600mm/24" for 11x14

[Michael Mutmansky]

Peter,

I have it on good authority that it'll cover 10x12. Haven't seen one myself though.

The Zeiss f9 dagor has greater coverage than the f8 version from Goerz to my understanding.


---Michael

 

[clay]

I have a Zeiss 150/9, and I can assure you it covers 10x12.

Michael,

The Zeiss 150mm f9 dagor would not cover 10x12 based on my experience with other focal lengths of this design. The 180mm covers 8x10 with movement and probably 10x12 based on the range of movements I get. I have a 75mm version that just makes 4x5 stopped down so I would assume the 150mm just covers 8x10. My 210mm covers 11x14. Maybe there is some variance between lenses and some cover more than others.

I do agree with you and Sandy that there is a market for this design. I would suggest that if you are serious about pursuing a manufacturer, then you're best bet would be Cooke Optics. I talked with their lens designer a little over a year ago and he said they were looking at the possibility of reintroducing modern designs of their wide angle series VIIb. He told me they used modern coatings and exotic glass (lanthanum) for the new triple covertible lens. I am sure they could surpass the performance of the f9 dagors with a modern re-design of the VIIb. I can't remember their designers name but I am sure this could be brought to Barbara Lowry's attention to see if they have any interest.

Peter

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

Well, there's the 'good authority'... How's the holiday going Clay?


---Michael

 

[sanking]

Sandy,

The Zeiss WA dagors will cover more than the Computar, if the 150mm version is any indication. The computar will maybe hit the corners of 8x10, but the Zeiss will cover 10x12 with a little room. I can't say how the performance is for them because I haven't use them. Longer focal lenghts will probably vary in coverage.

The Computars suffer from field curvature terribly in the outer limits of coverage, but I suspect that a slight modification to the design could correct that nicely and make a great design for ULF shooters. It's possible to have good sharpness out towards the edges with these lenses, but not at the same time as the center.

I have found that the Computar will cover about 95 degrees so the Zeiss WA Dagor must cover in excess of 100 degrees.

The Computar does have a lot of field curvature but if you stop down the lens to f/45 or f/64 and focus about halfway between the center and far edges of the image it is possible to get very good detail across the entire circle of illumination.

With the regular Dagor and the Angulon the image may be in focus at both the center and the corners but performance is terrible at the edges of the circle of illumination, about 85 degrees for the Dagor and 100 degrees for the Angulon. The Angulon has a larger circle of illumination but from about 90 degrees on out the performance is also very poor.

Just wondering about performance at the far edges with the Zeiss WA Dagor? Better or same as the regular Dagors?

Sandy

 

[pelerin]

Michael,

The Zeiss 150mm f9 dagor would not cover 10x12 based on my experience with other focal lengths of this design. The 180mm covers 8x10 with movement and probably 10x12 based on the range of movements I get. I have a 75mm version that just makes 4x5 stopped down so I would assume the 150mm just covers 8x10. My 210mm covers 11x14. Maybe there is some variance between lenses and some cover more than others.

<SNIP>

Peter

Hi,
I have a 75mm zeiss WA dagor. It covers 5x7 well enough for contact prints (I have never tried enlarging one of these images). Their must be a wide degree of variation amongst these lenses.
Celac.

 

[Hugo Zhang]

Michael,

"Frankly, I'm surprised a Chinese manufacturer has not jumped on board with a reintroduction of WA Dagor designs to meet the LF/ULF market, especially considering the very high value the Zeiss WA dagors go for on ebay. Maybe someone should talk Arax into making a batch of Computars or something similar."

People I know in China is actually going to talk to Zeiss people to see the possibility of a remake of its Protar line for ULF. First is a small and light weight wide lens in the 240mm-320mm range. A few dozen of ULFs have been made and sold in China for last 18 months. I have pictures of the cameras, light weight and well made. These new buyers are desperate to find
lenses to test these cameras. But Chinese trust brand names, so they are going to talk to Zeiss first. Technically, it won't be a big problem to make something like Computar. But they are not sure about patent issues and its market. With a Zeiss name, it's an easy sale in China. People who need a lens are willing to pay up. Just look at ebay sales record of such lenses.

