Goerz Red Dot Artars
Darrell A. Larose
and Gold Dot Artars. My local used camera shop has
just got in a 9 1/2" f:5.5 in shutter, and a huge
30" f:12.5. How do these stack up against modern
glass?
Ref: http://www.camera-exchange.com/teasers.htm
Darrell Larose
Ottawa, Canada
Richard Knoppow
Is the f/5.5 a Red-Dot Artar? I don't think they were made this fast
AFAIK f/9 is the maximum speed at any focal length.
The Red-Dot is pretty close to anything made now, a very sharp lens
but with limited coverage. At infinity it will cover an image circle
about equal to its focal length but this is larger than the official
rating.
While the lens is optimized for 1:1 or close to it the correction is
very stable for this type so there is only a little coma picked up at
the corners, which disappears when the lens is stopped down to normal
LF working stops (around f/22). The coverage does not get larger when
stopping down.
The Gold-Dot Dagor was built by Kern in Switzerland for Schneider.
It is evidently a re-design using different glass than that used for
Goerz American Optical lenses and has somewhat better performance. The
Dagor is essentially a wide angle lens. The type has an inherent
problem with zonal spherical aberration which shows up as a slight
softness when used wide open and some focus shift when stopped down.
The Kern lens seems to have less of this than earlier Dagors.
Red-Dot Artars are coated but may actually be no different than
older versions otherwise. One wound have to know the prescriptions for
the lenses to know if there were differences in glass types or other
changes. Since these were proprietary they are probably unknowable.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Tim Daneliuk
I have both a 14" f/9 RD Artar and a 19" f/11 APO Artar. both of which I
had Steve Grimes reshutter into modern Copal lenses. I use them on
a Wisner 4x5 field camera and am *very* happy with both lenses - they are
tack sharp & nice and contrasty. I dunno how they would compare with
a modern, latest design lens - probably not quite as good on an optical
bench, but I wonder how much difference you could actually *see*. However,
given that total investment for either lens (including new shutter) was
well under $1000, and comparable lenses look to be in the almost $2000+
range, I think I got a good value. If you don't care about having
a new shutter, I've seen these lenses go (w/an older shutter like an Ilex)
for around $500 or so.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
tun...@tundraware.com
annqlee
How much did mounting the 19" cost? There is one 19" RD artar for $125.
I don't know if I should get it. If I can make the whole thing less than
$300 :)
then I would get it.
Ann
"Tim Daneliuk" <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote in message
news:3AFFDA47...@tundraware.com...
Wayne
mount is over $200.
Wayne
Tim Daneliuk
You'd have to ask Steve Grimes to get an exact answer, but the total cost including a
brand new Copal shutter and all the labor was around $500 or so as I recall. Steve
does absolutely pristine work, BTW - Very Highly Recommended.
Brian Downey
I highly recommend Steve Grimes for this type of work. He just mounted a
12" Schneider Red Dot Artar for me into a new Copal 1 shutter, charging $225
to "chop" the lens plus the cost of the new shutter. Work is perfect,
service fast, and Steve is always willing to answer questions etc.
To mount the 19" Artar you're looking at $225-$250 to chop plus another $380
for a new Copal 3 shutter, (of course plus the cost of the barrel lens
itself). Steve's web site has a great page on how he does this:
http://www.skgrimes.com/lensmount/24art/index.htm
and another chart showing recommended shutters for various barrel lenses:
http://www.skgrimes.com/fits/index.htm
and a page on the Copal shutters:
http://www.skgrimes.com/products/index.htm
(He says his shutter prices are with trade in of an old shutter but includes
engraving the f-stop scale on the new shutter's housing.)
Good luck with your project!
Brian Downey
"annqlee" <ann...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:9dp3h9$df9$1...@news.service.uci.edu...
Ken Showalter
for them. I'm using them all with Packard shutters and an Iris clamp( saving
about $3000 in shutters and lensboards) and am happy with the results. The
APO's in barrels are available very reasonably if you have patience and
according to SK Grimes are essentially the same as the Red Dots.
Ken Showalter
--
Large Format Photography: On the Net 3500 Links (under Construction)
http://whatsonthe.net/largeformat.htm
Add/Del, Comments K...@whatsonthe.net
"Darrell A. Larose" <ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9dn7dn$in8$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
Richard Knoppow
>Hi Tim,
>
>How much did mounting the 19" cost? There is one 19" RD artar for $125.
>I don't know if I should get it. If I can make the whole thing less than
>$300 :)
>then I would get it.
>
>Ann
I will also recommend Steve Grimes. However, the easiest and cheapest
way to adapt barrel lenses is with a rear shutter. This can be a
simple shutter like the Packard or a standard large shutter with means
of mounting lenses on its front. Either can be set up to work with a
variety of lenses by the use of some means of interchangible mounting.
The shutter can be fitted with either an adaptor for lens boards or
with an iris-diaphragm clamp. The latter will instantly accept any
lens within its size capacity.
