Choice of Artar for 8x10

[Kevin Klazek]

I am trying to decide on the 16 1/2 in or the 19 in RDA for 8x10 use (mostly B&W landscape). I will soon have a fuji 300c and will need a second longer lens. How different are these focal lengths in real use? Are there any specific characteristics of either lens that should be considered? I am thinking whichever comes up first as the best deal is the one to take, but perhaps I am missing something.

Thanks for your help.

[Dan Fromm]

Look here: http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/ar..._apo_kompl.pdf

If you believe Schneider, at infinity and f/22 the 16 1/2 will just barely cover 8x10. So if you want movements you should want a 19 incher.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

I am trying to decide on the 16 1/2 in or the 19 in RDA for 8x10 use (mostly B&W landscape). I will soon have a fuji 300c and will need a second longer lens. How different are these focal lengths in real use? Are there any specific characteristics of either lens that should be considered? I am thinking whichever comes up first as the best deal is the one to take, but perhaps I am missing something.

Thanks for your help.

Kevin,

I don't mean to avoid ansering your question, but have you considered a 450mm Fujinon C? It's based on the classic Artar (4/4) design. Is very compact, comes in a modern Copal No. 1 shutter, is multicoated, readily available new and used, reasonably priced, takes the same inexpensive 52mm filters as your 300mm Fujinon C, is multicoated, optimized for infinity and covers 11x14 with room to spare. If you like your 300mm C, why not get it's big brother?

Kerry

[Claude Sapp]

As long as Kerry brought it up...I would trade my 19 Artar for the Fujinon 450 in a second. Smaller size and standard filter threads are the biggest benefits I seek.

Regarding the coverage, my 14" Artar covers with full rise on my 8x10.

[Michael Jones]

I must be a contrarian. I sold my Fuji 450 and replaced it with the 16 1/2" Artar several years ago and never looked back. Yes, the Artar is only single coated and has an Ilex shutter, but I prefer the image quality on Tri-X over the Fuji. I have no problem with 8x10 coverage with boat loads of movements (and on 7x17). I also use it more that the 19" Artar; just personal preference for a slightly wide view. Just my 2 cents. Enjoy.

Mike

[Michael Kadillak]

I must be a contrarian. I sold my Fuji 450 and replaced it with the 16 1/2" Artar several years ago and never looked back. Yes, the Artar is only single coated and has an Ilex shutter, but I prefer the image quality on Tri-X over the Fuji. I have no problem with 8x10 coverage with boat loads of movements (and on 7x17). I also use it more that the 19" Artar; just personal preference for a slightly wide view. Just my 2 cents. Enjoy.

Mike

I would have to agree with Michael.

I have the Fuji 600C and the 450C and while they are both very sharp lenses, from my perspective they lack a bit of the contrast that is exhibited in the Red Dot series and the Nikon 450M. Their compactness is a strong atribute - make no mistake about it, but I will put up with a bit of additional weight and even deal with an Ilex shutter as long as I get what I want on the print. Plus you are going to get a heck of a better deal on a Red Dot particularly with the 16 1/2". I have seen a bunch for sale recently.

Coverage is not an issue with the 16 1/2" as it covers 8x10 like a big dog. Just remember to get used to utilizing a compandium or a lens shade at all times.

Cheers!

[John Kasaian]

I can't comment on the other lenses mentioned here, but I have a 19" RD Artar and I think that it is a fine lens for landscapes (though I only shoot B&W) The #4 Acme has never caused me any grief either. I can't really compare it to a Fuji since I don't have one, but compared to a 14" Commercial Ektar, my 19" RD Artar is considerably lighter and more portable---with the lensboard reversed it will fold up inside the 'dorff.

[Struan Gray]

... a 450mm Fujinon C? It's based on the classic Artar (4/4) design.

Nitpick: I thought the Fuji Cs were Tessars?

I like long lenses on 4x5. I would love to have a 450 C, but when I looked at the prices, a process lens just made more sense. I ended up with a 420 Apo-Ronar. It is in a Copal 3, but the glass adds little weight and it is possible to squeeze it onto a Technika board, so it's no too dreadful a solution as a field lens. Apo-Ronars are plentiful and cheap compared to the RD Artars here in Europe, and it's easy to find them in multicoated versions with modern shutters. The long ones (600 mm and up) are quite a bit heavier than equivalent Artars, especially the aluminium barrel Artars, but for 19" and less the difference is not significant unless you are a titanium spork type.

I used an 18" barrel lens for some years before getting the 420 Ronar. I looked at the 19" lenses, but the bellows and rail length on my standard field kit dictated a shorter lens if I were to photograph anything closer than infinity. I would like the longer view, but it is equivalent to losing less than half an inch off the edges of a 4x5 neg, so cropping the shot from the shorter lens is no disaster. Close focussing and movements are more useful to me.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Nitpick: I thought the Fuji Cs were Tessars?

Nope, they are 4/4 Celor/Artar types.

The Nikkor M series are Tessar (4/3) types.

Kerry

[Ole Tjugen]

And here I was, thinking that both Celor and Artar were Dialytes...