 

[Harrigan]

I can have lenses designed for you but I doubt you can afford to pay for lens manufacturing. The cost to make such lenses is extreme and the market is tiny. If you are serious about wanting a lens designed and built contact me. I have very close connections to very well known optical lens designers. I've had some lenses made myself to my specs but I have to tell you the cost is pretty high and the market is minescule. You can get a decent price on manufacturing lenses but you have to order alot of glass. If you are serious I can help you design and have lenses made. The initial investment is significant but a group of people invensting could make it happen.

 

[Hugo Zhang]

Harrigan,

"The cost to make such lenses is extreme .."

Why? Labor cost? Cost of glass? Machinary? How tiny is the market for such lenses? 200-500 or less? How many ULF users here? How many of them are looking for a wide lens? How much are they willing to pay for such a lens?

 

[pelerin]

I can have lenses designed for you but I doubt you can afford to pay for lens manufacturing. The cost to make such lenses is extreme and the market is tiny. If you are serious about wanting a lens designed and built contact me. I have very close connections to very well known optical lens designers. I've had some lenses made myself to my specs but I have to tell you the cost is pretty high and the market is minescule. You can get a decent price on manufacturing lenses but you have to order alot of glass. If you are serious I can help you design and have lenses made. The initial investment is significant but a group of people invensting could make it happen.

Hi,
An intriguing proposition, can you quantify "the cost is pretty high" or at least provide a range? Are you suggesting similar to the cost of a new Schneider 550, twice the cost, etc.?
Celac.

 

[Harrigan]

The cost is related to many issues including paying the lens designer. The physical size of the glass is an issue and the quantity of production. Basically getting a design and having a prototype made would cost thousands. The lenses I had made weren't too bad but it was a simple stereoscope cemented achromat. Making photographic objective would be considerably more although a small lens like the computar wouldn't be so bad. The smaller the glass the less expensive it is to machine etc. Actually I may have a direct contact to the computar designer and could possibly get the design right from the man who did the original. I do have a connection to the computar enlarger lens designer and I think the same guy did the process lens. I do think that the market for such lenses is pretty small, isn't it?

 

[sanking]

The cost is related to many issues including paying the lens designer. The physical size of the glass is an issue and the quantity of production. Basically getting a design and having a prototype made would cost thousands. The lenses I had made weren't too bad but it was a simple stereoscope cemented achromat. Making photographic objective would be considerably more although a small lens like the computar wouldn't be so bad. The smaller the glass the less expensive it is to machine etc. Actually I may have a direct contact to the computar designer and could possibly get the design right from the man who did the original. I do have a connection to the computar enlarger lens designer and I think the same guy did the process lens. I do think that the market for such lenses is pretty small, isn't it?

Thanks for sharing your information. It is really interesting to have the perspective of folks with technical knowledge on matters such as this.

I would agree that the market is not large, but it may be large enough to justify design and production costs of two or three focal lengths of a design for ULF work.

For ULF work one could sacrifice a fair amount of performance in the center for maximum coverage and good performance on the far edges. The Computar design is nice, but would need to be tweaked to give a flatter field (it has lots of field curvature) and better resolution on the edges. And I would like to see about 5-10% more in terms of circle of illumination. I figure it is about 95 degrees now, and 105 degrees would be great, especially in a small package.

So for a three focal length design, here is something I think would be attractive.

1. 210mm f/9-11 to cover up to 11X14 or 7X17 with a couple of inches of movement, and just cover 12X20.

2. 270mm f/9-11 to cover up to 12X20 with a couple of inches of movement.

2. 355 f/11-14 to cover up to 20X24.

No point in worrying about anything longer since there are lenses out there already for that.

Is that kind of performance possible, assuming one could relax the standard quite a bit since the maxium enlargment from these formats would be no more than about 2X-3X.

Based on the current sale of ULF equipment I would estimate that the market for compact lens of this coverage to be in the 200-400 unit range per focal length at the proper price.

Sandy

 

[Michael Kadillak]

I agree with Sandy on his objectives but would add that a 12" lens in the coverage range of 12x20+ would be also very nice.

I recently spoke to Kowa Optics here in the US about a re-make of the Computar line and they opted out after showing a bit of initial interest. They spoke to their Japanese counterparts and said that they could not come up with the design internally so they expected that it may have been a contract job which I think could have been the case. Schneider also passed when I contacted them. A contact I have in Germany was poking around with Rodenstock but as of yet we have no progress.

