Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

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

  1. #11
    William Whitaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    'Twixt the mountains and the sound
    Posts
    1,267

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

    Quote Originally Posted by karl french View Post
    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.
    +1

    The Nikkor-M 450 is a wonderful lens and if larger formats are in your future, it will serve you well for those, too. Too bad F&S was stingy with their extensions.... but for what they were intended, they were great designs.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Central Indiana
    Posts
    98

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

    Quote Originally Posted by karl french View Post
    F&S 7x17 only just has enough bellows for the 450 Nikon. About 4 teeth on the focusing track left when focused at infinity.
    Karl is absolutely correct. I was looking at 420mm focal length so that I would have some ability to focus at other than infinity. Certainly can't do that with the 450mm on the F&S, unfortunately. The lenses that I've picked up to work with 8x10 and 7x17 would be 210mm Computar, 10 3/4in Dagor, and 360mm Symmar. I was hoping to pick up a longer lens that would give me something close to a normal lens for 7x17 and slightly long for 8x10.

    FWIW,

    Ed

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    596

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

    I have used a 19" Artar lens on my 7X17 Korona but the rig is a bit wobbly with the extension. I normally just use a 265mm Ilex Kowa which provides coverage with minimal movements.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Central Indiana
    Posts
    98

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Thom Bennett View Post
    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.
    Thanks to Thom for this commentary. That Fuji isn't a super common lens, so I'm reluctant to pick one up only to find out that there are issues with performance towards the edge of the coverage. I have not seen any other comments on this lens. Speaking of which, another poster indicates that he has been able to use a 16-1/2in Artar on an 12x20. The question that I would have is whether it's circle of illumination or actual sharp image. So, with the various comments that everyone has contributed, it doesn't look like either lens would be a safe bet for coverage. Is there anything else that comes to mind? I have seen mention that a 16-1/2in Dagor would cover with room to spare, but I've not seen one for sale, and hate to think of what it would cost. Open to suggestions!

    Ed

  5. #15
    New Orleans, LA
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    558

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

    I realized, as the thread went on, that you have a F&S, not the Korona which has a rear extension and can handle the longer lenses. While I don't have one yet, I understand that the 355 G-Claron is a great lens for 7x17 and would not be too far off, as far as focal length, as the 420. I use the 305 G-Claron on the 7x17 and it's sharp and has decent coverage.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Central Indiana
    Posts
    98

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Thom Bennett View Post
    I realized, as the thread went on, that you have a F&S, not the Korona which has a rear extension and can handle the longer lenses. While I don't have one yet, I understand that the 355 G-Claron is a great lens for 7x17 and would not be too far off, as far as focal length, as the 420. I use the 305 G-Claron on the 7x17 and it's sharp and has decent coverage.
    That's correct, Thom! I do have the F&S. I know that some people use a 450mm for infinity focus only, but I want more flexibility for subjects a little closer. I appreciate the suggestion regarding the 355mm. I have a 360mm Symmar. While I was frankly shocked at just how large this thing was when I unpacked it, it's not much heavier than the G-Claron, and offers a bit more coverage, which is attractive, since I plan on using that lens on 8x10 also.

    At any rate, I'm getting the distinct impression that I'm not likely to find something that will work, so I guess I can leave it at the three lens kit that I referenced earlier in this thread.

    Thanks,

    Ed

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Tonopah, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    6,199

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

    Ed, take the front off of the 210 Computar and see what you get on the ground glass. Bingo. That lens is so well corrected I doubt you'd need an orange filter to land colors on one plane. Let us know how it goes. Theres so much stuff out there floating around. I've got a 16" APO tessar that came in a junk box that is so valueless I've never thought of selling it, and it makes marvelous images. Don't get in a hurry.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep..to gain that which he cannot lose. Jim Elliot, 1949

  8. #18
    William Whitaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    'Twixt the mountains and the sound
    Posts
    1,267

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

    In the spirit of Jim's post, above... Perhaps there is a 5x7 triple convertible, one cell of which might be in the range you seek. I have seen some which list a focal length in the vicinity of 16" Of course, with single cells, some of the old familiar devils may pop up again (focus shift, stopping down for optimum aperture). Still, with little else to consider, that may be the final frontier. You sure there's not a way to build a front/rear extension for the F&S?

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Central Indiana
    Posts
    98

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Will Whitaker View Post
    In the spirit of Jim's post, above... Perhaps there is a 5x7 triple convertible, one cell of which might be in the range you seek. I have seen some which list a focal length in the vicinity of 16" Of course, with single cells, some of the old familiar devils may pop up again (focus shift, stopping down for optimum aperture). Still, with little else to consider, that may be the final frontier. You sure there's not a way to build a front/rear extension for the F&S?
    Interesting suggestion , Will! The question that comes to mind would be what the cost would be. If it's expensive enough then I'd be better off selling and going with another camera.

  10. #20
    William Whitaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    'Twixt the mountains and the sound
    Posts
    1,267

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

    Like Jim said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Galli View Post
    Don't get in a hurry.
    And, as somebody else might have said, "Chance favors a prepared pocketbook."

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •