PDA

View Full Version : 210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron



Cor
16-Oct-2011, 00:49
So I have these 2 lenses in 210 mm for 4*5:

A f5.6 210 mm Symmar (chrome on the outside), single coated, in an older Synchro Compur (old shutter speed range), single coated

A f9 G-Claron 210 mm mounted in a Polaroid Copal 1, I guess single coated.

The Claron is about half the weight of the Symmar, but more than a stop slower.

When enlarging negatives to 40*50 cm (most frequent size) or 50*60 (max in my tiny darkroom) would there be discernible differences (yes I will run that test..:) ..) ?


Best,

Cor

E. von Hoegh
17-Oct-2011, 08:17
Close up, you might see a tiny difference in favor of the G-Claron. They are both Plasmats.

Drew Wiley
17-Oct-2011, 08:22
I don't know the exact vintage of your G-Claron, but generally they are going to be
optically superior to the Symmar.

IanG
17-Oct-2011, 09:20
I don't know the exact vintage of your G-Claron, but generally they are going to be
optically superior to the Symmar.

Other way around. The G Claron will only be superior for flat field copy work which they are optimised for. These lenses are designed for close distances not infinity.

Ian

John Kasaian
17-Oct-2011, 10:27
Horses for courses. Use the G-Claron when you're packing in since it's lighter. Use the Symmar when light is scarce since it will be easier to focus.
You've got it made in the shade, pal! :D

dave_whatever
17-Oct-2011, 10:29
G clarons are supposed to be optimised for closeup, but this doesn't mean they will be less sharp that other lenses at non-macro distances. I know that of my landscape shots at 150mm I can't tell from the film if I used my g claron or symmar-s. I suspect the same is true of the 210mm.

Drew Wiley
17-Oct-2011, 10:39
Ian - G-Clarons are indeed better for closeups than general-purpose faster plastmats
like the Symmar S, but that doesn't mean they're inferior at infinity. At any typical
working aperture they're even better! I've used each of these categories of lens for
years on end for all kinds of things, and don't miss the bigger heavier plastmats at all.

jp
17-Oct-2011, 10:45
The G-clarons look like good deals and much good has been said about them. I presume they are mostly used for in-focus f64 style shooting.

I haven't owned one, but based on my research, many of them have very shapely (star) irises. This would not be a problem for when everything is in focus, but I'd be personally wary of that for thin-DOF use.

John NYC
17-Oct-2011, 10:58
f/22 at infinity yields super sharp results on the 240mm and 305mm, I can say from experience. Stephen Shore did, according to him, 95% of his 8x10 work with a 305 G-Claron.

That said the shorter ones seem to me to have worse rectilinear correction than similar lengths of other designs for mid-distance objects in the corners of the frame or at the extremes of the image circle.

IanG
17-Oct-2011, 11:03
G clarons are supposed to be optimised for closeup, but this doesn't mean they will be less sharp that other lenses at non-macro distances. I know that of my landscape shots at 150mm I can't tell from the film if I used my g claron or symmar-s. I suspect the same is true of the 210mm.


Macro lenses aren't as critically sharp at Infinity as a standard lens and with process/repro lenses there can be issues of sdistortion when used at longer distances compared to a Symmar/Sironar etc.

Some G Claron's were spaced to give better results at Infinity but Scneider never actually recommended them, rather they stated they could be used for longer distances.

Another issue Schneider raise is they can vignette wider than f16 when used at infinity and should be used at f22 or smaller, the angle of view and image circle is much less than a Symmar at infinity.

Ian

John NYC
17-Oct-2011, 11:07
Macro lenses aren't as critically sharp at Infinity as a standard lens and with process/repro lenses there can be issues of sdistortion when used at longer distances compared to a Symmar/Sironar etc.

Some G Claron's were spaced to give better results at Infinity but Scneider never actually recommended them, rather they stated they could be used for longer distances.

Another issue Schneider raise is they can vignette wider than f16 when used at infinity and should be used at f22 or smaller, the angle of view and image circle is much less than a Symmar at infinity.

Ian

Ian, how extensively have you used G-Clarons yourself in the field?

Drew Wiley
17-Oct-2011, 11:08
Rectilinear correction will be even better than a general purpose plasmat of similar vintage, and probably better than most newer models. And on 4x5 film a 210 G will have plenty of spare coverage, so one would rarely get to the weaker edged of the image circle. All you have to do to get converted is just start shooting one! You
certainly don't hear any doubts from folks actually using this seris of lenses, do you?

Dan Fromm
17-Oct-2011, 12:00
You certainly don't hear any doubts from folks actually using this seris of lenses, do you?

Since you asked, I wasn't passionately in love with my 150/9 plasmat type G-Claron, in a shootout both of my 150/9 Apo Ronars beat it handily. That said, the 150 Apo Ronar won't cover 4x5 and the 150 G-Claron will.

IanG
17-Oct-2011, 12:15
Ian, how extensively have you used G-Clarons yourself in the field?

I've used both G Clarons and GRII Hexanons (my 150mm GRII covers 10x8) so I've experience of the pros & cons of using Repro/Process lenses for landscape work. I first tried a G Claron back in the mid 1970's.

What's important is how a lens works for your own photography, where possible I need a lens that doesn't itroduce unecessary distortions.

I think it was Michael Langford who published a comparison of the spherical distortions of using a process lens at infinity compared to a Symmar, a round ball at the edge of the image looked fine with a Symmar but was quite distorted with a process lens. My own 1970's tests showed similar issues, these were done at work rather than for my personal photography.

Ian

IanG
17-Oct-2011, 12:23
Rectilinear correction will be even better than a general purpose plasmat of similar vintage, and probably better than most newer models

Only within it's designed working parameters which is not at distance and infinity.

G Claron's are optimised for 1:1 and designed to work betweem 5:1 and 1:5.

Ian

Drew Wiley
17-Oct-2011, 13:00
You've got it completely wrong, Ian, and everyone who uses these lenses knows it.
The older specs on G-Clarons were relative to them at either 1:1 or if otherwise, per
an image circle at process standards, i.e, way stricter than what was expected of a
typcial shooting lens. While they are not inifinity corrected wide open (but neither are
most lenses), they reach a high level of performance well before diffraction becomes
the great equalizer. There were special purpose G-Clarons, and I don't know about
some of the early ones, but the later ones in shutter are absolutely superb at inifinity.
pupose lenses. My 210 Symmar S was never as good at inifinity at any f/stop as my
G-Claron. Schneider did market these lenses for tabletop, because they excel in this
kind of application, but I was outright told by a Schneider Rep that they were
superior to their general-purpose plastmats for almost all applications. You just give
up a stop of speed.