I would proposed that we form a consurtium of interested parties (I am highly encouraged by the knowledge and interest base here and feel that we could find a way to pull this one off) to define objectives and use each others expertise to not be spinning our wheels in six or more different directions concurrently.

The market may be small but it is a market that will support this project going forward.

Comments? Let's do it!

Cheers

 

[sanking]

The cost is related to many issues including paying the lens designer. The physical size of the glass is an issue and the quantity of production. Basically getting a design and having a prototype made would cost thousands. The lenses I had made weren't too bad but it was a simple stereoscope cemented achromat. Making photographic objective would be considerably more although a small lens like the computar wouldn't be so bad. The smaller the glass the less expensive it is to machine etc. Actually I may have a direct contact to the computar designer and could possibly get the design right from the man who did the original. I do have a connection to the computar enlarger lens designer and I think the same guy did the process lens. I do think that the market for such lenses is pretty small, isn't it?

I wonder if you know if the patents for the Zeiss WA Dagor are available, and if so, would having them provide real solutions regarding making the lens?

Most patents do not offe the specific kind of information needed so I am guessing not, but would appreciate the insight of a person of your expertise on the subject.

Sandy King

 

[sanking]

I agree with Sandy on his objectives but would add that a 12" lens in the coverage range of 12x20+ would be also very nice.

Comments? Let's do it!

Cheers

Michael,

I guess my rule is want more. I already have a 300mm Computar lens that covers 12X20 with at least two inches of movement, and sharp all over the field when stopped down. Just wanted to push the limits a bit to 270mm, which I think would be fairly conservative for the Computar design.

How about a line of 210, 300 and 450 Computar lnses, all with coverage of 110 degrees, and sized for format by aperture so that all three are of about the same weight and fit Copal 3. The 210mm would just barrely cover 12X20, the 300 would cover with a bunch of movement, and the 450 would cover 20X24 with a fair range of movements.

BTW, my Schneider 550mm f/11 XXL has arrived, and also the 210mm f/5.6 SSXL which was thrown in just to make me happy with the deal. I have tested both of them for perormance on the 12X20 format and there is no question but that both lenses are *vastly superior* on the far edges of the circle of illumination to any lenses of comparable focal lengths I have tested in the past.

What I have not checked is the maximum circle of illluminatin of the 550mm f/11 Dagor XXL (did not want to set up my 20X24 to do so). I am hoping that it is much greater than the 78 degrees of stated coverage. If so, and up to 90-95 degrees with good pefomance at the far edges, this might be a very good design for lenses in the 300mm-450mm range for ULF work. I think plain Dagor design has a lot to offer for ULF, provided we can get good performance on the edges of the circle of illumination, somthing I have not seen so far with any Dagor type lens.

Sandy

 

[ReallyBigCameras]

Michael and Sandy,

I think a limited production run of "new" ULF lenses is a great idea. Based on my hunt for such lenses, the one type of lens that seems to be consistently hard to find are wide angles for the ULF formats - ideally something reasonably compact, not astronomically priced and in a functional shutter. Something like a 210 - 240mm for 7x17, 240 - 270mm for 8x20 and 300 - 330mm for 12x20. Most of what's out there is either very, very expensive, hard to find at any price, lacking in performance, or very big and bulky.

In addition to the Computar and Dagor, there are other older designs capable of covering 85 - 100 degrees. The wide field Gauss is one example. In the conservative Kodak WF Ektar design, it is capable of covering about 80 - 85 degrees. Other manufacturer's pushed the coverage to 95 - 100 degrees. This includes the f12.5 Wollensak Extreme wide angle and the Cooke Series VIIb. I've been hoping for a re-intoduction of the Series VII from Cooke for a couple years, but there are no signs that it will happen any time soon (if ever). Too bad, if they introduced an updated version of their 222mm Series VIIB they would pretty much have the market to themselves Used lenses of this type are now over 50 years old and very hard to find in focal lengths capable of covering anything larger than 8x10 - and I've never seen any in fcoal lengths longer than 10". A 305mm WF Gauss design capable of covering 95 - 100 degrees would be awesome (666 - 727mm image circle).

