APO Artar Dilema

[darinwc]

I've had a 14" APO Artar for quite some time, but havent been able to use it. (no red dot) It's a gorgeous lens, coated, really clean glass. It was in a barrel with no shutter though. I thought about using the lens cap, or even making a drop-shutter. But it allways seemed to be too much of a pain.

Now I have a vermont model Zone VI 4x5, and 14" or about 350mm made a lovely image on my screen. The angle of view was just right for me as a long focal length.

I also have a convertible symmar, but in its converted mode, the lens is behind the lensboard. This forces my Zone VI to be extended to its maximum, really stretching it beyond what I am comfortable with.

So, I ended up purchasing another 14" Apo red-dot Artar, this time in an Ilex shutter. This lens was labeled as having 'a few cleaning marks'. Unfortunately when i got the lens, there were numerous cleaning marks on the front element. The rest of the glass is clean.

I found that the non-red-dot APO Artar I have fits the mounting rings made for the Ilex shutter, and the spacing is the same. However the red-dot cells do not fit the barrel from the APO. The threads are too big by just a hair.

So I would like to recover some of my costs and keep a nice useable lens and shutter. But do you think i should keep the APO lens in the shutter and sell the red-dot as cells? Or do you think the cleaning marks on the red-dot will not affect my negatives?

thanks for any advice.

 

[Dave Parker]

Marks on the cells rarely cause many problems, I have shot lenses with gouges out of them with no problem, it may be a bit more prone to flare in the right circumstances, but other than that, I can almost assure you that you will not see much of a problem in shooting the lens with cleaning marks, some of the best bargins around, are lenses with small marks on them, easy to negotiate, and still take great images.

Dave

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Take some comparison shots and see if you can tell the difference. If the cleaning marks are not too serious, other factors are probably going to be more relevant.

 

[Jeremy]

I would shoot both of them in the shutter and see if there is any difference. You could also give a shot to cleaning the lens elements (or by cleaning marks do you mean actual areas where the coating has been rubbed off completely?). You will or course make more if you can sell the lens in a barrell as opposed to just elements.

Don't forget to use a lens hood! Most of my lenses are single- or uncoated and I make sure to use a lens hood on every shot.

-Jeremy

 

[darinwc]

Jeremy,
By 'cleaning marks' I am talking about fine scratches on the lens. These are caused by improperly cleaning a lens surface. They are allmost impossible to see just by looking at the surface of the lens. But are glaringly apparent when you look through the lens at a bright light. Sellers love to say things like 'will not affect the quality of the image' but I've allways had my doubts. I guess this will make for an excellent experiment.

Unfortunately, I have no experience with actually testing lenses.
I'm sure there are lots of threads on lens testing. I will have to read up.

 

[Dave Parker]

Not often will you see cleaning marks affect an image, I have shot many a lens over the years, and as I said, even ones with gouges out of the element and not often have I seen any ill effects because of it, you can rest your doubts darinwc, I doubt you would ever even notice them, especially if you can't see them with out a light.

Dave

 

[df cardwell]

The practical way to test the lens is to shoot some pictures of your typical scene.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've only had one lens that I felt was badly scratched enough to make a difference--a 135mm Optar from the days when news photographers cleaned their lenses with their neckties.

The most likely effect you'll see if the problem is serious is a loss of contrast. Shoot a pair of identical landscapes or architecture shots with enough sky to cause some potential flare. Contact print them side by side. Inspect the prints with a good loupe. See if you can tell the difference. You might find the later lens is better just because it's newer, maybe better collimated, possibly made with better glass, possibly an improved design, possibly with a better coating even if one surface is less perfect. Or you might find that the older one is better, or you might not be able to tell the difference. Maybe your older lens with the better coating has an aftermarket coating, which means the lens was re-polished, and perhaps deformed. My point is that there are many factors that might make one sample of a lens better or worse than another, and coating marks or dirt or fungus or "schneideritis" just happen to be ones you can see easily, so there's no test like a test on film (presuming that one doesn't have access to sophisticated optical testing equipment).

 

[jbbooks]

As it happens, today I was testing three 210mm lenses, among them a Red-Dot 8 1/4 inch (210mm) Goerz Artar. I was doing it particularly because of the cleaning marks on the front element of the Artar.

I was doing this because the Artar is an earlier acquisition that has a very obvious set of cleaning marks on the front element, I was considering having another, that I acquired later, mounted in the same shutter and selling the one with the cleaning marks. Same question as you. After the comparison, I don't think I will bother.

By the way, one of the other lenses was a 210mm Sironar S. It is amazing to see how little difference there is between it and the Artar, not just in sharpness, but in color and contrast as well.

 

[bobfowler]

<snip>By the way, one of the other lenses was a 210mm Sironar S. It is amazing to see how little difference there is between it and the Artar, not just in sharpness, but in color and contrast as well.

Huge difference in coverage though...

 

[jbbooks]

And speed, also.

 

[jbbooks]

However, regarding coverage, I use the same suggestion as Rodenstock gives for the Ronars. Have the focal length twice the length of the long edge of the negative, or more. Actually, a little less, as in the 8 1/4 inch on a 4x5, seems to work with no noticeable fall off.

 

[darinwc]

Another big difference between an artar and sironar/symmar of the same focal length:
Size & weight.

I would certainly not want a 360mm sironar on the font of my wood field camera. I'm not sure if it would even fit.

 

[Jim Jones]

I've retired one 50mm Summicron mostly because of cleaning marks. Shadow contrast suffered. An Ektar f/7.7 203 mm lens will be retired for the same reason. Both lenses still serve well in many circumstances. A 90mm Schneidar Angulon with a couple of deep scratches on the front element seems to have no image affecting problem.

 

[John Kasaian]

You might test the RD Artar first to see if the problem really is a problem. If it is, see about mounting your APO into the RD's Ilex shutter.

The older APO Artars rock! I've got an uncoated 14" on my 5x7. Just avoid flares---a lens shade would help.

Thats what I'd do, anyway.

 

[John Kasaian]

Another option would be to have your APO front mounted on the Ilex shutter---minimal machineing=lower cost, plus you'll be able to use the same shutter for other barrel lenses you might accumulate. SK Grimes' shop does this.