Discussion in 'Large Format' started by anthonymarsh, Jun 30, 2021.
Any opinions about GOERZ 8 1/4" F 9 APOCHROMAT ARTAR red dot ?
Artars were made for the printing/copying trade as reproduction lenses. Many similarly designed "apo", Aviar type and f/9 lenses from the likes of Rodenstock, Schneider, Nikon, Taylor Hobson, etc. flooded the market when newspaper and publishing houses went digital.
In my view they're all much of a muchness and of (potentially*) excellent quality. However, the C.P.Goerz versions seem to have developed a legendary reputation, and price-tickets to match!
* All old lenses are only as good as their condition allows. Personally, I’d rather have a TTH Cooke Apotal or Rodenstock Apo Gerogon in mint condition - both not very sought after lenses with a consequent low price - than a Red Dot Artar that's been "polished" to death with a dirty rag by some misguided and over-zealous copy-camera operative.
I forgot say that I would like to know if this lens would work on a 4 x 5 for landscapes.
It probably won't have as much covering power as a Schneider Symmar, Rodenstock Sironar or equivalents from Fuji and Nikon and f/9 instead of f/5.6 will be darker on the ground glass, but it should work well enough. One of my favorite lenses on 4x5 is a Nikkor M 300 mm f/9, an apo lens optimally corrected for infinity instead of close ups like the Artar you mentioned. In bright sunlight a good focusing cloth takes care of the f/9 problem; in the studio with flash/modeling lights it can be more difficult.
I would second Rodeo Joe's comments about condition--there are a lot of formerly great old lenses that have been "cleaned" to mediocrity, and of course the shutter can also be problematic.
Repro and copying lenses generally have a stated covering angle of around 43 degrees. That would give an image circle diameter of 165mm with an 8.25" focal length. More than enough to cover 5”x4”.
However, that 43 degrees isn't a hard cutoff, and the image quality standard for a copying lens is more stringent than for pictorial work. So you can probably add at least another 10% coverage to that image circle without the corners becoming noticeably soft.
IME repro and copying lenses work just fine at "infinity".
I intend to use it for landscapes. Any opinions regarding this application?
It should be fine for landscapes--ordinarily most photographers don't use a lot of camera movements for that kind of photography so covering power shouldn't be an issue. If you were planning on using this routinely for architectural photography you would be more likely to run out of covering power and want a lens with more like a Symmar, Sironar or some other Plasmat type lens.
Separate names with a comma.