210mm for 8x10"

[Tim V]

Reviving thread.

I've been really loving my 210mm G-Claron Dagor type but am contemplating getting the Schenider 210mm Angulon f6.8.

Can anyone comment if the Angulon is significanltly better, both in IC and sharp rendering of details? Does it suffer much from field-curvature?

I've found the -G-Cloron to be a really great lens and the IC at f45 is actually very good for me. Sharpness does fall off quite quickly past a point though, and that's where I wonder if the Angulong might be money well spent.

[Luis-F-S]

I'd keep using the G-Claron!

[neil poulsen]

You might ask by starting a fresh thread with a descriptive title. (e.g. Falloff From Angulon Lenses?) I'm sure that there are some Angulon owners on the site that can address your question. Whatever Angulon that I would purchase would need to be coated.

There was one I missed that sold recently in the FS section. It was a coated, late model lens that was factory mounted in a Copal 3. Boy, it sure went fast.

[Bernice Loui]

What could be the possible "improvements" of the 210mm Angulon over the 210mm G-Claron? How could-would a 210mm Angulon make a difference or improve your images?

Suspect at a taking aperture of f45, the differences will not be that significant if any at all other than the 210mm Angulon having a larger image circle and this would be a maybe.


Bernice

[Greg]

Up for consideration is a 200mm f/6.5 TAYLOR-HOBSON Cooke Series VIIB WIDE ANGLE ANASTIGMAT. Finally found one and had it mounted in a Copal shutter. A whole lot smaller than a Grandagon 200. Initially acquired it for my 11x14, but then it quickly became my go-to 200-210mm lens for my 8x10. Lens was sold in the USA by Burke & James Inc. in the early 1960s in a barrel mount and came factory coated.

[Tim V]

The Angulon interests me if I can shoot at f22 and still get som good movements out of it. The G-Claron Dagor type really is great-especially for the size and cost-but only stopped down to f45 and beyond. It’d be advantageous for me if the Angulon could gain me a stop or two where large DOF isn’t essential.

I’m reluctant to give up something that is generally working very well though, I.e. what’s the point of throwing quite a large sum of money at a replacement lens that offers little benefit where it matters.

[Dan Fromm]

I've found the -G-Cloron to be a really great lens and the IC at f45 is actually very good for me. Sharpness does fall off quite quickly past a point though, and that's where I wonder if the Angulong might be money well spent.

In other words, it doesn't cover 8x10. This is consistent with Schneider's coverage claims in the 1968 G-Claron brochure, which claims 286 mm for the 210/9 at infinity at f/22. Users' coverage reports here for G-Clarons' coverage are considerably greater than Schneider's claims.

The 210/6.8 Angulon's coverage is a small puzzle. Older catalogs claim 100 degrees/500 mm at infinity at an unspecified aperture for the 210/6.8. The latest I've seen with this claim is from '63. The '67 catalog claims 85 degrees/382 mm at infinity at f/16. Still usefully more than the G-Claron.

[Bob Salomon]

The Angulon interests me if I can shoot at f22 and still get som good movements out of it. The G-Claron Dagor type really is great-especially for the size and cost-but only stopped down to f45 and beyond. It’d be advantageous for me if the Angulon could gain me a stop or two where large DOF isn’t essential.

I’m reluctant to give up something that is generally working very well though, I.e. what’s the point of throwing quite a large sum of money at a replacement lens that offers little benefit where it matters.

210 Apo Sironar/Apo Sironar W is a 5.6 lens that more then cover 810 with lots of movement at 22.

[Tim V]

I mean the G-Claron is very sharp but drops off with moderate movements. I don’t hesitate to use it at F4.5 with a good inch or so of rise. Beyond that I stop down to f64 to increase IC and can get about 2/3 more of an inch, although it still falls off a bit.

The 210mm Angulon does sound better in this regard...

Now, is there a MC version that is better with regards to coverage, or is it just with regards to flare and / or contrast?

[Dan Fromm]

I mean the G-Claron is very sharp but drops off with moderate movements. I don’t hesitate to use it at F4.5 with a good inch or so of rise.

An f/9 lens opens to f/4.5? How did you manage that?