For a while I had a 300mm Caltar II-N, which I wrote about and sold on this forum. It was sharp, but not quite as sharp as my G-Claron. I admit that I am being very picky here, but I like the details of far away buildings in my shots to be very sharp.
I am curious now that I am considering another lens. Would a new 300mm Sironar-S or Symmar-L be any different than the Caltar II-N I had, sharpness-wise? From the reading I have been doing here, I am doubting that it would. Opinions?
John
perhaps, you could explain what it is that you don't like about the G-Claron. That is, why are you looking for something new when you seem to already have something that you like?
I'm definitely keeping the G-Claron. I'm thinking of adding something in a longer focal length but hopefully with the same sharpness... and f/5.6 if possible. But after doing some reading here, I am realizing that I'm not going to get that... that the reason my G-Claron is incrementally sharper is that it is smaller and that all larger f/5.6's perform roughly the same? That's my question really. If I plopped down $3K for a new Sironar-S or Symmar L, would it give me what I'm looking for? The other thing I am considering is the new Schneider 360/f11. But having a 5.6 would allow me to more easily do night shots; having only an f/9 and and f/11 doesn't seem to be very optimal for that.
why buy new?
why not get another g claron in a different focal length?
i do not think that at f5.6 you will get the results you are looking for. so why not stay with the f9 or f11? buy tmax 400 and be patient.
My YouTube Channel has many interesting videos on Soft Focus Lenses and Wood Cameras. Check it out.
My YouTube videos
oldstyleportraits.com
photo.net gallery
300 NikkorM...
I'm not an optical or lens expert but I've read that a lens with a smaller maximum aperture (e.g. f9) may actually be better in normal situations than lenses with a wider maximum aperture (e.g. f5.6) because of the compromises the designer has to make with the wider aperture lens. I don't know whether that applies to LF lenses, where f4 or f5.6 rather than something extreme like 1.2 is usually the maximum, but it's worth thinking about. Maybe one of the optical/lens experts here could comment.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
So, just to clarify, the only reason I am looking at f/5.6 is for focusing ease at night. I shoot night shots at f/22. But that extra stop and a third makes a difference in darkness for viewing on the gg when composing.
If I can't get an f/5.6 that is as sharp as an f/9 g-claron or equiv., I'll just opt for a longer g-claron or that schneider 360mm "tele" xenar f/11 that was introduced and sells new for $999.
Brian, will definitely be interesting to hear if some of those lens construction aficionados weigh in here.
Don't buy a second 8x10 lens. It's bad enough you've already got one...
It's like trying heroin once, then thinking, "oh, I'll just do it one more time..." And we all know how it ends. You'll find yourself in some back alley trying to score three or four Darlots at a time off some guy named "Jim" or "Eddie"...
"I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."
Whats the FL of your current lens?
If its wide 10 inch (240mm) a compliment would be a 14 inch (360) or longer.
If its a 300, you would want a greater spread would be my approach.
F5.6 lenses are beasts weight-wise as the FL gets to 300 and up. Fine in a studio but backbreaking in the field.
My own approach is 10inch(240) - 14inch(360) and 19.5 inch (475).
After that it's barrel lenses in brass!!
bob
Yes, it is the 240mm G-Claron. Agree 360mm is the most sensible choice if not going f/5.6, and I would probably get that f/11 Schneider I mentioned if I went that way.Originally Posted by Bob McCarthy
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks