16 1/2in Red Dot Artar vs 420mm Fujinon L for 7x17

[EdC]

As part of filling a gap and getting the longest practical lens for my F&S 7x17, I've been doing some research on 420mm lenses. I've done some careful research on the forums here, and elsewhere. I only recall seeing one reference where the poster mentioned that the Red Dot Artar would cover 7x17 at other than 1:1, which is not what the manufacturer indicates in the 1951 catalog. As much as I respect these lenses, I do want some closer focusing capability. I've gotten some information on the 420mm Fujinon, and it would appear to have more than enough coverage. Anyone have any thoughts on this? I'm also looking to use this for 8x10, also.

Thanks,

Ed

[Dan Fromm]

I don't know where you looked. This source http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byseries.htm says the Fuji 420 L covers 480 mm @ f22 @ infinity. This source http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/goerz_3.html says the 16 1/2/9 Apo Artar covers ~ 300 mm + 15% = ~ 350 mm @ infinity @ f/?.

7x17 wants around 467 mm. The Fuji is marginal, the Artar won't make it.

[Luis-F-S]

I don't shoot 7X 17 but routinely use the 16 1/2 inch Artar on 8 x 10 with no issues, but a much smaller diagonal than 717.

[EdC]

I don't know where you looked. This source http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byseries.htm says the Fuji 420 L covers 480 mm @ f22 @ infinity. This source http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/goerz_3.html says the 16 1/2/9 Apo Artar covers ~ 300 mm + 15% = ~ 350 mm @ infinity @ f/?.

7x17 wants around 467 mm. The Fuji is marginal, the Artar won't make it.

Thanks, Dan! Here's one of the references that I was referring to for Artar coverage:

http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?...overage.21456/

FWIW,

Ed

[DMS206]

I have a 16-1/2" red dot artar that I use on 12x20, covers fine without much room
for movements.

[Thom Bennett]

I tried the Fuji 420 L on my 7x17 and, while it seems to cover, the image edges appeared "stretched." The 450mm Nikon covers with no issues.

[Michael Kadillak]

I have a 16-1/2" red dot artar that I use on 12x20, covers fine without much room
for movements.

I carefully use a 19" Red Dot on 12x20 so my question and quite possibly why there is some disparity on this general issue among ULF photographers is the interpretative term "Optimal Format Coverage". Some lenses have varying issues with image sharpness/contrast as one takes the image circle out to its maximum and for some it is acceptable and for others it is a show stopper. Clearly the issue is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I never feel comfortable at the edge of the circle of illumination for fear I will unintentionally cross the line and purposefully employ optics that cover much more than necessary. It does not take much of a swing on a panoramic camera to find yourself in the doghouse. You only have to do it once and you remember that ill feeling fondly.

[karl french]

The Nikkor 450 works quite well on 7x17, but you can't focus very close at all. If you want to work in close a 355 G Claron is a good choice.

[Michael Kadillak]

The Nikkor 450 works quite well on 7x17, but you can't focus very close at all. If you want to work in close a 355 G Claron is a good choice.

Just to clarify your comment. You must be referencing to not having enough bellows to use a Nikon 450 M in macro mode on a particular 7x17 camera because there is only 4" of focal length between them. Clearly the lens is capable of being deployed in a macro photograph as any lens is assuming you have the bellows to support such objectives.

[karl french]

F&S 7x17 only just has enough bellows for the 450 Nikon. About 4 teeth on the focusing track left when focused at infinity.