300 mm Plasmats

[Kevin Crisp]

The G Claron isn't huge, fits in a Copal 1 shutter. It never seemed too dark to me on any camera I used it on. Prices have gone up on them, and the 355 too.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Of the modern, multicoated f5.6 plasmats, the Fujinon-W is the smallest and lightest. It takes realtively small, affordable 77mm filters. It's not a tiny lens, and still requires a Copal N. 3 shutter, but it's not huge or overly heavy. It is also generallly the lowest priced of the mondern, multicoated f5.6 plasmats. It makes a great "normal" lens for 8x10 with plenty of coverage and a nice, bright image on the ground glass.

Kerry

[E. von Hoegh]

The G Claron isn't huge, fits in a Copal 1 shutter. It never seemed too dark to me on any camera I used it on. Prices have gone up on them, and the 355 too.

The OP has a 305, maybe he wants the wider aperture? Or doesn't know it's a Plasmat? Maybe it's an early one.

[Mark Sawyer]

I always worked with the idea that the Plasmat was an airspaced Dagor, to get rid of the spherical abberation the Dagors have wide open. Kinda looks like one...

Yes, the Plasmat was derived from the Dagor, and was often refered to as an "air-spaced Dagor", including by Kingslake. Separaiting a previously cemented surface in the front an rear cells gave four more surfaces for corrections. The Plasmat really took over when coatings minimized the reflections of these surfaces. (I have an early Hugo Meyer uncoated Plasmat that's very sharp to the corners and has great coverage, but as you would expect, low in contrast.)

[jeroldharter]

The OP has a 305, maybe he wants the wider aperture? Or doesn't know it's a Plasmat? Maybe it's an early one.

I have a later one, I think, mounted in a black Copal shutter.

I have no complaints about it, but wondered if I am missing out on anything. Part of what got me wondering is that I just started using a lens I picked up last year, a Rodenstock 210mm Apo Sironar W and it is excellent. It has a lot more coverage than my 210 G Claron but is relatively huge. So I wondered about the 300's.

[John NYC]

I have a later one, I think, mounted in a black Copal shutter.

I have no complaints about it, but wondered if I am missing out on anything. Part of what got me wondering is that I just started using a lens I picked up last year, a Rodenstock 210mm Apo Sironar W and it is excellent. It has a lot more coverage than my 210 G Claron but is relatively huge. So I wondered about the 300's.

I am not surpised by that as the g-claron 210 is not really an 8x10 lens, whereas the 300mm is. In retrospect, I find the amount of stretching of the corners of my 240 g-claron on 8x10 to be annoying. I suspect the problem is even worse in the 210 g-claron. I don't see that in my 300mm g-claron.

[Drew Wiley]

I use a 250 G-Claron on 8x10 with no problems at all, provided it's well stopped down; you'll have plenty of wiggle room with a 270 or 305. These are fairly common and
often only slightly more expensive than a big clunky 5.6 plastmat. Or if you really want
something nice and light with big coverage, get the 300 Fuji A multicoat; but it won't come cheap.

[jp]

I've got a symmar-s 300/5.6. I bought it cheap because it's filter ring was dented. It's kinda too big for most filters anyways. Sharp, thin DOF when wide open. Smooth out of focus background like many good lenses, but "clumpier" than a tessar which is common and not undesirable. It's not too big for 8x10 normal use; it's sized for the camera. It's copal-3. The only reasons I see to get a darker smaller lens is for faster shutter speeds (copal-1) or more filter choices.

As far as Fuji's, the fuji tessars are Fujinars. I think they are mostly plasmats otherwise.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

As far as Fuji's, the fuji tessars are Fujinars. I think they are mostly plasmats otherwise.

The Fujinon-L series (210mm, 300mm and 420mm) are Tessars. The 420mm makes a good slightly long lens for 8x10 (like a 210mm on 4x5) and will even cover 11x14 or 7x17. It comes in a Copal No. 3 shutter, weighs a smidge over 2 lb. and takes 67mm filters. There aren't a lot of choices in 420mm/16.5" lenses for 8x10 that come in shutters. Too bad, I love the 210mm focal length on 4x5. The 420mm APO Ronar and 16.5" Red Dot Artar are two examples, but they have less coverage and usually sell for more than the Fujinon. The 16.5" Dagor has more coverage, but sells for a LOT more, especially in a factory mounted shutter - if you can find one.

The little 150mm f6.3 Fujinon-W is also a Tessar. It's absolutely tiny (40.5mm filters, 136g) and one of my all time favorite lenses for backpacking with an ultralight 4x5 camera. Combine it with a 90mm f6.8 Angulon (118g) and a 210mm f6.3 Zeiss Tessar T (195g) and you have a 3 lens set that weighs less than one pound (449g = 15.8 oz.), all in factory mounted shutters and all taking 40.5mm filters. Combine those three lenses with a Gowland Pocket View and you have a 4x5 camera and three lenses set that weighs less than 3 lb. Who says large format needs to be heavy and hard to carry?

Kerry

[E. von Hoegh]

Tessars, especially the f6.3 versions can be really great performers. They typically have a bit better coverage than the f4.5 versions.