What lens will work for a 35x35 inch ULF mammoth wet plate camera?

[computterman]

I missed this thread last month. But Monty is right, photographers need to first find the lens, and then decide what size plates they can make. Not the other way around. So many people have contacted me over the years requesting an impossible set of parameters, such as the proverbial Petzval that is Big, Fast, and Cheap (pick any 2). Or needing to cover a size that requires a lens a rare as hen's teeth.

If and when I decide to shoot my 47" Hermagis Aplanat (rapid rectilinear) that's exactly what I will do. Mount it temporarily in a dark room window, or a giant box, and SEE what it covers. Make plate holders accordingly.

Does it fit on µ4/3 (Lumix for example) with an adapter ring?

[erian]

Does it fit on µ4/3 (Lumix for example) with an adapter ring?

It does but the adapter has to be long and strong. You will also get very well corrected image because lens were best corrected in the middle. It would be an interesting experiment indeed.

[carterwj]

Hello everyone. I am in possession of a Schneider 47.5 inch Artar lens. I also have a Schneider 35 inch Artar. Does anyone know the image circle size of these lenses? Any literature would be appreciated.

[angusparker]

Hello everyone. I am in possession of a Schneider 47.5 inch Artar lens. I also have a Schneider 35 inch Artar. Does anyone know the image circle size of these lenses? Any literature would be appreciated.

35”” should be (18x22" @ 1:10)
(1,510 @ 1:1)
47.5” should be (25x32" @ 1:10)
(2,050 @ 1:1)

See more here on big lenses: https://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blo...ndations-14x17


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[angusparker]

Should say the numbers are mm when not stated as inches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Dan Fromm]

35”” should be (18x22" @ 1:10)
(1,510 @ 1:1)
47.5” should be (25x32" @ 1:10)
(2,050 @ 1:1)

See more here on big lenses: https://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blo...ndations-14x17


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Divide the 1:1 numbers by 2 to get the circle covered at infinity.

[David Lindquist]

Maybe a bit redundant here but...
I have a Goerz Optical Co. leaflet on the Red Dot Artar, date code probably 1967. It shows the plate diagonals covered at infinity as well as various reductions; no aperture specified. The 35 inch Red Dot Artar covers a diagonal of 25.5 inches at infinity; the 47 1/2 inch Red Dot Artar a diagonal of 32.7 inches. Optimum f/no, for both these lenses is f/22. As Dan says, these figures are half what is shown covered at 1:1.

David

[Jim Andrada]

IIRC there used to be huge repro cameras that used 30 x 40 or so film in vacuum backs - the backs were built into the wall of a darkroom where all the film handling happened and the front of the camera rode on rails in a separate room with fixed lighting. Not sure what lenses they used but they must ave been pretty large.

[Tin Can]

Depends

Portraits can use shorter lenses

I know IRL my 790 mm soft lens and my 900 mm very sharp lens both are good at close range up to 4 X 4 feet film size

[Drew Wiley]

I was given a process camera with a 22 ft long bellows and built in pin-registered vacuum easel. I cannibalized it for just certain components.The longest lens they needed with that was a 760/f11 4-element Apo Nikkor. BUT that was probably in the context of nearly 1:1 color separations, not at infinity. Old spec sheets for graphics lenses don't always give infinity image circle specs (even though many of these lenses are superb at infinity), and when they do, they tend to be VERY conservative simply because repro apo standards are way higher than general photography standards. Of course, anything in that general focal length range is going to give a rather wide angle view on the format you are contemplating.