Best guess Glennview's ~210mm ~F/8 lens that covers 11X14 is a Computar?

[Donal Taylor]

So is that the best guess for this mystery lens and it's obscure marketing device?

The Computar 210 f9?

If it is, it's certainly overpriced. With a bit of patience you could do much better on ebay - I've seen at least 4 over the last year, and I haven't been looking for them - and all have gone for much less than that - at most a quarter of that price. Maybe if you can afford 11x14 film you can afford to pay through the nose for lenses?

[Frank Petronio]

The only thing to be sure of is that everything at Glennview is overpriced but it's all good stuff...

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The only thing to be sure of is that everything at Glennview is overpriced but it's all good stuff...



That is for sure, I wonder how he stays in bussiness?....I mean $5000 for a refurbish F&S? A brand new Chanam is but a few dollars more.

[Jim Galli]

Actually, it works out well. Yearly visits are all that are needed, and he doesn't need to continually update those pages.

[Nick_3536]

Don't even look at the Durst enlarger prices then-) $50 each for a couple of manuals Durst will mail you for free if you ask.

[sanking]

"The Computar 210 f9? If it is, it's certainly overpriced. With a bit of patience you could do much better on ebay - I've seen at least 4 over the last year, and I haven't been looking for them - and all have gone for much less than that - at most a quarter of that price."

OK, but a modern 210mm f/9 lens the size of a quarter, coated and in a Copal #0 or #1 shutter, that covers 11X14 is certainly nothing to turn your nose up at so if someone actually bought a 210 Computar in shutter that covers 11X14 for $400 he/she got one hell of a deal in my opinion. In fact, I would consider such a lens a good deal at twice that price, certainly when you look at the options. And remember, this is not just about coverage, but wide angle coverage in a modern coated lens of this size.

To add another note, I had an opportunity today to compare the coverage (circle of illumination) of a 210 f/9 Computar in barrel with another very wide angle lens that I use on this format, the 8X10 B&L Protar Series V, which I believe to be 180mm in focal length, using my 7X17 camera. Here is what I found.

1. With everything on the camera centered the 8X10 B&L (180mm) Protar Series V gave full coverage of 7X17 at f/64, when focused at 50'. This means that its circle of illumination is 460mm, or just slighly more.

2. With the same conditions as above the 210mm f/9 Computar *just* missed the corners, giving it a circle of illumination I would judge to be about 455mm.

Note that the actual diagonal of the image area of 7X17 (what the film holder sees) is slightly less than the true diagonal of the format.

Since the actual diagonal of the image area of 11X14 is about 450mm, slightly less than 7X17, I would conclude that the 210 F/9 Computar does indeed cover 11X14, but with little or no room for movement.

By contrast, a 210mm Kowa Graphic that I previously looked at on 7X17 missed the corners by several inches, as does the G-Claron.

[Steve Hamley]

With respect to the Kowa versus Computar coverage differences, I recently purchased a 360 Kowa Graphic (actually from Glenn Evans, NIB in barrel for a very reasonable price) and was comparing it to the 240 mm Computar I have.

The reflections in the 240 Computar are identical to the reflections in my 270 G-Claron, indicating it is a plasmat. The 360 Kowa however, has reflections identical to my 19 inch Artar. So the Kowa is evidentally a dialyte which explains why the coverage is much less than would be expected from a same-length plasmat.

Steve

[tim atherton]

"The reflections in the 240 Computar are identical to the reflections in my 270 G-Claron, indicating it is a plasmat. The 360 Kowa however, has reflections identical to my 19 inch Artar. So the Kowa is evidentally a dialyte which explains why the coverage is much less than would be expected from a same-length plasmat."

One would have to presume this isn't the case for the 210mm version (not having my G-Claron anymore)? As the 210 Kowa has significantly more coverage than the 210 G-Claron.

[sanking]

"One would have to presume this isn't the case for the 210mm version (not having my G-Claron anymore)? As the 210 Kowa has significantly more coverage than the 210 G-Claron."

Tim,

I have found the opposite to be true. A 355 G-Claron will cover 12X20 with perhaps an inch of movement. The 360mm Kowa Graphic misses the corners by quite a bit. Schneider stated coverage of the G-Claron is quite a bit less than the useful circle of illumination for contact printing.