John NYC
17-Oct-2011, 13:14
I've used both G Clarons and GRII Hexanons (my 150mm GRII covers 10x8) so I've experience of the pros & cons of using Repro/Process lenses for landscape work. I first tried a G Claron back in the mid 1970's.

What's important is how a lens works for your own photography, where possible I need a lens that doesn't itroduce unecessary distortions.

I think it was Michael Langford who published a comparison of the spherical distortions of using a process lens at infinity compared to a Symmar, a round ball at the edge of the image looked fine with a Symmar but was quite distorted with a process lens. My own 1970's tests showed similar issues, these were done at work rather than for my personal photography.

Ian

If you are only talking about rectilinear distortions at the frame edges on mid-distance object on 8x10 (not 4x5) for these lenses, then I agree with you for the 240mm but not for the 305mm. But you were making broad statements about these lenses that I simply don't think you can apply with a blanket like that.

Sharpness, for instance, is certainly not an issue.

In short, I don't think you are going to be able to tell if I used a 305 G-Claron or a Symmar on 8x10 for most practical purposes.

Drew Wiley
17-Oct-2011, 13:28
Even 240 on 8x10 is never an issue at typical f-stops unless you are doing pretty strong movements or are planning on really huge enlargements. Ordinarily I will stop
the lens down to f/45 or so with this lens. 210 on 4x5 is a piece of cake by comparison - you have tons of wiggle room before there are any hypothetical issues.
Same applies to the Japanese cousin of the G Claron - The Fuji A, where even a 180
FL is an incredible perfromer on 4x5 all the way from closeup clear to infinity, at just
about any f-stop except wide open.

fotografueland
17-Oct-2011, 14:00
I dont know about the 210's. But I have a 355 g-claron and a chrome 360/5,6 Symmar, used on bw there are a big differense, the Claron is much better, its as contrasty and sharp as the Nikkor W 240 and Symmar-S 210 Mc. The chrome Symmar can be good for contrasty light to even it out a bit. The symmar is also 3 times as big and heavy as the Claron. I mainly use my Symmar 360 as a weight when mounting prints, it very good holding big pictures.
Trond

John NYC
17-Oct-2011, 14:28
Even 240 on 8x10 is never an issue at typical f-stops unless you are doing pretty strong movements or are planning on really huge enlargements. Ordinarily I will stop
the lens down to f/45 or so with this lens. 210 on 4x5 is a piece of cake by comparison - you have tons of wiggle room before there are any hypothetical issues.
Same applies to the Japanese cousin of the G Claron - The Fuji A, where even a 180
FL is an incredible perfromer on 4x5 all the way from closeup clear to infinity, at just
about any f-stop except wide open.

Yes, it is only on 8x10 at frame edges and using rise when I have seen this on the 240mm. I have not seen it at all on the 305mm.

IanG
17-Oct-2011, 14:46
You've got it completely wrong, Ian, and everyone who uses these lenses knows it.
The older specs on G-Clarons were relative to them at either 1:1 or if otherwise, per
an image circle at process standards, i.e, way stricter than what was expected of a
typcial shooting lens. While they are not inifinity corrected wide open (but neither are
most lenses), they reach a high level of performance well before diffraction becomes
the great equalizer. There were special purpose G-Clarons, and I don't know about
some of the early ones, but the later ones in shutter are absolutely superb at inifinity.
pupose lenses. My 210 Symmar S was never as good at inifinity at any f/stop as my
G-Claron. Schneider did market these lenses for tabletop, because they excel in this
kind of application, but I was outright told by a Schneider Rep that they were
superior to their general-purpose plastmats for almost all applications. You just give
up a stop of speed.

You can believe what ever sales hype you like.

However the reality is some late G Claron's were better optimised for distances but they weren't better than the contemporary Symmars except for close up work.

The bottom line is that Schneider had excess lenses in terms of unassembled elements that needed shifting, that meant a flood of brand new cheap G Clarons and Xenars in the late 90's early 2000's.

Are these lenses good or bad ? That's relative, you need to decide which you want to use.

Push comes to shove I can see a difference in quality betwen my lenses, and thats when they are used at their limits. What's being lost is that in general use it's true it's hard to see a differeance particularly when lenses are stopped down well.

Over the past 4-5 years I've been using far more lenses than usual as I built up a second LF set-up in Turkey, and what surprised me is how good my UK set up was and how poorly some of my other lenses (newer to me) perform optically.

I've actually gone for Symmar's now in Turkey a 135mm & 210mm and they are as good as my UK Rodenstok lenses, but Xenar's and G Claron's were in the melting pot and a 3 element Geronar is being trialled for it's size/weight and possible use on a pocket fit 9x12cm camera :D

We are pecious about our lenses, I have a 10x8 Agfa Ansco that came with a coated 12" Dagor. plus the last owners 300mm Nikon M lens board, despite having a 300mm Nikon M and there's no way it'll go on the camera . . . . . .

It is what works for you, but then you need to be aware of the limitations or alternatives.

Ian

Drew Wiley
17-Oct-2011, 15:18
Again Ian, it has absolutely nothing to do with sales hype. G-Clarons were some of the least hyped lenses ever made. I've taken and printed hundreds of LF shots with both kinds of lenses, in both color and black and white.
Besides, there is nothing either cheap about G-Clarons, and most of them were off the
market already in the time period you suggest. I have no idea where you are getting
these strange ideas.

redu
17-Oct-2011, 15:23
OK.. I can not comment for general purpose photography such as landscapes but if you are to shoot table top products here is my five cents. For such applications neither a Sironar N nor a Symmar S is a competition to lenses such as G Claron or Hexanon GR-II. They show terrible chromatic abberations. But Macro Symmar HM, Hexanon GR-II, G Claron and even a Computar Symmetrigon f6.3 would perform superbly in comparison. If you can not afford a proper Macro Symmar or Macro Sironar than your best shot would be a Hexanon GR-II (if you can solve the shutter problem) or simply a G Claron.

Actually i have all test shots done at Fmax, F11, F22 and F45 for all these lenses but haven't yet got the time to compile them down for your attention. Soon though..!

Spoiler : Konica Hexanon GR-II performs single pixel resolution on a 8400x6000 powerphase scan even at f9 (shines at f11) but it's contrast performance naturaly falls slightly behind Macro Symmar HM due to multicoating difference. There is no visible CA in these lenses for M 1:2.5 or so. OTOH if i had to buy a single lens for both table top and landscapes i would go for the Computar Symmetrigon.

