I am working on 1.6 mm pinhole at 20 to 24"
Used famous historical sizing math from the 15th century
Bought a fancy hole, been reading a lot of pinhole theory
My goal as already stated is 14X36" X-Ray
A big wood box with adjustable innards
I may add a bellows for a real lens
Now into winter work as
Winter is coming
Tin Can
Depends on usage. I mainly enlarge, do quite a bit of color work, and most of this being outdoors, prefer lighter equipment options. Still, my 8x10 daypack runs around 45 lbs, since I do also keep a reasonable amount of weather-related clothing and emergency items in there too. But my largest format is 8x10, so my personal requirement in a 360 lens need only serve that size well. I currently have four different lenses that focal length suitable for 810 usage. My favorite and most versatile is a Fuji A 360/f10. The greater image circle of the similarly designed 355 G-Claron simply seems to be due to the lesser mechanical vignetting of its no.3 shutter versus the no.1 on the Fuji A, which has a generous image circle for 8x10 itself, but would be only marginally useful for 11X14 head-on without any spare wiggle room for movements. But 11X14 and 12X20 format shooters nearly always contract print anyway, so there you have it.
Similarly, I have quite a bit of experience with the later Kern 14 inch Dagors, both single-coat and multi-coated. They are extremely well color corrected, though not quite to the same apo degree as Fuji-A's and G-Clarons, and certainly not like the extreme correction of Apo-Nikkor, which I also own in its 360 version. But the Dagors have less tangential resolution than the Fuji A or GC, affecting more serious tilts or swings, and are not as well close-range corrected either. Where they excel, however, is in sheer contrast (sometimes too much so, especially for color chrome work). So for my own 8x10 use, these are all fine, plus a 360/9 Zeiss barrel process lens I keep on hand for its excellent "bokeh" characteristics. But none of the above except the GC can be recommended by me for ULF work - anything larger than 8x10. I don't personally own a GC in that particularly focal length, but otherwise have plenty of experience with them.
Another factor : sometimes stopping a lens way down is essential simply due to the increasing amount of film sag risk the larger the film becomes, unless you've taken the trouble to make a precision vacuum or adhesive film holder option. Then there are very serious depth of field issues with the longer lenses associated with very large film formats. So stopping way way down often simply comes with the territory. But since 1X contact prints are generally in mind, that's not such a serious issues at all except for the significantly longer exposure times involved.
I remember when Thomas Cooper asked Ansel if he (Thomas) should move up from his 5x7 to 11x14. AA recommended against it for the same reasons. Almost a half century after I heard that story, Thomas is still using his old 5x7...and I bought a beautiful Chamonix 11x14.Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
Yes indeed. Personally, I don't abide by the f/64 group philosophy; I prefer my wide-angle images (yes, especially the wide-angle ones) to have a limited depth of field and have something out of focus at the background as well as in front of the focus plane. And I often tilt my lenses so far that the equidistant out of focus subject parts are rendered as the background in one parts of the picture and as the foreground in the other parts of the frame. That means (1) not too small the apertures even in the ULF; (2) at least reasonably good out of focus rendition in both the background and the foreground, and (3) really good sharpness within the (small enough) chosen depth of field.
I like to watch my contact prints with a magnifier. I find the impression of seeing a single tree leaf bent by the wind (a sharp one, as the shutter speed was enough to avoid any motion blur, and the aperture was wide enough to avoid any diffraction-caused unsharpness) in a landscape with lots of such trees, in a landscape that looks fine as a whole without any magnifier - I find that just amazing. I think that's the LF is for. Otherwise, why not make that landscape with a DSLR? As a whole, it wouldn't look worse. But what will you see in a print from a DSLR image with a magnifier? Nothing but pixels. With an LF contact print, a magnifier is a powerful tool for further exploration.
I was really disappointed when I saw some genuine Ansel Adams 8x10" contact prints at an exhibition for the first time. I was not disappointed by his compositions. I was disppointed by the lack of sharpness in his 8x10's. Because I remembered my own 6x8" image made with a common 210mm Convertible Symmar at f/16 just a couple of months before.... Yes I was one of the rare freaks that came to any exhibition with at least a 5x loupe in their pockets....
No I don't like any f/64 images. Yes that certainly affects my lens preferances....
Thanks for the info. I got the long end cover. The shorter end I have is 450mm nikkor and 600c fuji. According to my previous research, I kinda realised that anything shorter at the 360mm ish is basically unicorn like other post has suggested. But never hurt to ask if I missed something obvious. Pinhole is possible but I much prefer to have a real lens if there is one.
Thank you!
There is no 360mm lens with 800mm image circle. Protar V 39cm has the largest coverage and will cost you 3-4k. It is very sharp stopped down at F/64. There is no 360mm Protar v. A 305mm Protar V will cover 16x20 at infinity with no movement and with dark corners. The sharpest 360mm lens for ULF work with decent coverage is 14" Trigor. 14x17 at infinity with dark corners.
Zeiss Dagor F/9 lenses are very sharp with tons of coverage. A 24cm F/9 will cover 11x14 with movement.
It looks like that 13" Wollensak will do the job. Now the OP's challenge will be to find one for sale.
It certainly seems that, across the board, the longest focal lengths in a manufacturer's lens line were made in the smallest numbers. (I have no data to support that surmise, though).
Perhaps member Whir-Click will speak up... the ad and chart shown above came form his site, and he knows a lot about Wollensak lenses.
Which website is that
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks