about as good as it gets.

Eh? Wot? Early G-Clarons are dagor types, later ones are plasmats. Do you mean to say that plasmats are modern dagors?

There've been discussions about whether Schneider ever made 355/9 dagor type G-Clarons. They never quite reached a firm conclusion, but IIRC while the discussion was live no one admitted having one. I asked Schneider, was told that dagor types all have serial numbers < 11,000,000 and that some (no mention of how many) 355 dagor type G-Clarons were made.

neil poulsen
23-Dec-2012, 11:29
Even Schneider states that the G-Clarons can be used at infinity, as long as they're stopped down. They're pretty conservative in their recommendations.

The Schneider 360mm Symmar-S can be found for very reasonable prices ($400?), and it jsd s 495mm image circle. Stop it down a bit, and the coverage can be extended. You are probably going to be contact printing, unless you have an 11x14 enlarger. So, demands on lenses for 11x14 aren't as great.

If you can find one, a really great lens for 11x14 would be a Dagor 16.5" f7.7. (420mm). These can cover 16x20 stopped down. It would be even better to find a factory coated example.

Michael Kadillak
23-Dec-2012, 11:38
Eh? Wot? Early G-Clarons are dagor types, later ones are plasmats. Do you mean to say that plasmats are modern dagors?

There've been discussions about whether Schneider ever made 355/9 dagor type G-Clarons. They never quite reached a firm conclusion, but IIRC while the discussion was live no one admitted having one. I asked Schneider, was told that dagor types all have serial numbers < 11,000,000 and that some (no mention of how many) 355 dagor type G-Clarons were made. My comment was made figuratively not literally referring to effective image circle and the symmetrical design. Someone very skilled in this arena told me that the G Claron was pretty darn close to the basic design. Dagors were famous for their image circle and that is where I am making the "relative" comparison. I am not making the direct technical comparison.

sanking
23-Dec-2012, 14:05
The Schneider 360mm Symmar-S can be found for very reasonable prices ($400?), and it jsd s 495mm image circle. Stop it down a bit, and the coverage can be extended. You are probably going to be contact printing, unless you have an 11x14 enlarger. So, demands on lenses for 11x14 aren't as great.



You can also use the older 360mm f/5.6 Symmar convertible, 360/510. The large apertures gives a very bright image on the ground glass that makes composition and focus on ULF about as easy as it can get. The only down side is that the front element is quite large.

Sandy

neil poulsen
23-Dec-2012, 16:51
Amen. The 360mm Symmars are HUGE! For example, the 360mm Symmar-S lenses have a filter size of about 121mm. (Maybe that's why one can find them for such reasonable prices.)

norm the storm
23-Dec-2012, 17:43
Thank you Michael for advise and trick about the bellow.

Ari
23-Dec-2012, 20:41
The Calumet 360 S-II (re-branded Symmar-S) covers 500mm at f22, but as Neil says, they are huge.

ImSoNegative
24-Dec-2012, 00:17
355 is a pretty wide view on 11x14 IMO. If I were stuck with only one lens I think I would get a 420 or 480 like an RDA or similar.
Regards
Erik

+1

Vaughn
24-Dec-2012, 02:18
While not usually a wide-angle sort of guy, the Computar 270/9 is pretty sweet on the 11x14!

Mark Sawyer
24-Dec-2012, 12:30
Just a note to the OP who may not know, but the Dagor and Plasmat are very closely related. The Plasmat is a Dagor with a couple of cemented elements separated, allowing for more corrections in the surface shapes; the Plasmat was also called an "Air-Spaced Dagor". Performance is very similar, but the Dagor has a slight bit more coverage. Oh, and you'll have to pay a small fortune for that 360mm f/7.7 Dagor you mentioned in your first post.

Michael Kadillak
24-Dec-2012, 15:19
While not usually a wide-angle sort of guy, the Computar 270/9 is pretty sweet on the 11x14!

I was fortunate enough to have seen the Computar lenses first hand when Sandy showed me what they are capable of. I acquired the 240mm Computar for the 11x14 and the 305mm Computar for the 8x20/12x20. Amazing coverage on these lenses but one has to be careful with field curvature at the extremes when shooting architecture. Their other application is as macro lenses where they shine in keeping your bellows extensions within your range of capability for your camera.

Bernice Loui
24-Dec-2012, 20:50
Schneider 480mm f4.5 Xenar.


Bernice

Michael Kadillak
25-Dec-2012, 17:11
Just a note to the OP who may not know, but the Dagor and Plasmat are very closely related. The Plasmat is a Dagor with a couple of cemented elements separated, allowing for more corrections in the surface shapes; the Plasmat was also called an "Air-Spaced Dagor". Performance is very similar, but the Dagor has a slight bit more coverage. Oh, and you'll have to pay a small fortune for that 360mm f/7.7 Dagor you mentioned in your first post.

Thanks Mark. Your observations are consistent with what I was told about these optics but did not have the specific details.