Hermes07
17-Oct-2011, 16:36
Sorry for taking the thread slightly off topic but it feels silly to start a new thread for such a simple question and the claron experts all seem to be gathered here...

I've just received my first G-Claron in barrel (305mm) and seen that it has a fairly strange looking 5-bladed aperture where the blades curve outwards so the resulting opening is like a child's drawing of a star. Is there a reason for this design choice other than being a cheap/easy way to do things? All the older process lenses I have (APO Artars, APO Tessars, e.t.c.) seem to have circular apertures with huge numbers of blades whereas the newer ones (APO Germinars as another example) have very few.

Kevin Crisp
17-Oct-2011, 18:04
That is the way the aperture blades are on the typical barrel mounts on the G Clarons. I'd guess it was inexpensive and good enough for enlarging. Some of the barrel mounted C Clarons (not G Clarons) are quite the opposite; huge numbers of blades forming a perfectly round aperture. I don't know why the difference.

redu
17-Oct-2011, 18:47
If you don't need a nice bokeh it's pointless to manufacture a more expensive and complicated aperture mechanism. I believe that's the reason why they are called flat field lenses. Hexanon GR-II has a five blade aperture too.

John NYC
17-Oct-2011, 18:57
The bottom line is that Schneider had excess lenses in terms of unassembled elements that needed shifting, that meant a flood of brand new cheap G Clarons and Xenars in the late 90's early 2000's.

Ian

Please cite your source for this information.

Drew Wiley
17-Oct-2011, 20:06
Seems ridiculous. Both Xenars and G-Clarons were out of production well before then.

aduncanson
17-Oct-2011, 20:25
That is the way the aperture blades are on the typical barrel mounts on the G Clarons. I'd guess it was inexpensive and good enough for enlarging. Some of the barrel mounted C Clarons (not G Clarons) are quite the opposite; huge numbers of blades forming a perfectly round aperture. I don't know why the difference.


If you don't need a nice bokeh it's pointless to manufacture a more expensive and complicated aperture mechanism. I believe that's the reason why they are called flat field lenses. Hexanon GR-II has a five blade aperture too.

Not stated above is that when used in a process camera where flat original art is imaged onto a flat piece of film all parts of the image are in focus, so aperture shape has no consequence. I bought a 240 G-Claron for use in enlarging and was disappointed by the 5 bladed aperture until I realized this.

Cor
18-Oct-2011, 03:07
Wow..first my question was quietly falling asleep, suddenly it's harshly woken up..;-)..

Thanks for all the feedback and remarks, insightful!

Best,

Cor

jp
18-Oct-2011, 05:47
If you don't need a nice bokeh it's pointless to manufacture a more expensive and complicated aperture mechanism. I believe that's the reason why they are called flat field lenses. Hexanon GR-II has a five blade aperture too.

It's related, but it's no the reason they have shapely apertures. I think they are meant for imaging of things that are in focus (such as flat objects), so what the bokeh looks like is irrelevant. Much like in an enlarger, the enlarger lenses often have shapely apertures as they are only used in-focus.

If you are shooting outdoors with thin DOF, especially in back-lit scenes, I'd prefer the lenses with rounder apertures.

Dan Fromm
18-Oct-2011, 06:13
When will you realise that you have neither the equipment nor the methodology to really test lenses so that you could compare their resolution or contrast? You easily declare aerial lenses (remember the posts?) as "unusable", Apo Ronars as beating G-Clarons etc. etc. Shooting these lenses on your Graphics camera aimed at the fence near you is not a valid way to compare lenses so that you could do your sweeping judgements...Oh dear. Another entirely wrong-headed personal attack.

Why do you refuse to accept that my rankings of lenses are reproducible? And why do you refuse to understand that since I'm most concerned with on-axis performance -- remember, I shoot 2x3 so for lenses longer than around 100 mm performance far off axis isn't very important to me -- I've done many of my trials with the lenses hung in front of a Nikon.

Please stop telling me I'm wrong. Instead, tell us how you decide which lenses not to use.

Dan Fromm
18-Oct-2011, 06:41
GPS, I asked you a question. Please answer it.

redu
18-Oct-2011, 06:49
I have tested the following lenses and have seen distinguisable and measurable differences between both resolution and contrast performances at M ~ 1:2.5

Caltar II N (Sironar N) 210 5.6
Computar Symmetrigon 210 6.3
G Claron 150 9
Hexanon GR-II 150 9
Macro Symmar HM 120 5.6

both at Fmax, f11, f22 and f45

The difficult part is to focus perfectly right and to keep the system stable during scan (f45 takes 26 minutes). Otherwise it is very easy to see the differences i.e As per contrast, Macro Symmar produces dynamic range greater than my Phase One Powerphase scanback's CCD can handle, while others don't. This is evident on the histogram. Resolutionwise a single meaningful pixel of information (considerable brightness and color change) in a 8400x6000 scan is perfectly perfect for a real sharp sharp lens; yielding 44+ lpm resolution at >= 60% modulation.

Likewise...

GPS
18-Oct-2011, 07:00
GPS, I asked you a question. Please answer it.

I answered your question. You don't have technical means to be able to test lenses resolution and contrast. That's why your lens "tests" are nothing more than amateurish ways of comparing pictures taken with different lenses.
When lenses are tested by those who have the means to do so, they don't use your eye to focus a lens, they don't use your fence and your Graflex camera, they don't even use your film holders etc. They have machines to focus aerial images on sensors in a process that avoids film, holders, your blinking eye and your shaking hand (now I nailed that focus, right on again...:rolleyes: ) etc. You're nowhere near to be able to say differences of 5-10 lines/mm with your amateurish means. Got it?
Read the gentlemen's post above -they all have their eyes, cameras with film and opinions about lenses they took pictures with. But only your pictures can say what lens is sharper - and unmistakably so. :rolleyes:

Kevin Crisp
18-Oct-2011, 07:03
I misspoke in my earlier post, I meant Repro-Clarons not C Clarons. Putting that aside, if the theories on why the shape of the aperture is relatively unimportant on a barrel mounted process lens are correct as above, then why would Repro Clarons go the opposite direction and have such complicated and intricate set ups in barrel mounts? Because the G Clarons were often used for enlarging and the Repros were not? Just curious.

Dan Fromm
18-Oct-2011, 07:31
You're nowhere near to be able to say differences of 5-10 lines/mm with your amateurish means. Got it?