The Packard shutter is simple and reliable but has essentially only
one speed, around 1.20th to 1/30th, depending on the size of the
shutter and how hard you squeeze the bulb.
A large shutter, like a #5 Ilex Universal or a large Wolensak Alphax
or a Compound, will give you a range of speeds. All of the above can
be set to synch strobe.
Even though a back shutter causes some vignetting during its opening
and closing at the slow speeds used for large format this effect is
completely negligible.
Since a single shutter can be used for many lenses it becomes
cost-effective to invest in a decent shutter.
NO machine work is needed for a Packard but to use a standard
shutter an adaptor tube will have to be made. Not difficult for
someone skilled in lathe work and does not require the precision of
remounting barrel cells in the shutter, which must preserve spacing.
I have a #5 Ilex shutter equipped with an adaptor which takes 5-1/4
square lens boards. I also have a board with an iris clamp on it.
If I make another I will not bother with the lens board arrangement
and just use an iris clamp mounted on the shutter.
BTW, this arrangement also allows the use of enlarging lenses turned
backward for micro work. The clamp fits around the front of the lens
allowing the stops to be adjusted from the outside.
One can also set up a Packard shutter on a board with a clamp, works
fine within the limitations of the shutter.
---
Pam Niedermayer
mount, but still in the $120+ range, I'm told because photo equipment
has finer threads.
Pam
Richard Knoppow wrote:
> ...
> NO machine work is needed for a Packard but to use a standard
> shutter an adaptor tube will have to be made. Not difficult for
> someone skilled in lathe work and does not require the precision of
> remounting barrel cells in the shutter, which must preserve spacing.
> ...
--
Pamela G. Niedermayer
Pinehill Softworks Inc.
600 W. 28th St., Suite 103
Austin, TX 78705
512-236-1677
http://www.pinehill.com
Tim Daneliuk
>
> Actually even this is very expensive these days, less than a full
> mount, but still in the $120+ range, I'm told because photo equipment
> has finer threads.
>
> Pam
>
> Richard Knoppow wrote:
> > ...
> > NO machine work is needed for a Packard but to use a standard
> > shutter an adaptor tube will have to be made. Not difficult for
> > someone skilled in lathe work and does not require the precision of
> > remounting barrel cells in the shutter, which must preserve spacing.
> > ...
> --
I've never used these types of shutter. I know that they are
quite popular among some shooters. I guess I went with the
Copal for convenience in the field which is where I shoot 99+%
of my LF stuff. I am very happy with the results. One of my
favorite images of a running stream was shot with the 19" APO Artar
with the Wisner bellows cranked *way* out in Zion National park
about 4 years ago. The lens does everything I've ever asked it to
and the new shutter makes for one less mechanical gremlin to
worry about. My total cost for the 19" plus Steve's shutter work
was about $700 which I did (and do) consider a bargain when compared
to equivalent newer lenses (which may be "better" but I doubt I could
see the difference from a 4x5 neg blown up to 16x20).
The other nice thing about this vintage of lens is that many will
cover 8x10 or larger. Dick probably knows this by heart, but if
I recollect properly, the 19" will just about cover 11x14 when stopped
down and the 14" RD will similarly just about cover 8x10 when stopped
down. In my list o' things to do, I want to get out to my woodshop
one day and build me a camera that produces *giant* negatives. I'll
build it to take the Wisner lens boards and the 19" APO is jest waiting
for that day ;) If I can figure out a way to do so reasonably, I'd
actually like to take a page from the old photographers and design
the camera to do double duty as an enlarger when stood on its end...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
tun...@tundraware.com
Pam Niedermayer
(adapters) I need with Copal #1's and possibly a Nikon 950, it's just
that the lenses (2 Dallmeyer Adons and a Boyer Perigraphe) aren't
meant to be mounted like more modern lenses, have to be simply front
mounted (not 100% sure of the Boyer), and they have odd sized mounting
threads that don't match any modern shutter.
Pam
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> Pam Niedermayer wrote:
> >
> > Actually even this is very expensive these days, less than a full
> > mount, but still in the $120+ range, I'm told because photo equipment
> > has finer threads.
> >
> > Pam
> >
> > Richard Knoppow wrote:
> > > ...
> > > NO machine work is needed for a Packard but to use a standard
> > > shutter an adaptor tube will have to be made. Not difficult for
> > > someone skilled in lathe work and does not require the precision of
> > > remounting barrel cells in the shutter, which must preserve spacing.
> > > ...
> > --
>
> I've never used these types of shutter. I know that they are
> quite popular among some shooters. I guess I went with the
> Copal for convenience in the field which is where I shoot 99+%
> of my LF stuff. I am very happy with the results....
