Ektar 203 or Geronar/Caltar 210/6.8?

[vijaylff]

I'd like to purchase a lightweight lens in the 200 mm range to complement my 135. If I stick with large format, I will eventually try to get a Nikkor 200M or Fujinon 240A, but for now these lenses are beyond the budget.

It seems like I could get either a used Kodak Ektar 203 or Geronar/Caltar 210/6.8 for about the same price. Is there any reason why one would be a better choice over the other?

Thanks,
Vijay

[Frank Petronio]

The Genonar might be in a newer shutter...

[Jan Pedersen]

Bla Bla

[Jan Pedersen]

You may also want to take a look at Fuji's 180 and 210, they sell for less than what i think they are worth. They are a bit larger and heavier but great glass.

[Gene McCluney]

The Geronars are modern multi-coated lightweight 3-element lenses. They are great for shooting on location, where you have to carry your equipment a distance. Stopped down, I cannot tell any difference between these and more expensive plasmats, however the probably don't have the coverage a plasmat does.

[Doremus Scudder]

I love my 203 Ektar, it's one of the sharpest I own and very small. It barely covers 5x7. I find the plasmat lenses in this focal length too bulky and heavy. I have recently purchased a Fujinon L 210mm, a four-element modified tessar design that has more coverage than my Ektar, but have not tried it yet. It is a bit larger than the Ektar, takes 49mm filters and comes in a Copal 1 shutter. The image circle is lsted at 280mm. I imagine this will be a good performer and lightweight as well.

Other lightweight alternatives: The Nikkor M 200mm, and the G-Claron 210mm. Both are excellent lenses.

Coating is also a consideration. Of the above, only the Nikkor M is multi-coated, all others are single-coated.

The Geronar you are looking at is a 3-element design which might not be optically as good as the Ektar or the others mentioned above, but would likely do well for general subjects at optimum apertures. I'm not sure on the coating of the Geronar.

Hope this helps,

Doremus Scudder

[65Galaxie]

I'm trying to sell a Caltar f6.8 if you're interested. I love mine but just don't use the camera like a used to. I was in the same predicament as you on the Ektar vs the Caltar and decided on the Caltar. Comes in a newish mint Copal 1 shutter. The Ektar might not even have an xsync shutter. Let me know.

[Ole Tjugen]

Other lightweight alternatives: The Nikkor M 200mm, and the G-Claron 210mm. Both are excellent lenses.

Coating is also a consideration. Of the above, only the Nikkor M is multi-coated, all others are single-coated.

Or the Schneider Xenar 210mm f:6.1? That's my favorite 210mm on 4x5" film - plenty of coverage, small and light, and a modern shutter. If I need more light I'll use a 210mm f:4.5 - Xenar that one too.

All the Xenars are single coated, but with only six surfaces they don't need more!

For 5x7" I'd rather use a Symmar (or other plasmat), and an Angulon for 8x10".

[Jan Pedersen]

Not to hijack the thread but Ole, what is the difference except speed between the two Xenars? I have the 210 4.5 but no experience with the f6.1

[Scott Kathe]

Or the Schneider Xenar 210mm f:6.1? That's my favorite 210mm on 4x5" film - plenty of coverage, small and light, and a modern shutter. If I need more light I'll use a 210mm f:4.5 - Xenar that one too.

What Ole said!

Just under a year ago I went through the exact same decision you are going through. I started with the 203mm Ektar due to it's small size and light weight but I didn't like having to carry around a set of series vi filters in addition to my other filters. I ended up getting the 210mm f6.1 Xenar and REALLY like it. If you don't mind carrying around a second set of filters go for the Ektar but for convenience sake I just put a step up ring on the Xenar so I can use my regular filters.

Scott