Rectilinear correction will be even better than a general purpose plasmat of similar vintage, and probably better than most newer models. And on 4x5 film a 210 G will have plenty of spare coverage, so one would rarely get to the weaker edged of the image circle. All you have to do to get converted is just start shooting one! You
certainly don't hear any doubts from folks actually using this seris of lenses, do you?
I've used both G Clarons and GRII Hexanons (my 150mm GRII covers 10x8) so I've experience of the pros & cons of using Repro/Process lenses for landscape work. I first tried a G Claron back in the mid 1970's.
What's important is how a lens works for your own photography, where possible I need a lens that doesn't itroduce unecessary distortions.
I think it was Michael Langford who published a comparison of the spherical distortions of using a process lens at infinity compared to a Symmar, a round ball at the edge of the image looked fine with a Symmar but was quite distorted with a process lens. My own 1970's tests showed similar issues, these were done at work rather than for my personal photography.
Ian
You've got it completely wrong, Ian, and everyone who uses these lenses knows it.
The older specs on G-Clarons were relative to them at either 1:1 or if otherwise, per
an image circle at process standards, i.e, way stricter than what was expected of a
typcial shooting lens. While they are not inifinity corrected wide open (but neither are
most lenses), they reach a high level of performance well before diffraction becomes
the great equalizer. There were special purpose G-Clarons, and I don't know about
some of the early ones, but the later ones in shutter are absolutely superb at inifinity.
pupose lenses. My 210 Symmar S was never as good at inifinity at any f/stop as my
G-Claron. Schneider did market these lenses for tabletop, because they excel in this
kind of application, but I was outright told by a Schneider Rep that they were
superior to their general-purpose plastmats for almost all applications. You just give
up a stop of speed.
If you are only talking about rectilinear distortions at the frame edges on mid-distance object on 8x10 (not 4x5) for these lenses, then I agree with you for the 240mm but not for the 305mm. But you were making broad statements about these lenses that I simply don't think you can apply with a blanket like that.
Sharpness, for instance, is certainly not an issue.
In short, I don't think you are going to be able to tell if I used a 305 G-Claron or a Symmar on 8x10 for most practical purposes.
Even 240 on 8x10 is never an issue at typical f-stops unless you are doing pretty strong movements or are planning on really huge enlargements. Ordinarily I will stop
the lens down to f/45 or so with this lens. 210 on 4x5 is a piece of cake by comparison - you have tons of wiggle room before there are any hypothetical issues.
Same applies to the Japanese cousin of the G Claron - The Fuji A, where even a 180
FL is an incredible perfromer on 4x5 all the way from closeup clear to infinity, at just
about any f-stop except wide open.
I dont know about the 210's. But I have a 355 g-claron and a chrome 360/5,6 Symmar, used on bw there are a big differense, the Claron is much better, its as contrasty and sharp as the Nikkor W 240 and Symmar-S 210 Mc. The chrome Symmar can be good for contrasty light to even it out a bit. The symmar is also 3 times as big and heavy as the Claron. I mainly use my Symmar 360 as a weight when mounting prints, it very good holding big pictures.
Trond
Bookmarks