Voigtländer Euryscop No. 6 Series IV Real World Coverage ?

I just bought this huge and lovely Viogtländer lens, but my dark room is just in progress. I would be happy if anyone used this lens on a ULF camera and coul tell me the highest possible Coverage of this lens (maybe in portrait and landscape option)

Thanks a lot, can´t wait for your answers :)

http://www.antiquecameras.net/1890lenscatalogue.html

See page 7. It covers 14x17 wide open and 18x22 with a smaller stop. I suspect it would cover 20x24 with a small stop. It's a 21.3" (542mm) lens and does throw a large sharp image circle. Though keep in mind that a rapid aplanat like this will have quite a bit of field curvature wide open. It does flatten as you use smaller stops.

I think you should be thinking more about focal lengths for the type of portraits and landscapes you want to shoot. Generally, portraits are more flattering when shot with a lens slightly longer then the standard focal length. I also have a Euryscop IV No. 6. Which I bought with slightly wide 12x20 landscapes and 12x15 portraits in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karl french

http://www.antiquecameras.net/1890lenscatalogue.html

See page 7. It covers 14x17 wide open and 18x22 with a smaller stop. I suspect it would cover 20x24 with a small stop. It's a 21.3" (542mm) lens and does throw a large sharp image circle. Though keep in mind that a rapid aplanat like this will have quite a bit of field curvature wide open. It does flatten as you use smaller stops.

I think you should be thinking more about focal lengths for the type of portraits and landscapes you want to shoot. Generally, portraits are more flattering when shot with a lens slightly longer then the standard focal length. I also have a Euryscop IV No. 6. Which I bought with slightly wide 12x20 landscapes and 12x15 portraits in mind.

---

Thanks a lot, I would say my maximum Coverage should be 16x20, this is my largest camera.

There is a american guy names Giles Glement who uses a Goerz 500mm 4.5 Dogmar lens. This lens also should just cover 11x14, but he does 16x20 portraits with it and I love the look of this focal length... Has this lens more Coverage? If yes, should I buy this lens instead?
Otherwise it´s 40mm less than the Voigtländer... This diffuses me.

Different max f stops, different looks and different focal lengths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugo Zhang

Different max f stops, different looks and different focal lengths.

---

Okay, do you have more information about both lenses?

So longer focal length doesn´t mean more Coverage...

https://www.cameraeccentric.com/catalogs

https://www.antiquecameras.net/1890lenscatalogue.html

Usually longer lenses are better for portraits. In old days, you add width and length of the format together and use a lens of that focal length. For example, for 8x10 portraits, a lens of 18" is preferred. Some people even go further by adding the longer wide of the format together, a 20 inch lens for 8x10 portraits.

I have Euryscop IV #6 and and an earlier 19" Celor which was also made by Goerz. Both are great for 8x10 head and shoulders and full body for 11x14.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugo Zhang

https://www.cameraeccentric.com/catalogs

https://www.antiquecameras.net/1890lenscatalogue.html

Usually longer lenses are better for portraits. In old days, you add width and length of the format together and use a lens of that focal length. For example, for 8x10 portraits, a lens of 18" is preferred. Some people even go further by adding the longer wide of the format together, a 20 inch lens for 8x10 portraits.

I have Euryscop IV #6 and and an earlier 19" Celor which was also made by Goerz. Both are great for 8x10 head and shoulders and full body for 11x14.

---

Did you ever tried your Voigtländer lens in bigger formats than 11x14? :)

I looked at reflected upside down head/shoulder images on my 16x20 ground glass and didn't make the exposure. It covers and I think you can even use 14x17 if not for head/shoulders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugo Zhang

I looked at reflected upside down head/shoulder images on my 16x20 ground glass and didn't make the exposure. It covers and I think you can even use 14x17 if not for head/shoulders.

---

I don´t understand well, you said it covered 16x20 with head and shoulders. But why not 14x17 for head and shoulders? 14x17 is smaller than 16x20?

It covers both 14x17 and 16x20 for head/shoulder shots, but the pictures don't look pleasing because the lens is too short for these formats.