Looking for lens with 16x20 coverage

[Dan Fromm]

wilt, y'r source is in error. Rodenstock claims 25" x 30" for the 600/9 Apo Ronar at 1:1, a tiny bit more than 24 x 30. It agrees with Rodenstock's claim that the lens will cover 14 x 17 at infinity. Re Rodenstock's claims, their Apo Ronar sheets are at https://onedrive.live.com/redir?res...35&authkey=!AESpkw0t4oWnLtY&ithint=folder,pdf. I borrowed them from Bob Salomon, to whom thanks are due, scanned and posted them.

So what? The OP didn't want a closeup lens and 14 x 17 is smaller than 16 x 20.

 

[wiltw]

wilt, y'r source is in error. ...Rodenstock's claims, their Apo Ronar sheets are at https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=8D71BC33C77D1008!135&authkey=!AESpkw0t4oWnLtY&ithint=folder,pdf. I borrowed them from Bob Salomon, to whom thanks are due, scanned and posted them.

I've known Bob for about 3.5 decades now, so I trust your information as valid. But the Rodenstock Process Lens Manual PDF about APO-Ronar that I am looking at shows 600mm APO-Ronar specifically is good for 26 x 30" at 1:1 (yes, this lens is 46 degree).

The APO-Ronar are optimized for 1:1 reproduction ratios, but also give excellent results in general photography, with extremely low distortion and superior sharpness. It would appear that if OP wants 16x20 coverage for photography at conventional (non-macro) distances, the Rodenstock APO-Ronar choices are:

• 890mm f/14(for 16x20 in)
• 1000mm f/14(for 16x20 in)
• 1000mm f/16(for 16x20 in)
• 1070mm f/14(for 18x24 in)
• 1200mm f/14(for 20x24 in)
• 1200mm f/16(for 20x24 in)
• 1800mm f/16(for 30x40 in)

 

[Dan Fromm]

But the Rodenstock Process Lens Manual PDF about APO-Ronar that I am looking at shows 600mm APO-Ronar specifically is good for 26 x 30" at 1:1 (yes, this lens is 46 degree).

That's what my copy says and I thought I typed. Stupid typo.

Early in this discussion I directed the OP to Rodenstock and other documentation. This saved me the trouble of typing and proofreading.

 

[wiltw]

Dan, my point earlier (which stupidly I failed to state!) for the OP to keep in mind, is that 1:1 or 1:2 reproduction purposes -- for which my earlier discussed use as process camera lens in photolithography for the 16x20 or larger coverages referred -- provides different coverage size than at Infinity focus photography; it was not a primary goal of mine to correct your minor typo!
The second point was merely that the 600 APO-Ronar would indeed cover at least 16x20 for its primary intended purpose of 1:1 reproduction (as declared by Rodenstock), although admittedly it would be falling short for Infinity focus photography, which is probably what the OP was intending as the choice.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Wilt, I just read this discussion from the beginning. Again. And I've done a little looking in catalogs.

I'm struck by how uncommon normal lenses (focal length approximately the format's diagonal, cover the format's diagonal plus a bit) for formats larger than 8x10 are. The w/a lens situation seems even worse. Schneider's 550/11 aside, there don't seem to be any relatively modern w/a lenses for huge formats.

Last summer I met a fellow who'd built a 16x20. He had what he estimated was a 450 mm WAR type for a w/a lens and a 700/6.3 Saphir for his normal. He remarked that both were lucky finds.

 

[wiltw]

Dan, as to your observation about lack of WA for really large formats, I speculate that since it is rare to be able to transport a huge format camera 'into the field' for use in landscape photography, the need was not there for a WA lens, much less one with support of any movements! Frankly, (and this comes back to this very topic!) who would ever take ANY camera bigger than 8x10 into the field for conventional (non-reproduction art) photography?!

 

[Dan Fromm]

I dunno, in ancient catalogs w/a lenses with enormous coverage were offered for, e.g., shooting scenics and monuments out-of-doors and interiors. Whence the cataloged but still, as far as I'm concerned, mythical 800/14 Perigraphe Ser. VIa, claimed coverage at low magnification 120 x 160 (scenics, ... ) and 140 x 185 for interiors. Coverage in cm, not mm, and "at small apertures."

As for formats larger than 8x10 for scenics, well, tastes differ. The man who showed off his pretty and clever folding 16x20 at the French LF club's biennial meeting took flak for using such a monster. "What artistic purpose does it serve?" But, y'know, he was using his resources to please himself. Who can say no to that? His camera was in fact somewhat portable. You wouldn't do it, I wouldn't do it, but I don't see why that should stop him.

 

[wiltw]

Yeah, I've heard of guys taking large format digital backs into the field, too. With lots of battery weight, etc. 30-40 lbs additional weight in digital back and its supporting stuff
Folks also jump out of perfectly good airplanes.
Folks free climb extremely tall rock faces.
In short, there is no shortage of folks with questionable judgement. The annual Darwin Awards is testimony of that reality.

 

[RobertP]

Why do they carry large cameras into the field? If you have ever seen a well made 20x24 platinum print you would understand. Or any of the other alt process contact prints. Check out William Henry Jackson's work. He carried an 18x22 camera plus all the glass plates and all the chemicals for processing wet plate collodion and a portable darkroom and he didn't even have a SUV. if you use your head and not your back its not difficult at all.