Yes I got it.

But what I got is that you're not aware of what I've done or how well what I do discriminates between lenses. You're making assumptions and incorrect assertions, not measuring. Try measuring.

aduncanson
18-Oct-2011, 07:58
I misspoke in my earlier post, I meant Repro-Clarons not C Clarons. Putting that aside, if the theories on why the shape of the aperture is relatively unimportant on a barrel mounted process lens are correct as above, then why would Repro Clarons go the opposite direction and have such complicated and intricate set ups in barrel mounts? Because the G Clarons were often used for enlarging and the Repros were not? Just curious.

My speculation (totally unsupported by anything that might pass as fact) is that the Repro-Clarons came from an age when workmanship was held in high esteem in its own right and was not totally subservient to issues of selling price and profit. And also perhaps, it was a time when many general purpose taking lenses were sold in barrels so that Schneider had a range of barrels in production that were shared between their taking lenses and their process or enlarging lenses.

It might have also been a factor that when the Repro-Clarons were sold, they were competing with the Goerz Artars with their beautiful many-leaved apertures. I am sure that by the time that my G-Claron was made, that competitor had been neutralized.

Drew Wiley
18-Oct-2011, 08:24
It has a lot to do with vintage. Multi-bladed apertures are more typical on older lenses.
Someone else might be better than me at explaining whether this was simply due to
cost or alleged improvements in mechanical function. Certainly with some focal lengths, a simplification of the shutter allowed a significant reduction in shutter size and wt.

Kevin Crisp
18-Oct-2011, 08:30
At least on the repro clarons I have (305, 355, 420) the fancy apertures were on fairly late production ones in factory barrels. My comments were all about barrel mounts, not shutters. I've ended up keeping the 355 and 420 in their barrel mounts, just bushed them to front mount on the Copal 2 shutter I use for the 305. Works great for 5X7.

Drew Wiley
18-Oct-2011, 08:43
Interesting, Kevin. My Apo Nikkor process lenses are also fairly late, and were installed
with multi-bladed apertures, well after these kinds of apertures were disappearing from
most taking lenses with shutters. An exception would be the late Kern dagors in Compur. Maybe this was just how the production lines worked. Certainly once the classic Copal 3s shutter disappeared, the newer Copals had less blades. Makes me
tempted to retrofit certain optics onto the older shutters; but it's generally much more
cost effective just to buy an older lens for the instances like portraiture where selective focus and good bokeh are desirable.

Dan Fromm
18-Oct-2011, 08:45
Call it not testing, call it "measuring", call it as you like it. Just don't declare with "authority" that aerial lens made specifically to perform exceptionally in their resolution and contrast as "unusable" because you put them on your Graflex machine and tested (no, not that - measured) them and that Apo -Ronars handily beat C-Clarons if you don't want to look technically naive.
The assumptions and incorrect assertions are entirely on your part, the way you declare these amateurish findings. But don't worry - this whole forum is already full of them (thanks to your diligence too), adding even more won't make it worse...:)

Thanks for the kind words.

Many aerial camera lenses are unusable on view cameras because of short back focus, size, weight, and the cost/difficulty of getting timed exposures with them. Usability involves more than just optical performance.

Many lenses for aerial cameras, if the various Soviet lens catalogs and USAF data sheets are to be believed, are not particularly sharp wide open on-axis and are very bad at the limits of coverage. Unfortunately, many are designed for use with monochromatic light, which makes them useless for general photography. Are you calling GOI and USAF liars?

Which aerial lenses have you tried to use? What problems did you encounter? How did you solve them? Do you use any?

I have on hand a 200/2.0 S.F.O.M. lens that covers 4x5. It is 6" in diameter, weighs around 14 pounds. How would you use it on any of your 4x5 cameras?

The question "which of these lenses of similar specifications should I use?" comes up often here. Be helpful, tell us how you answer it for your own lenses.

I stand by my report that the one 150/9 G-Claron I had shot worse (from f/9 to f/22) than the two 150/9 Apo Ronars I still have. Are you calling me a liar? I hope not.

I may well have had a bad example of a 150 G-Claron. Remember that used lenses may have been abused and can perform worse than they did when originally delivered.

Kevin Crisp
18-Oct-2011, 09:00
The 150 G Claron tested here:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html#100mm_thru_163mm

bested some multicoated plasmats. If you don't like it, don't use it.

I've used G Clarons in 150, 210, 240, 305, 355 and R Clarons in 210, 305, 355 and 420 and never had one that wasn't a quite decent lens.

It does seem to me to come down to weight, since I've never found the f:9 maximum aperture to be a problem. The G Clarons have a lot of useful coverage too. I don't think you'll go wrong with either choice if you have a good gg.

Armin Seeholzer
18-Oct-2011, 09:00
My G-Glaron 150mm which I boot new was sharper then my already long gone 210mm Symmar, but had no chance against my APO Symmar 210mm at large distances! So its maybe also a bit a part of the age! My Symmar was from around 1970 the 150mm G- Glaron is from 2001 short bevore they stopped production!
For there price G-Glarons are almost famous in my opinion, but for work in the blue hour or even at dark they are also a nightmare!

Cheers Armin

Brian Ellis
18-Oct-2011, 09:13
I used three different G Claons - 210, 240, and 305 or something like that for general purpose photography. They are excellent lenses for that purpose. Their design is such that the usable image circle increases as you continue stopping down so you can't really pay much attention to Schneider's numbers. I used the 210 for 8x10 and had plenty of room for movements at f/22 and smaller. If you look at the specs you'd never think it even covered 8x10.

I'd take the G Claron over the Symmar. With a 210 lens f/9 won't be a problem for composing and focusing and I'd rather have the Copal 1 shutter than an old Compur.

GPS
18-Oct-2011, 09:42
Thanks for the kind words.

Many aerial camera lenses are unusable on view cameras because of short back focus, size, weight, and the cost/difficulty of getting timed exposures with them. Usability involves more than just optical performance.
...