I'm currently working on any article on semi-wide lenses (80 - 100 degrees of coverage) in the 135mm - 165mm range. A few of these designs were offered in longer focal lengths, but many weren't. At the time they were made (mostly 1950s - 1970s) there just wasn't much of a ULF market. The glass plate mammoth days of the 1880s were long gone and the resurgence in ULF fine art photography hadn't yet begun. With the availability of an unprecedented variety of film types in the ULF sizes, the time may be ripe for someone to produce a line of wide or semi-wide lenses for these formats.

I'm no optical engineer, but if there is anything I can do to help (beyond being an eager customer and evangalist), just let me know.

Kerry

 

[ReallyBigCameras]

For ULF work one could sacrifice a fair amount of performance in the center for maximum coverage and good performance on the far edges. The Computar design is nice, but would need to be tweaked to give a flatter field (it has lots of field curvature) and better resolution on the edges.

Sandy,

Have you tried playing with the cell spacing of your Computar to get better edge performance? My 240mm Computar came without the spacer that goes between the rear cell and the shutter. I supect a lot of these spacers have gotten lost over the years. Supposedly, the purpose of these spacers was to improve edge performance at the expensive of absolute sharpest performance in the center of the field. I just picked up a 240mm Computar spacer from Dagor77 on eBay, but haven't had a chance to test performance with/without spacer, yet.

If getting better edge performance is as simple as chaging the cell spacing AND someone can get access to the opriginal f9 Computar design, perhaps no optical redesign would be necessary to get the improved edge performance ULF users desire.

Kerry

 

[sanking]

Sandy,

Have you tried playing with the cell spacing of your Computar to get better edge performance? My 240mm Computar came without the spacer that goes between the rear cell and the shutter. I supect a lot of these spacers have gotten lost over the years. Supposedly, the purpose of these spacers was to improve edge performance at the expensive of absolute sharpest performance in the center of the field. I just picked up a 240mm Computar spacer from Dagor77 on eBay, but haven't had a chance to test performance with/without spacer, yet.

If getting better edge performance is as simple as chaging the cell spacing AND someone can get access to the opriginal f9 Computar design, perhaps no optical redesign would be necessary to get the improved edge performance ULF users desire.

Kerry

Kerry,

I did play around with spacing, but the difference I saw in testing was very small.

I think the more importnat issue for the Comptar is a re-design of the lens to give better performance on the far edges.

Sandy

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

How would a 24" aero-ektar do (someday, it's in the garage)? I figure 9x18" negs means it should give at least a 20" circle.

Thanks

 

[Rob Vinnedge]

Michael,

I guess my rule is want more. I already have a 300mm Computar lens that covers 12X20 with at least two inches of movement, and sharp all over the field when stopped down. Just wanted to push the limits a bit to 270mm, which I think would be fairly conservative for the Computar design.

How about a line of 210, 300 and 450 Computar lnses, all with coverage of 110 degrees, and sized for format by aperture so that all three are of about the same weight and fit Copal 3. The 210mm would just barrely cover 12X20, the 300 would cover with a bunch of movement, and the 450 would cover 20X24 with a fair range of movements.

BTW, my Schneider 550mm f/11 XXL has arrived, and also the 210mm f/5.6 SSXL which was thrown in just to make me happy with the deal. I have tested both of them for perormance on the 12X20 format and there is no question but that both lenses are *vastly superior* on the far edges of the circle of illumination to any lenses of comparable focal lengths I have tested in the past.

What I have not checked is the maximum circle of illluminatin of the 550mm f/11 Dagor XXL (did not want to set up my 20X24 to do so). I am hoping that it is much greater than the 78 degrees of stated coverage. If so, and up to 90-95 degrees with good pefomance at the far edges, this might be a very good design for lenses in the 300mm-450mm range for ULF work. I think plain Dagor design has a lot to offer for ULF, provided we can get good performance on the edges of the circle of illumination, somthing I have not seen so far with any Dagor type lens.

Sandy

Sandy,

I'm planning on a 550XXL purchase soon. I wonder if Jeff at Badger will throw in a 210 f/5.6 SS/XL to make me happy? Anyway, last week when I spoke with him, he commented that he has sold an astonishing number of 550XXL's. Great news for ULFers.

