Sandy King (sanking@hubcap.clemson.edu)
Sun, 31 Jan 1999 22:14:53 -0400
Steve Shapiro wrote:
>We're not talking Brownie Hawkeye, here, and cheap to make it available to
>everybody. Larger than 4X5 is a special dedication; and all the time and
>trouble to make one negative, I don't want to focus through cheap lenses.
>Been there, done that. Cried a lot. I'd rather pay the price and get more
>from the gallery.
>
>Steve Shapiro, Carmel, CA
No question, large format equipment, even used, can be very expensive.
However, I don't think Tom Ferguson was recommending the use of cheap
lenses. The fact is there are a lot of inexpensive lenses available used
that will produce results in contact printing with most, if not all, of the
alternative processes that are for all practical purposes indistinguishable
from the results using modern lenses costing 3-10 times as much.
Granting that we could debate the above proposition, there is another
consideration regarding lenses, availability. Very few modern optics with
sufficient coverage for the larger formats (11X14, 7X17, 8X20 and 12X20)
are manufactured these day, and when available, tend to be extremely
pricey. And, as the size of the format gets larger, choices are fewer and
fewer. For example, what modern lens around 300mm will cover the 12X20
format? I don't know of one, but the 12" Dagor (or at least some of them)
will cover this format, if stopped down to f/45.
There seems to be quite a number of photographers on this list using
ultra-large format cameras, including the banquet formats. I would be
interesting in hearing from them regarding the lenses being used, perhaps
with some comments about their coverage and quality. In the hopes of
getting some interesting feedback I will begin with the lenses I use on
12X20.
1. 12" f/6.8 Dagor, uncoated, has a circle of illumination that will just
cover 12X20 when stopped down to f/45 and centered and aligned with the
back (though in actual use one or more of the corners is often vignetted
because of camera adjustments). There is an appreciable decrease in image
sharpness at the extreme corners of the image on the negative, not
noticeable on the print at normal viewing distances. Overall, a sharp and
contrasty lens. Relatively small and light in an Alphax shutter.
2. 360mm Schneider Symmar coated. When stopped down to f/32 coverage is
about equal to the 12" Dagor, but the image at the corners is quite a bit
sharper than the Dagor. Like the Dagor in actual use one or more of the
corners if often vignetted in using this lens. Overall, perhaps a tad
sharper than the Dagor, better contrasts, and better corners sharpness.
But, 60mm longer. Large and fairly heavy lens in a Compur shutter.
3. 19" f/7.7 Process Dagor coated. Huge image circle, covers 12X20 wide
open and easily covers 20X24 stopped down to f/32. Not quite as sharp as my
12" Dagor and about the same contrast. Some slight glass separation which
may cut down on contrast of this lens, even though it is coated. About the
same size as the Symmar, but heavier, in Betax #5 shutter
4. 420 f/9 Apo-Nikkor. Recently acquired lens. Has a circle of illumination
that covers 12X20 wide open. Have not had an opportunity to make any prints
with this lens but initial tests on paper negatives clearly show even
illumination over the entire 12X20 format and sufficient sharpness I
believe) for contact printing over most, perhaps all, of the field. Rather
light lens, on a Packard shutter.
Let me know if you have any questions, and I look forward to comments from
others on this topic.
Sandy King
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:48