Red Dot Artars vs Fujinon C & Niokkor M ???

Any thoughts on the performance of the Red Dots vs the Fujinon C or Nikkor M lenses. I've always used Red Dots in a variety of FL's but have no experience with the Fuji or Nikon glass. I still have a 14 and 19 RD but am thinking of looking for a smaller lighter couple of lenses. I still shoot some 8x10 but mainly 5x7 and 4x5. It's been years since looking at LF lenses so I'm a bit out of touch with newer glass.

Thanks!

I have the 14 inch red dot artar for 8x10 and a 450 Nikkor, as well as 210 and 150 for 4x5. My favorite lens is the red dot artar because is it pretty light with beautiful sharp image quality. However I don't think you can fault Nikkor lenses for quality.

Don,

The biggest difference other than bulk is the use of modern glass and coatings. The Fujinon-C is a 4/4 dialyte like an Artar, so you have an idea of the circle of sharp coverage. The Nikkor-M is a Tessar, and I use a 200mm version on 4x5 and it will cover up to 5x7 sharply at f:22 (just as Nikon says it does).

Tessars are noted for being very sharp in the center of the field and sharpness dropping off rather rapidly away from center. I actually doubt whether either the Fujinon or the Nikkor is actually sharper than an Artar, but they may have the appearance of being sharper due to higher color saturation and contrast. Not to mention many lenses of the Artar's vintage have some "old lens haze" between the glasses that I think cuts contrast and apparent sharpness rather more than most people believe, mostly because they don't want to pay to have them cleaned. If your Artars are truly clean and clear without scratches, I think modern lenses don't really have that much to offer for the price unless you're going for the "calendar look" in color. And if you're scanning, the negs/transparencies from the older, lower contrast lenses may actually be easier to scan.

In these focal lengths and brands for 5x7ish, I have had a Fujinon 300C, and currently have a Nikkor 200M, a 10-3/4" Artar, a 360mm Kowa Graphic, a 360mm f:5.6 Caltar-IIN (for what I paid, I couldn't not buy it), a 16-1/2" Artar, a 19" Artar (Harley's lens), and a 450mm Fujinon C. I rather like the 200M, the 10-3/4" Artar, preferring a slightly wide (to 300mm) lens, and had Grimes custom mount it in Copal. I also like the 450mm Fuji C quite a bit on 4x5 if you have the bellows for it, and 8x10.

If you want to try any of these before you buy, let me know.

Cheers,

Steve

Steve I appreciate the comments. Funny thing I just got off the phone from talking with Harley. He's still kicking at 86 and shooting aerials when the weather clears. Also I borrowed that same 19 artar you have from harley about 25 years ago and used if for a few months. I later bought a nice clean one and returned Harleys. The 14 and 19 that I have are in perfect condition. No haze at all and no scratches or marks on the glass. I'm only doing B&W with them but shot many thousands of sheets of 8x10 chrome back in the 70's and 80's with them when I was head of Davis newman Paynes photo department. I just didn't know if there was anything better now. Looks like I'll keep the artars and look for a 12 inch that's nice or another Dagor 12in. Had one of those for about 20 years and got the bug for a Symmar. Wish I had the Dagor again. Also had a 16-1/2 inch RD and 8 1/4 RD and sold them. In my 8x10 system I've mainly had Goerz lenses and Schneider in my 4x5 / 5x7 kit. Still have the Schneiders and the Goerz with the exception of the Dagors. I do have a really fine 6 1/2 inch WA Dagor and a 10" WA Ektar that I got from Joe Jernigan many years ago just after I aprenticed with him. Lovely lenses.

Funny how modern lenses haven't moved that much forward except for some of the Super Symars and apo Rodagons. Seems like the wides have moved forward the most. I did buy a new 72mm SA XL a couple of years ago to replace my old 75 SA. Wow what a lens.

Don Dudenbostel said:

Any thoughts on the performance of the Red Dots vs the Fujinon C or Nikkor M lenses. I've always used Red Dots in a variety of FL's but have no experience with the Fuji or Nikon glass. I still have a 14 and 19 RD but am thinking of looking for a smaller lighter couple of lenses. I still shoot some 8x10 but mainly 5x7 and 4x5. It's been years since looking at LF lenses so I'm a bit out of touch with newer glass.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

The Red Dot Artar is a good lens, even by modern standards, but the FujinonC and Nikkor M lenses are sharper and give more contrast. If you enlarge your negatives a lot the difference might show on the print.

Sandy King

Sandy,

I'll agree on contrast and saturation, but the data that Chris Perez and Kerry Thalmann generated here seem to indicate that the venerable Artar is holding its own, At f:22, it meets or beats the Fuji and Nikkor of similar focal length (300mm) except for one of two examples of the Fuji C. I've used a 300mm Fuji C and sold it because it didn't seem that sharp to me - compared to its contemporaries - and I also have Artars that seem as sharp under magnification of the transparencies with a 4X loupe. And logically why would a Fuji C which is the same design as an Artar be sharper? Coatings won't increase real sharpness; glass might, but I doubt it. Computer optimization might, but they also designed the SR-71 Blackbird with slide rules, just like they did many vintage lenses.

