Red Dot Artar 14" f9 at Infinity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Layton

...so if I were in the market for a 450mm Fujinon-C, but my current needs were for 5x7, then I might be at least equally well served by a 19" Red Dot Artar?

---

As a bit of trivia as much as anything else, Goerz made a 450mm Red Dot Artar. In their literature they refer to it as a 17 3/4 inch/450mm lens. Oddly enough the few examples I've seen (three, all on ebay) were engraved "45 cm" rather than the usual marking of the focal length in inches. In a shutter these, like the 19 inch RDA, will be in a No. 4 Acme so maybe not as desirable as the 450 mm Fujinon-C's No. 1 Copal. I have a No. 3 and and a No. 4 Acme. Their fastest speeds are, shall we say, aspirational but the speeds do test out as consistent.

David

David, Thanks for the Red Dot specs. It's interesting.

Since my lens was mounted by S. K. Grimes, my suspicion would be that it was barrel mounted. But, it could have also been from a shutter that was beyond repair.

I'm curious, how does the magnification of a Red Dot compare with that of a typical Plasmat?

Thank you David...interesting about that 45cm version and at some point I'll keep my eyes peeled for one. As for accuracy of higher shutter speeds, this is of little importance to me as I typically use anything quicker than about 1/15th, and usually much slower than this. But to the extent that I still often use timed speeds - the aspect of consistency is very important

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neil poulsen

David, Thanks for the Red Dot specs. It's interesting.

Since my lens was mounted by S. K. Grimes, my suspicion would be that it was barrel mounted. But, it could have also been from a shutter that was beyond repair.

I'm curious, how does the magnification of a Red Dot compare with that of a typical Plasmat?

---

I looked through my Schneider and Rodenstock literature, my holdings aren't exhaustive but don't immediately see anything about their plasmats (Symmars and Sironars) being set-up for an optimum reproduction ratio. I mean maybe they are optimized for something like 1:20 resulting in excellent performance out to infinity and still good performance close-up? There are some forum members very knowledgeable about lens design who might have some ideas here.

Did come across a couple of things related to this subject. A bit of Rodenstock literature on the shutter mounted Apo Ronars says they are "ideal for taking close-up photos..." And furthermore that due to their correction for all types of aberrations they are also "ideally suited for photographing objects at infinity."

And a blurb I have on the Super-Symmar XL Aspheric (definitely not a plasmat) notes their "high tolerance for different magnification ratios..."

David

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Lindquist

I looked through my Schneider and Rodenstock literature, my holdings aren't exhaustive but don't immediately see anything about their plasmats (Symmars and Sironars) being set-up for an optimum reproduction ratio. . . .

---

That's what I was thinking . . . 1:20 or so. (Versus 1:8; but, definitely not 1:1.) That's ideal for my needs.

Again, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dugan

From what I have read, only the 'pre-RD' Artars were optimized for closer focusing than infinity.

---

So are the G-Clarons, they still work fine at infinity. L

Used one on my whole plate and at infinity many a time. Consistently stopped down to F/64. The contact prints were excellent in every way. I read once that for using the optic at infinity the lens spacing should be adjusted... in my experience totally theoretical for making contact prints. Now if I were enlarging the whole plate negatives, it might be another story. If memory serves me well, I thought that Fred Picker used the same or similar focal length Artar for shooting 4x5s. Maybe he had some thoughts on the optic in his news letters?

i have used a 19" RD Artar on an 8x10 camera for work at infinity. It was extremely sharp and provided plenty of resolution to make 30"x40" color prints. This was on the job (although I would have liked to use the setup for personal work).
It had been my understanding that the Artar, being a symmetrical design, would perform equally well for both close and distant subjects. Apparently I was wrong about that... but I still would have no hesitation to use a Red Dot Artar at any focus distance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg

Used one on my whole plate and at infinity many a time. Consistently stopped down to F/64. The contact prints were excellent in every way. I read once that for using the optic at infinity the lens spacing should be adjusted... in my experience totally theoretical for making contact prints. Now if I were enlarging the whole plate negatives, it might be another story. If memory serves me well, I thought that Fred Picker used the same or similar focal length Artar for shooting 4x5s. Maybe he had some thoughts on the optic in his news letters?

---

I have one of Fred Picker's photo books, and I have almost all of his news letters. The former includes a photograph of the side of an old, rustic building (door, window, etc.) Each photograph in the book is coupled with a description of what he was after, equipment used, etc. For this photograph, he used an 8x10 camera with one of his favorite lenses, a 12" Red Dot Artar. He commented that the lens just covers 8x10 at whatever aperture he used.

We'll see what coverage I get. Based on Fred Picker's comment, were mine mounted in a Copal 3, I would expect some additional movement. But being mounted in a Compur 2, I'm not so sure. But of course, there will be no lack of coverage for 4x5.

One of my reasons for purchasing this lens, I look forward to photographing a very old violin. I'll begin with 8x10, which will be a magnification of about 1:4. But if photographed on 4x5, I'll hit the sweet spot for this lens at 1:8 magnification. T'will be interesting to see how it comes out. I know that I want a razor sharp image.

A 450 Fuji C will be more compact in a smaller shutter, yet have a significantly larger image circle. But both are 4-element airspaced "dialyte" design optimized for infinity. But the Artar will probably perform better at very close (near macro) range than the Fuji C. The Goerz Artar series was extenuated under Schneider Artar labeling with more modern shutters.

As a backpacker type, conscious of weight and bulk, I opted for the Fuji C as opposed to Apo Artars or Apo Ronars. I get a lot of use out of it for both 8x10 and 4x5 formats.