I would like to put my name on any list that develops for additional ULF lens alternatives, particularly for 14X17 and 16X20 formats. I have several Apo-Ronars and a couple of long Apo Artars, but would be interested in some of these other ideas that are kicking around.

 

[sanking]

Sandy,

I'm planning on a 550XXL purchase soon. I wonder if Jeff at Badger will throw in a 210 f/5.6 SS/XL to make me happy? Anyway, last week when I spoke with him, he commented that he has sold an astonishing number of 550XXL's. Great news for ULFers.

I would like to put my name on any list that develops for additional ULF lens alternatives, particularly for 14X17 and 16X20 formats. I have several Apo-Ronars and a couple of long Apo Artars, but would be interested in some of these other ideas that are kicking around.

That is basically how I bought mine. I paid for the 550XL and almost got the 210SSXL as a bonus prize.

At the price I am very surprised that so many of the 550XXL lenses have been sold. But it is definitely in a world of its own in terms of coverage and contrast in a lens of this focal length. So far I have not made extensive use of my 550 XXL but plan to use it a lot in the next two or three weeks working on fall foliage here in the Carolinas.

Sandy

 

[George]

Just plainly curious - why did you prefer the 550XXL instead of the 600 Fuji C? A question of the additional coverage?
And forget the Chinese Zeiss version - Zeiss would never allow to ruin its fame with such a version... It's not just a matter of the lens design. It's the machinery, the toleration, the quality control with its special device demands etc. To produce the Zeiss quality you have to have the Zeiss quality factory!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Just plainly curious - why did you prefer the 550XXL instead of the 600 Fuji C? A question of the additional coverage?
And forget the Chinese Zeiss version - Zeiss would never allow to ruin its fame with such a version... It's not just a matter of the lens design. It's the machinery, the toleration, the quality control with its special device demands etc. To produce the Zeiss quality you have to have the Zeiss quality factory!

I dunno about that... Zeiss sells lenses to Sony for their digicams and consumer-grade camcorders. The quality of the media is so poor you can't tell if the glass is actually any good or not, but they let them put the Zeiss name on the cameras anyway. I don't think they're terribly picky. Especially if you're licensing a 100+year old design.

 

[George]

Digicams and camcorders have generally lower lens quality than LF lenses. It's not a question of the age of the design - it's about what the Zeiss name is associated to - cheap Chinese lenses? Like kicking yourself to your own backside...

 

[sanking]

Just plainly curious - why did you prefer the 550XXL instead of the 600 Fuji C? A question of the additional coverage?
And forget the Chinese Zeiss version - Zeiss would never allow to ruin its fame with such a version... It's not just a matter of the lens design. It's the machinery, the toleration, the quality control with its special device demands etc. To produce the Zeiss quality you have to have the Zeiss quality factory!

Actually, I have a 600mm Fujinon-C, and it is a great lens. Very compact and outstanding contrast and very good sharpness. But in terms of coverage, it does not come close to to the 550XXL. Even so, the 600 Fujinon-C provides enough coverage for most conditions with 7X17 and 12X20 format, and it is of course much smaller and lighter in weight than the 550XXL.

But just for the record, the contrast of the 550XXL is quite extraordinary. With just four air to glass surfaces, and multi-coated, there is probably nothing out there that gives greater transmission and contrast. Except perhaps the the old Kern Dagors, which were also multi-coated. But the capability to adapt special glass to a specific design was much less advanced when the Kern Dagors were made than in the contempoary period so I am fairly certain that the 550XXL will hold its own, and more, compared to the Kern Dagors.

Sandy

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

Yup,

The 550XXL is a tremendous lens. It was very hard to avoid gushing about it when I wrote the article for View Camera this past spring. There's simply so much about it to be positive about. I do think Schneider has made a true winner of a lens there.

I was very careful to avoid making a direct comparison to any other current lenses in the article (IE, 600C), but the 550 simply smokes the 600C. The image in the article was shot 2/3 of a stop down from wode open, with considerable vertical rise on the 7x17 (oriented vertically) and the darn lens is just a sharp in the corner as in the center. You can't dream of doing that with the 600C.

I hope Schneider keeps up the good work, which is why I gave them a nudge toward shorter lenses in the article, in hopes they will get the message and keep going with the lens line.


---Michael