Re: [Largeformat] Red Dot Artar 14" f:9

[Les Newcomer <lnphoto@ismi.net>]

Sorry to be so late on this thread, now that it's lost its steam I will
add my two cents.  In particular,  gels work better in the rear because
they are protected from flare. If the filter isn't absolutely flat when
on the front it may  pick up a reflection and you'll end up with a UFO
in the shot.  Flare is a factor with glass in the front but not as much,
and in a (black?) studio it doesn't matter that much at all.

As for the lens itself, it is a process lens, designed for doing color
separations, there are four elements all with an air-space (8 air to
glass surfaces)  so this lens should benefit greatly by coating.  The
Red dot means its coated. It is also apochromatic , meaning it focuses
three colors of light instead of the normal two, on the same plane.
They are very bright and contrasty, so even though it's a relatively
slow f9 , it's very easy to focus with.

The gold dot and gold rim were the coated versions of the Dagor, a
double anastigmat lens, that has a wider covering power than an Artar.

All of my 8x10 lenses are from the 50s or earlier, I could never begin
to afford the prices for new lenses in this format and unless I was
puttin billboard sized prints in tiny galleries, I doubt there would be
a significant difference. I'd rather put my money in film and gas and
photo safaris.  Also, if I owned a mega buck lens i would be to afraid
of bringing it on a trip, it wouldn't get used.  In a sick twisted sort
of way, I consider my Commerical & Wide Field Ektars expendable, since
they cost 1/4 of a new lens.


Les