You see Dan, you try to deviate the post to a different point...:)
So, on a different point I tell how I do with lenses "unusable"...:) I have lenses that I couldn't use on my view cameras be it because of their weight, focal length etc. Instead of declaring them unusable I simply construct my own cameras for them and then I use them. I could not use my 800mm Nikon on a field view camera in high mountains winds, when it snows etc. I could not even use it on high mountains where only longer trekking gets you there. But instead of declaring them unusable I construct my own cameras for those conditions and then use the lens. Many of the aerial lenses you declared unusable would be superbly usable with my cameras, even without shutters (aerial lenses with their speed are very suitable for lightning photography during a night time...)
And yes, there is a difference to say - my Apo-Ronar didn't give me as sharp a picture as my C-Claron - and to say Apo-Ronars beat handily C-Clarons. The first utterance speaks about your experience with the lens, the second about technical naivety.
But be it as you like it - if you want to make the sweeping statements of a Mr. Amateur Tester or those of a knowledgeable photographer. Just don't be surprised when some people react at the technical devil points...;)

Dan Fromm
18-Oct-2011, 10:33
And yes, there is a difference to say - my Apo-Ronar didn't give me as sharp a picture as my C-Claron - and to say Apo-Ronars beat handily C-Clarons. The first utterance speaks about your experience with the lens, the second about technical naivety.

GPS, you misquoted me. You've been doing this very consistently.

And I'm sorry, but you still haven't answered the questions I asked you.

Kevin Crisp
18-Oct-2011, 11:05
Is preening condescension anything other than preening condescension if you put those little yellow smiley faces in your sentences? Let me give it a go. :) :)

GPS
18-Oct-2011, 11:10
...

Why do you refuse to accept that my rankings of lenses are reproducible? And why do you refuse to understand that since I'm most concerned with on-axis performance -- remember, I shoot 2x3 so for lenses longer than around 100 mm performance far off axis isn't very important to me -- I've done many of my trials with the lenses hung in front of a Nikon.
...


GPS, you misquoted me. You've been doing this very consistently.

And I'm sorry, but you still haven't answered the questions I asked you.

Since you asked again - I answer again. The "rankings" of your lenses are not based on a sufficiently correct test. They're your own experience with your lenses, not an objective result of appropriate lens tests - for which you have nowhere near the equipment, the knowledge and the capacity.
A lens hung in front of your Nikon is just another amateurish lens experience you try to elevate on some kind of authoritative lens "ranking". How did you focus your Nikon? With your scientific eye I suppose...:rolleyes:
Just read the comments above to see how "objective" such rankings as yours are...
No Dan, a Graflex and the fence near you is not sufficient to make one a lens test guru however much one would aspire for the position.

GPS
18-Oct-2011, 11:27
GPS, you misquoted me. You've been doing this very consistently.

And I'm sorry, but you still haven't answered the questions I asked you.

And in case you're still into it try to describe your testing methods (a Graflex camera and the near fence) and its results as an objective lens test somewhere for a publication other than that on an internet forum. Maybe you will finally understand the value of the tests and the objectivity of the results. After all, you have tested so many lenses even aerial ones that the public would be charmed to see the scientific results of this testing technique... Don't be surprised if you're refused for the reasons I already told you though.

IanG
18-Oct-2011, 11:27
Seems ridiculous. Both Xenars and G-Clarons were out of production well before then.

My 150mm f5.6 Xenar has a SN from early 2000's, and there were new G Claron's for sale at the same time. The Xenar's were available in 3 focal lenghts.

The Internet Archive/Way back machine will show Robert White in the UK selling them brand new, also G Claron's.

So were they out of production ? Not at all but they hadn't been available for a while and were sold through only a small number of dealers.

I do remember the adverts in the early 2000's for them on the internet which is also when the G Claron was hyped up.

A comment about the resolution test is they are of a flat field chart so will always favour flat field lenes, and these ones don't measure spherical distortions.

Ian

Drew Wiley
18-Oct-2011, 11:41
Hard to say exactly when lenses were actually mfg vs "sold out" unless you contact
Schneider. The quantities would have been minor anyway as a given line panned out.
Saw the last dealer new G-Claron sell out about two or three years ago. Lots of internet sites per se still list cameras and lenses that the dealer has been out of for
a long time. Apparently some sites are rarely updated. In this country G-Clarons were
undersold to say the least. Not many photographers seemed to recognize their versatility unless word got around on forums like this one.

Drew Wiley
18-Oct-2011, 12:12
I can certainly see "discernable differences" in a 30x40 INCH immaculate Cibachrome print enlarged from 4x5 from these respective lenses. But I know what to look for. The general public probably couldn't even spot the difference, all else being equal. Either way they'd look damn sharp if your darkroom technique is tuned in. You'd get a bigger
improvement generally with bigger film (8x10), rather than beating this lens subject to
death. I do strongly prefer the G-Claron for its smaller size packed and better close-up
performance. But we're talking about nuances here, valid in some circumstances, overkill in others.

GPS
18-Oct-2011, 12:40
...

When enlarging negatives to 40*50 cm (most frequent size) or 50*60 (max in my tiny darkroom) would there be discernible differences (yes I will run that test..:) ..) ?


Best,

Cor

So Cor,, by now you have probably more opinions than you asked for... Chances are, that when running your test, all you will be able to see is the momentaneous capacity to focus your enlarger - more than the real lens qualities comparison. ;)

IanG
18-Oct-2011, 13:10
Hard to say exactly when lenses were actually mfg vs "sold out" unless you contact
Schneider. The quantities would have been minor anyway as a given line panned out.
Saw the last dealer new G-Claron sell out about two or three years ago. Lots of internet sites per se still list cameras and lenses that the dealer has been out of for
a long time. Apparently some sites are rarely updated. In this country G-Clarons were
undersold to say the least. Not many photographers seemed to recognize their versatility unless word got around on forums like this one.

Sounds like excuses :D

Schneider state the dates of their SN's and the dealers I use keep their sales pages upto date.

What no one's addrtessing is thay test charts throw up false figures especially for process lenses.

Ian

John NYC
18-Oct-2011, 14:00
What no one's addrtessing is thay test charts throw up false figures especially for process lenses.

Ian

You never cited your source on your last claim, so I doubt you will here on this, but I will ask anyway. Please cite your source for this assertion.

John Kasaian
18-Oct-2011, 14:04
An interesting photograph with an x lens beats a dull photograph with a y lens. Unless you're into earth imaging or counterfeiting greenbacks, pick either and get out there and make pictures :) By futzing around with optical theories about one lens or another, you're basically give yourself ready made excuses for failure. Even if a G is superior to a Symmar( or vice-versa) there are bound to be other lenses that are even better. This is how people end up chasing magic bullets. I maintain that any lens can be a magic bullet if it s used to the best of your abilities.