Richard Knoppow
The threads in the shutter itself are not particularly fine in most
shutters. The idea is to have an adaptor made for a larger shutter
which allows a variety of lenses to be mounted on it without
modification to the lens. This is done by adapting the shutter to take
a lensboard or by mounting an iris clamp on it. With the clamp you
don't need anythign further, not even flanges. For the lens board
arrangement you need to mount each lens on a board which fits the
shutter. My shutter is set up for 5-1/4" boards, same as used on 5x7
Agfa/Ansco view cameras and I have an adaptor for 4x4 Anniversary
Graphic boards. I also have an iris clamp on a lens board. If I make
another one I will simply mount the iris clamp directly on the shutter
and not bother with the boards.
Iris clamps show up every so often on eBay but evidently have not
been made for decades, so are not plentiful. This arrangement can be
made for any large shutter: a Packard or a large standard shutter.
Since the cost of the adaptor is a one time expense, and since the
shutter will work for any lens within its size capacity, the adaptor
is actually quite economical.
Richard Knoppow
Artars are "dyalite" type lenses, four-element air-spaced types where
the plano- or bi- convex or concave (as compared to the double-Gauss
type where all surfaces are concave to the stop). They have a family
characteristic of rather narrow coverage. Typically the coverage is
given as an image circle somewhat less than the focal length but
Artars will cover an image circle equal to the focal length, at
infinity, without vignetting, although there is little left beyond
this. There will be some loss of image quality at the corners but
these lenses are so sharp that its not really too bad.
Pam Niedermayer
condition I'm seeing, are very heavy, and depending on your lens
selection you may need two diaphragms. In my case the real kicker is
the size lens board required is too big for the 4x5. However, you're
right, I misread what you were saying.
Pam
Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
> Pam Niedermayer <pam_...@cape.com> wrote:
>
> >Actually even this is very expensive these days, less than a full
> >mount, but still in the $120+ range, I'm told because photo equipment
> >has finer threads.
> >
> >Pam
> >
> >Richard Knoppow wrote:
> >> ...
> >> NO machine work is needed for a Packard but to use a standard
> >> shutter an adaptor tube will have to be made. Not difficult for
> >> someone skilled in lathe work and does not require the precision of
> >> remounting barrel cells in the shutter, which must preserve spacing.
> >> ...
>
Wayne
> another one I will simply mount the iris clamp directly on the shutter
> and not bother with the boards.
How would you mount an iris clamp on a shutter? I've got a BIG clamp and
I'm starting to accumulate lenses that I'd like to use in a non-Packard
shutter. I've never seen a #5 shutter, but this clamp must be bigger
than one. It takes up virtually the entire lensboard on my Ansco 8x10.
Wayne
Richard Knoppow
That's a very big clamp especially if your camera has the old large
size lensboard.
The arrangement I have is simply a sheet of metal fastened to an
adaptor tube which screws into the shutter. This sheet is folded at
the edges to form a lens board holder. For a clamp you would need only
a flat sheet large enough for the clamp.
I've had to mark the speeds for my shutter on the side since the
front scale is obscured by the adaptor. This arrangement allows me to
use any lens within the size of the shutter. The clamp must be mounted
with enough space to clear what ever psrt of the lens sticks inside,
not usualy very much. Since both regular and Packard shutters are
expensive this method of making a shutter usable with a bunch of
lenses is very economical plus it saves having to modify and remount
the lenses. It can also be used for lenses mounted in broken shutters
provided their iris stops still work.
Wayne
>
> Wayne <wste...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>
> >Richard Knoppow wrote:If I make
> >> another one I will simply mount the iris clamp directly on the shutter
> >> and not bother with the boards.
> >
> >How would you mount an iris clamp on a shutter? I've got a BIG clamp and
> >I'm starting to accumulate lenses that I'd like to use in a non-Packard
> >shutter. I've never seen a #5 shutter, but this clamp must be bigger
> >than one. It takes up virtually the entire lensboard on my Ansco 8x10.
> >
> >
> >Wayne
> That's a very big clamp especially if your camera has the old large
> size lensboard.
Its 5 1/2 inches diameter. the iris will accept lenses up to 3 3/4
inches diameter.
Yup, its a biggy!
> The arrangement I have is simply a sheet of metal fastened to an
> adaptor tube which screws into the shutter. This sheet is folded at
> the edges to form a lens board holder. For a clamp you would need only
> a flat sheet large enough for the clamp.
> I've had to mark the speeds for my shutter on the side since the
> front scale is obscured by the adaptor. This arrangement allows me to
> use any lens within the size of the shutter. The clamp must be mounted
> with enough space to clear what ever psrt of the lens sticks inside,
> not usualy very much. Since both regular and Packard shutters are
> expensive this method of making a shutter usable with a bunch of
> lenses is very economical plus it saves having to modify and remount
> the lenses. It can also be used for lenses mounted in broken shutters
> provided their iris stops still work.
This sounds like an interesting arrangement. It would be neat if you
could scan a pic of it someday.
I love my clamp but its obviously too big to mount on a shutter.
Wayne