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

Your comments about enlargement is right on, but if you want maximum enlargement (resolution), the one thing Kerry and Chris' data tell us is that you better get more than one example and test them. Scott Rosenberg did test several examples of the same lenses and came to the same conclusion Chris and Kerry's data implies.

http://www.srosenberg.com/

BTW, I use the Jim Galli approach, I buy lenses when I can at good prices and sell the ones that don't impress me. I'll be the first to admit my methods aren't exactly scientific, but they do involve assessing the sharpness and appearance of the transparency/negative. And there's more to the image than resolution, if you don't like the results, sell it regardless of the resolution. Like Don, I have Dagors and (many uncoated) and other lenses I prefer to modern lenses. And conversely, I have modern lenses I prefer to oldies. Use the lens that gives you the results you want.

And by the way, playing with lots of lenses is fun. I recommend it.

Cheers,

Steve

Don and Sandy,

I'll propose another approach to Don's original question, a more holistic one. One of my last comments in my previous post was to use the lens that pleases you, but let's get more precise. Let's use the film/lens combination that pleases you. We all do this intuitively, but let's start thinking about it.

My landscape peers who love Velvia often complain about blocked up shadows and blown highlights. Many of them shoot Astia or carry sheets of negative film for high contrast situations. But I've also tried Velvia with uncoated lenses in high contrast landscape situations, and gotten good results. One shot was a sidelighted stream and tree shot in Tremont in the Smokies, shot on Velvia 100 with a 180mm uncoated Berlin Dagor. Results were rather pleasing.

Just a thought.

Cheers,

Steve

Another lens to consider that comes at a very cheap price and is pretty contrasty is the 21 1/4" Kodak Ektanon. A pretty good alternative to the Artar 19" and 24". It actually covers more than a 24" Artar.

If weight is the largest consideration and you like the Artar, you could perhaps locate some of the later models that came in a aluminum barrels instead of typical brass (older copies). The difference in weight is substantial but they are not common. Someone will have specifics on which were mounted in aluminum but I don't have that info.

Interesting little thing one of the Schneider reps told me. I met him at a professional convention and trade show in Chicago not long after the purchase of Goerz. He said that there had been three men in the Goerz factory that built the RD lenses and that Schneider did not keep them on after the acquisition. The rep said that making an artar was more art than science and that these guys were the only three that could produce them in any quantity. They were totally hand made with the three fellows hand picking elements and machining the maounts themselves. He said the knew through experience what would work with what. Schneider found that they could produce them but not in suffucuent quantity to make money. The rep said that they had to reformylate the lens for mass production. So the later lenses were not the same as the AM lenses and then it was discontinued.

One of my most favorite view lwnses was a very early uncoated B&L triple convertible Protar in a compund #5 shutter. The combined FL was about 10 inches and it as stunning. Steve I wound up selling it to Paul Fogarty. Paul had Jim Thompsons Sr. #10 circuit camera and th elens was missing. We both thought the Protar might work but unfortunately it was just a little too far from the original FL. Paul is harleys age now and might still have it. I think I'll give him a call tomorrow and see if he wants to sell it back.

Don,

Check here for a Protar VII triple.

http://www.glennview.com/

Look at View Camera Lenses and scroll down.

BTW, Jim at Midwest also has one for about $750 in a Betax #5 (12"-19"-24") I've seen it, almost bought it, and the glass is pristine. I would have bought it but I'm a 10-3/4"-16-1/2"-22" kind of person in a triple. Hard to find.

The Schneider Dagors sell for stellar prices, but I've had a Schneider 14" Gold Dot and a 14" Blue Dot Trigor and found them lacking. They are short on coverage, long on flare, and useless pointed into the light. Sold them both. I far prefer the 12" and 16-1/'2" Goerz American I bought from Harley, and almost every other vintage Goerz, Kenro (Goerz process) and Argyle (Goerz process) I have. I also have a perfect 6" American Optical process lens that I bought for peanuts that is a wide field process Dagor design, and it covers 8x10 sans mechanical vignetting. The glass is the size of a dime, much like the 6-1/2" WA Dagor. Eventually, I'll have Adam Dau at S.K. Grimes trim off the barrel and mount in in a Copal 0.

Cheers,

Steve

Steve we need to meet up one day and have a glass of wine or something.

Steve Hamley said:

Sandy,

I'll agree on contrast and saturation, but the data that Chris Perez and Kerry Thalmann generated here seem to indicate that the venerable Artar is holding its own, At f:22, it meets or beats the Fuji and Nikkor of similar focal length (300mm) except for one of two examples of the Fuji C.

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html


Cheers,

Steve

Click to expand...

Steve,

I have owned several RDAs, and several Fujinon-C and Nikkor-M lenses.

The RDAs are excellent lenses, but they will not resolve as much detail as the Fujinon-C and Nikkor-M wide open through f/22. After f/22 diffractions limits resolution more than design and aberrations.

The Fujinon-C and Nikkor-M lenses are also multi-coated and give a lot more contrast.

If the OP is interested in enlarging 4X5 or 5X7 film the Fujinon-C and Nikkor-M will serve him much better than a RDA, IMHO.

Sandy King

Another option to look for is a late, shutter-mounted, multicoated 480mm APO Ronar. It's a superb lens. Less coverage for ULF work than the 450mm Fujinon-C and 450mm Nikkor M (especially), but for 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10, it is a wonderful lens. It's basically a modern multicoated version of the RD Artar in a reliable, modern shutter. It's also usable on 11x14 or 7x17 (but again, not as much coverage as the Fujinon or Nikkor).

Kerry