GPS
18-Oct-2011, 14:31
An interesting photograph with an x lens beats a dull photograph with a y lens. Unless you're into earth imaging or counterfeiting greenbacks, pick either and get out there and make pictures :) By futzing around with optical theories about one lens or another, you're basically give yourself ready made excuses for failure. Even if a G is superior to a Symmar( or vice-versa) there are bound to be other lenses that are even better. This is how people end up chasing magic bullets. I maintain that any lens can be a magic bullet if it s used to the best of your abilities.

I agree with you. Except for professional reasons very few photographers would need to change lenses only because the X lens has 10 lines/mm better resolution than the other one. Even more so with their Cocos wooden field cameras...

IanG
18-Oct-2011, 14:42
You never cited your source on your last claim, so I doubt you will here on this, but I will ask anyway. Please cite your source for this assertion.

Test charts are flat field subjects perhaps you don't trealise that :eek:

So a repro/copy lens will give far better results because that's what they are designed for.

No rocket science in that . . . . . . . .

Bacck in the late 70's & 80's the best lens tests in UK magazines dropped test charts for this reason and used more practical testing under real life situations, that mades far more sense.

Ian

Kevin Crisp
18-Oct-2011, 15:20
Aren't virtually all photographic lenses "flat field" lenses?

Drew Wiley
18-Oct-2011, 15:34
Have you ever actually owned and shot any of these lenses, Ian? I think THAT is the
relevant question.

Sevo
18-Oct-2011, 15:53
Aren't virtually all photographic lenses "flat field" lenses?

There are very few exceptions - IIRC Minolta made one or two "VFC" 35mm SLR lenses whose field curvature could be controlled with an extra ring, intended as a extremely odd contribution to the shift lens genre. And process lenses for non-flat subjects (like CRT screen reproduction, telecine or phototypesetter lenses) generally had a field curvature exactly matching their subject. Very ancient designs have a non-flat field as a inherent flaw, but they were already outdated by the late 19th century and only survived as intentionally odd and blurry portrait lenses. Fish-eyes technically often don't do much against field curvature, but at their huge DOF that is invisible. And fast asymmetric lens designs tend to have only one aperture at which they are truly flat. But that would be about it, and nothing of the above except for some odd portrait and process lenses is relevant for LF - any general purpose LF lens made in the past seventy or eighty years can be considered flat field...

Kevin Crisp
18-Oct-2011, 16:06
I scratched my head the first time I heard the "flat field lens" saw. I wondered what kind of shapes the "regular" lenses were optimized for.

John NYC
18-Oct-2011, 16:24
Test charts are flat field subjects perhaps you don't trealise that :eek:

So a repro/copy lens will give far better results because that's what they are designed for.

No rocket science in that . . . . . . . .

Bacck in the late 70's & 80's the best lens tests in UK magazines dropped test charts for this reason and used more practical testing under real life situations, that mades far more sense.

Ian

You are just out in left field now, but OK, hey if you won't point out the tests you think are bogus, show me these tests that pit the G-Claron performing worse... you know, the tests you respect?

Oren Grad
18-Oct-2011, 21:24
Courtesy of the Wayback Machine:

The Myth of the "Flat Field" Lens (http://web.archive.org/web/20050324153334/http://www.wisner.com/myth.htm)

Darin Boville
18-Oct-2011, 23:11
Aren't virtually all photographic lenses "flat field" lenses?

Until you use them at large apertures and/or close up--not stuff LF photographers often encounter :)

--Darin

GPS
19-Oct-2011, 00:51
Guys,
take now a more distant look at the content of this thread (Ken Lee would say the least pleasing perspective ;) ) and see the following: 3 (perhaps even 4) people think the G-Claron lens is "better". 1 person thinks the Symmar is better. 3 people think both lenses are the same for a photograph. 1 person think that Apo-Ronar beats handily the G-Claron but says nothing about the Symmar. 1 person thinks neither lens is better or worse than the other. 1 person thinks G-Claron is better than this Symmar but worse than that Symmar, 1 person thinks there is nothing to care about in both of these lenses...
You start to see the logic? What is interesting is that those people who prefer Symmar to Claron and vice-versa both appeal to their tests with the lenses! Then there is the one who swears on his tests (beating the Claron with yet a different lens) and all these gentlemen are positively sure of the strength of their tests... Uncertainty persists though about what is better for the test - a chart, a real world object (a fence? a wall? landscape?)...

Do you start to get it? This people with their tests are not the means with which one can get an objective opinion about the comparative quality of lenses. That was my point I came with to the discussion. The reason why their opinions are well short of objectivity is the technically amateurish way their "tests" are made in. Sure they don't like hearing this but let them beat each other (calls were already made in the thread!) with the objectivity of just their testing technique...

The conclusion? Unless you have scientific test results all this talk (and the questions in that sense too) is just technically useless amateurish garbage.
Sorry to rain on the lens testing parade. There are many who prefer the much closer perspective of their home made "tests", I know...

Cor
19-Oct-2011, 02:01
Courtesy of the Wayback Machine:

The Myth of the "Flat Field" Lens (http://web.archive.org/web/20050324153334/http://www.wisner.com/myth.htm)

..that reminds me: wasn't Ron Wisner supposed to have a set of G-Claron elements (3?0 you could screw in one shutter to obtain a set of different focal lengths and F stops ? (the correct name for such a set escapes me at the moment), perhaps it did materialise, but I seem to remember people pay up front for such a set, and it never materialised..but I could have this totally wrong, just from memory..

Best,

Cor

Cor
19-Oct-2011, 02:12
An interesting photograph with an x lens beats a dull photograph with a y lens. Unless you're into earth imaging or counterfeiting greenbacks, pick either and get out there and make pictures :) By futzing around with optical theories about one lens or another, you're basically give yourself ready made excuses for failure. Even if a G is superior to a Symmar( or vice-versa) there are bound to be other lenses that are even better. This is how people end up chasing magic bullets. I maintain that any lens can be a magic bullet if it s used to the best of your abilities.

100 % agree, actually I was just wondering if I left my older 210 Symmar at home in favour of my 210 G-Claron out of weight concern.. Would I than obtain exposed negatives of lesser quality (purely in the technical sense, so resolution, contrast etc.) The general consensus seems that this is not the case (keeping a less than cooperative person out of the equation, but compulsive as he is will need to react anyway..)

Thanks & best,

Cor (who will run the comparative test anyway in a purely amateur and subjective way, after all it should work for me.)

gary mulder
19-Oct-2011, 04:41
According to my experience the differences between individual second hand optics are far more significant than the general specs of a design. We are talking about 20 - 40 year old lenses. How knows what life the have had.

