Goerz Doppel Anastigmat Serie III No 7 360mm f6 COVERAGE or lens catalogue

[Tracy Storer]

The lenses with underrated coverage are often lenses for the repro industry, where the utmost critical sharpness (always less in the margins) was the order of the day.

[Hugo Zhang]

I know Protar V 7a 39cm has an image circle of 33 1/2 inch and will cover 20x24 at its smallest stop. The E. Klauss version I have does cover, at least.

[maxi0909]

Coverage increases with magnification. Portraits are shot at higher magnifications than shots of distant landscapes.

That said, there are two coverage concepts. Some say coverage when they mean illumination, i.e., does the lens put enough light in the format's corners. Others say coverage when they mean useful image quality, i.e., does the lens put sharp enough image in the corners.

You have to ask yourself whether your proposed application -- portraits -- needs good image quality in the corners.

You also have to remember that sometimes sellers (choose one) don't know what they're talking about or lie.

The VM says:

In the USA list in 1915-1916 Series IVa was listed for 50° as:
No2 10in focus 1.75in dia 5x7in covered
No3 11.5in 2.33in 6.5x8.5in
No4 14in 2.5in 8x10in
No5 17in 3.125in 11x14in
No6 20in 3.5in 14x17in

So a 17 inch Euryscop Ser. V. will cover around 16". This is considerably shorter than 16x20's diagonal.

So If I understand you correctly, my Voigtländer lens could cover 16x20 with a little less sharp corners?

There is a american guy names Giles Glement who uses a Goerz 500mm 4.5 Dogmar lens. This lens also should also just cover 11x14, but he does 16x20 portraits with it, even with good corner quality seen from my perspective.

[Dan Fromm]

So If I understand you correctly, my Voigtländer lens could cover 16x20 with a little less sharp corners?

There is a american guy names Giles Glement who uses a Goerz 500mm 4.5 Dogmar lens. This lens also should also just cover 11x14, but he does 16x20 portraits with it, even with good corner quality seen from my perspective.

On the face of it, no. 16x20's diagonal is around 25". That's a lot more than 16". I've directed you to the list. It has a link to a discussion that explains how to calculate image circle for distances closer than infinity given image circle at infinity. Do the calculation.

The Dogmar covers 60 degrees stopped well down. Again, whether it will cover 16x20 well enough for portraits depends on what "well enough" means and on how close up the portraits are.

[Hugo Zhang]

People don't care much about corners when doing portraits which are usually done at close distance with extended bellows. In another world, a lens that covers 11x14 at infinity will probably cover 16x20 at portrait distance. But a lens shorter than 30" does not give a pleasing prospective for 16x20 portrait.

[maxi0909]

On the face of it, no. 16x20's diagonal is around 25". That's a lot more than 16". I've directed you to the list. It has a link to a discussion that explains how to calculate image circle for distances closer than infinity given image circle at infinity. Do the calculation.

The Dogmar covers 60 degrees stopped well down. Again, whether it will cover 16x20 well enough for portraits depends on what "well enough" means and on how close up the portraits are.

I´m sorry... maybe I´m to dumb to understand this, or I need more time :/

There is a Goerz 500 4.5 for sale right now... should I buy this one instead of my Voigtländer No 6 ? Because I liked how the Goerz renders on the 16x20 images I saw. Or do you mean I would get a slightly same look with my Voigtländer?

[karl french]

Have you ever shot ultra large format? You might consider starting with 8x10 in order to get a feel for large format portraiture and landscape work. Ultra large format portraiture presents some unique problems based on focal lengths and bellows extension in terms of the logistics of using the camera.

It seems like you're ready to spend a lot of money before you know what you're doing.

[maxi0909]

Have you ever shot ultra large format? You might consider starting with 8x10 in order to get a feel for large format portraiture and landscape work. Ultra large format portraiture presents some unique problems based on focal lengths and bellows extension in terms of the logistics of using the camera.

It seems like you're ready to spend a lot of money before you know what you're doing.

Hello Karl, that´s not the problem, I already have everything, but the dark room is still in progress, will be ready in mybe 4 weeks...

But I´m still confused because I can see a full image on my 16x20 screen with both of the mentioned lenses, although everybody says, that both of them will not cover that format. Maybe it´s just illumination.

Therefore I wanted to ask if people used them for this format and have experience with it.

[erian]

Hello Karl, that´s not the problem, I already have everything, but the dark room is still in progress, will be ready in mybe 4 weeks...

But I´m still confused because I can see a full image on my 16x20 screen with both of the mentioned lenses, although everybody says, that both of them will not cover that format. Maybe it´s just illumination.

Therefore I wanted to ask if people used them for this format and have experience with it.

Coverage is usually given for infinity. When you focus closer then the coverage will increase. There are exceptions. For example coverage for reproduction lens is given for 1:1 and infinity coverage is half of it. Also coverage angle of Petzvals is rather small and when somebody says that it covers say 8x10" then they usually mean portrait distance, not infinity.

[maxi0909]

Coverage is usually given for infinity. When you focus closer then the coverage will increase. There are exceptions. For example coverage for reproduction lens is given for 1:1 and infinity coverage is half of it. Also coverage angle of Petzvals is rather small and when somebody says that it covers say 8x10" then they usually mean portrait distance, not infinity.

Thanks Erian, I thougt it would be this way, then everything would be okay