GPS
19-Oct-2011, 06:42
According to my experience the differences between individual second hand optics are far more significant than the general specs of a design. ...

"My experience" -that's the correct way to say it. Indeed - if you take a sharp picture with a lens, you have the right to say - it is a sharp lens because an unsharp lens cannot take sharp pictures. But it doesn't work the other way round - an unsharp picture is not (for a multitude of reasons related to the whole chain of possible causes of fuzzy pictures) an unmistakable sign of an unsharp lens. You just have to say - I did not manage to take a sharp picture with the lens.
That's what makes a comparison between lenses difficult - as soon as you need to qualify the slight differences in the lack of lens quality (obvious lemons apart) only technically serious tests will do. Otherwise you have no way to correctly judge if the fuzziness is caused by the lens or the lack of precise measuring.

Kevin Crisp
19-Oct-2011, 07:41
Wisner did sell, in very limited numbers, a convertible plasmat set. They were single coated, in brass mounts, and reportedly made for him by Schneider. They didn't look like G Clarons to me. The execution, all in all, with the walnut box and brass aperture chart, was elegant.

I had the 5X7 set for a time. The combined elements (many of which were so close in focal length as to not be meaningfully different) performed very well. I found the single elements so soft on the edges even when stopped way down that I sold the set. The result was similar to the two Zeiss protar sets I once had, and which I sold for the same reason. I have many B&L lenses which perform acceptably as single elements if you refocus at taking aperture for the shift.

I do question the idea that an amateur cannot meaningfully test the quality of a lens at home; it isn't hard. True, it won't result in a l/mm result unless you shoot a test chart, but it will tell you if the lens performs well in real life. Put the negative on the light table and use your loupe and you'll know if it is sharp in the middle and the edges. Shoot it on a too-big sheet of film and you can draw a circle and determine useful image circle at taking apertures. So long as you know how to use a tripod and how to focus, you can eliminate the suggestion that the shortcomings are yours and not the lens. On one photo in particular, I wished I had tested the single element of the Wisner before I needed it. The negative was sharp in the middle and then quite fuzzy on the edges.

John Kasaian
19-Oct-2011, 07:47
..that reminds me: wasn't Ron Wisner supposed to have a set of G-Claron elements (3?0 you could screw in one shutter to obtain a set of different focal lengths and F stops ? (the correct name for such a set escapes me at the moment), perhaps it did materialise, but I seem to remember people pay up front for such a set, and it never materialised..but I could have this totally wrong, just from memory..

Best,

Cor

The would be a casket set. IIRC, Jim Galli has a combination of G Claron elements he put together himself, but it's not a casket set.

BrianShaw
19-Oct-2011, 08:48
(not that anyone really should care, but I'm enjoying this thread, learning a lot, and remain amazed at you folks' stamina.)

E. von Hoegh
19-Oct-2011, 08:57
I wanna join the deluded idiot club.

I routinely evaluate lenses by photographing things like newspapers, electric meters on the neighbor's house, whatever is handy and has fine detail.
If I don't feel like using and developing film, I set up a star test.

Does this qualify me?:)

Dan Fromm
19-Oct-2011, 09:41
I wanna join the deluded idiot club.

I routinely evaluate lenses by photographing things like newspapers, electric meters on the neighbor's house, whatever is handy and has fine detail.
If I don't feel like using and developing film, I set up a star test.

Does this qualify me?:)Absolutely. Welcome, brother!

Ole Tjugen
19-Oct-2011, 13:15
The would be a casket set. IIRC, Jim Galli has a combination of G Claron elements he put together himself, but it's not a casket set.

Which reminds me that http://www.casket-set.com will be up soon. As soon as I get the pages uploaded, which is proving to be more tricky than anticipated.

IanG
19-Oct-2011, 13:59
Have you ever actually owned and shot any of these lenses, Ian? I think THAT is the
relevant question.

I've already told you I own these lenses, and I've used them as well. You can come and see them if you doubt me :D The G Claron & Xenar are mint . . . . . . .

My experience is that in real life situations they don't behave like they would shooting a test chart.

I'll return to my comment that you need to know how your lenses behave. I've a planned test to compare a 150mm f5.6 Sironar N, 150mm f5,6 (late) Xenar, early 1950's 150mm f4.5 T coated CZJ Tessar, 150mm f6.3 Geronar, and 150mm f9 G Claron, all in suberb condition, I may add a 135mm Caltar (Symmar), 1930's 135mm Tessar and 1913 165mm f6.3 Tessar.

When it comes to lenses I'm open minded and in thne case of say a 90mm f6.8 Angulon have tried 3 in 25 tears, owned the first and last borrowed the other) the last is a good lens the two earlier real dogs.

I ju8st think there's a lack of realism sometimes when certain lenses get over hyped.

Ian

IanG
19-Oct-2011, 14:10
According to my experience the differences between individual second hand optics are far more significant than the general specs of a design. We are talking about 20 - 40 year old lenses. How knows what life the have had.

I'm talking about lenses less than 10 years old where the seller I bought from was the original purchaser.

But in practice even 100 year old lenses have been fine bought S/H.

Ian

gary mulder
19-Oct-2011, 15:07
I'm talking about lenses less than 10 years old where the seller I bought from was the original purchaser.

But in practice even 100 year old lenses have been fine bought S/H.

Ian

Sorry if I offended people.

Just my tought that a "f5.6 210 mm Symmar (chrome on the outside), single coated, in an older Synchro Compur (old shutter speed range), single coated" and a "f9 G-Claron 210 mm mounted in a Polaroid Copal 1, I guess single coated." should be older than 10 years by now.

Jim Galli
19-Oct-2011, 15:15
My $$ on the G-Claron. Period.

Drew Wiley
19-Oct-2011, 15:38
Ian - I have no idea how you're coming up with opinions that run contrary to what the
rest of us have learned from lots and lots of cumulative experience. The question concerned two specific lenses in the 210 range, not old 150's. I'll agree that test charts don't tell the whole story; but any critical test is inherently nullified once you put the film in a conventional holder, which doesn't hold film flat in the first place. But heck, I wouldn't hesitate to use a G-Claron even on a rollfilm back, expecting to get even better sharpness than most modern dedicated MF lenses. An in 210, the G wins
hands down over a Symmar-S. I got thousands of shots, both color and b&w to prove
it.

Kevin Crisp
19-Oct-2011, 16:24
Lens to lens variability invalidates many of the general assertions of fact in this thread. If your G Claron is sharper than your Symmar-S in meaningfully controlled tests, then I accept that. If you've shot the two side by side for thousands of shots, I think you've wasted some film. Regardless, your personal result isn't the basis for advice for someone else. My own personal tolerance for lens tests is pretty limited, I'd rather spend the time doing other things. When I have an oddball lens, usually something old and brass, I do explore what it can do, and if I have two of something I'll sometimes test them side by side and keep the one I think is better. At least where I can tell a difference at high magnification.

If you seriously think that a LF lens on a roll film back is going to exceed the sharpness of a dedicated MF lens, then I question your conclusions generally. Even 1950's vintage MF lenses on cameras like the lowly Rolleicord will generally kick modern LF glass. It isn't even arguable if you start checking lenses like those on a Mamiya 6.

Cor
20-Oct-2011, 01:24
..well the equation starts out simple:

2 lenses (with NO defects, age is less relevant than, assuming the design was not changed):

a f9 210mm G-Claron versus a silver rimmed convertible 210 mm f5.6 Symmar.

Than it gets complex very fast: how to test, variables as film holder, camera, tripod, focus, test target gets in to play. Analysis: analogue or digital?

Observations and facts get anadotical fast than, nevertheless some common ground can be distilled, my initial question has been answered, thanks all for your contributions.

Best,

Cor

GPS
20-Oct-2011, 04:47
Test charts are flat field subjects perhaps you don't trealise that :eek:

So a repro/copy lens will give far better results because that's what they are designed for.

No rocket science in that . . . . . . . .

Bacck in the late 70's & 80's the best lens tests in UK magazines dropped test charts for this reason and used more practical testing under real life situations, that mades far more sense.

Ian

Ian,
don't get easily fooled. The reason why magazines dropped the test charts was far more practical than you'd believe... The magazines were living on advertisement. They knew it all too well. And advertisement got - well, diversified...;) They were preying on amateurs and their amateurish chasing of the famous magic bullets. And they discovered that MTF graphs and testing charts looked too intimidating to the amateur masses (the easy digital photography was already prepared in the amateur heads long before it became a reality :) ) So, instead of the high science they came with the easy - you see for your self - method. They changed to the "real life" tests. And no, you won't see any difference on a real life picture between a flat field lens and a normal LF lens. And no, any "special distortions" you won't see them better than on a test chart either. Quit the contrary! But the amateur masses will much better believe and read the testing made with the "real life" situations - after all, isn't it how they were taking pictures? -rather than looking at dead testing charts. The result of this "clever" advertisement was also the fact, that amateurs started to talk like crazes about their own lenses and their own tests (in the real life, of course, how otherwise, even photo magazines do so!) - and manufactures together with magazines were happy. Ah, the golden age of amateur photography!
So sorry to destroy one of the successful legends... BTW have you noticed how every single camera in those magazine tests were oh so good!? You didn't need to have university to understand the plot...;) (If only you knew the behind the scene corruption and politics in these tests...)

Drew Wiley
20-Oct-2011, 09:42
The proof is in the pudding, Kevin. And I doubt that even 1% of the darkrooms in the
world have process control as tight as mine. I even have my own optical bench
arrangements for testing lenses and vacuum easel filmholders for precise testing with
real film, and dedicated easel desitometers about a thousand times more accurate than a typcial light meter. I'm not guessing. Not that this is such a big deal for general shooting, or where we have lots of good lens options to begin with. But for certain other things it does matter. I won't get into the M7 type lens arguments (got into it
with Sandy once) because we are comparing apples to oranges. Specifically, I work
a lot with relatively long perspectives, and M7 doesn't have much to offer in this category, and where it does, you have no movements to control plane of focus.
Using just the center of the field of lenses like G-Clarons, Fuji A's, or Nikkor M's for medium format holders combined with focal plane options, and you can often blow away the results of any dedicated medium format lens in those frequent cases where the only practical option is to stop the lens down for depth of field. But even with wide-angle lenses, view camera movements can be the key to visibly superior focus.
We're talking about real-world photography here, not flat test targets.

Armin Seeholzer
20-Oct-2011, 09:50
I like to do tests with my lenses but not only to see which is sharper then the other, for me is also the rendering of the out of focus parts very important and also the smooth change from sharp to unsharp and if the lens has a more 3 D look then an other one!

Cheers just start a test this evening with all my lenses except the wide ones because I always learn a bit about my tools Armin

GPS
20-Oct-2011, 11:38
...
And I doubt that even 1% of the darkrooms in the
world have process control as tight as mine. I even have my own optical bench
arrangements for testing lenses and vacuum easel filmholders for precise testing with
real film, and dedicated easel desitometers about a thousand times more accurate than a typcial light meter. I'm not guessing. Not that this is such a big deal for general shooting, or where we have lots of good lens options to begin with. But for certain other things it does matter.
...

You mean you'd not be relying on a Graflex camera, focused visually on the gg (right on, again), checked visually standards parallelity (good as usual), hoped for a non bulging film (no, doesn't happen to me, never) and took a picture of the fence over there? You don't want to be guessing? Hmm. Either you know something about what matters or you're just kidding... :confused:

Drew Wiley
20-Oct-2011, 12:21
GPS - where sharpness and enlargement are critical issues, I'm really for optimization
in both camps. Study the numbers, put lenses on the optical bench, verify the exact
shutter speeds etc etc. But then what is the likely real world application of that particular lens? For that field testing is mandatory, especially when it concerns the effects of actual movements in relation to image circle, usable aperture etc, or even
potential vibrations induced on a particular camera/tripod setup. You can simulate some of those things in a lab too if needed. But I do get a little annoyed when people
complain of this and that, and it turns out something totally other than the lens is at
fault, like the film plane itself is uneven, or poor focus on a fuzzy fresnel, or an out-of-whack enlarger, or how everything gets irrelevantly roto-tilled with a scan and pixelated analysis which only described how all that went wrong. Beyond the hard specs, we also all have priorities of the subjective "look" the lens provides. In this
case, just about every pro photographer back in the day knew that the "new" Apo
Sironar (N's) in 210 were looking crisper than the venerable 210 Symmar S. I switched
over to a 250/6.7 Fuji W when my Symmar S got downright ugly with Sinaritis; and it
absolutely blew it away in the sharpness category - but even this did not match what
I got with the 250 G-Claron and 240 Fuji A. But like I already stated, it's all about
nuances and priorites and logistical details like size and weight. They're all very
respectable lenses as far as I'm concerned.

Ken Lee
21-Oct-2011, 00:34
This thread is now closed at the request of the original poster.