210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

[GPS]

According to my experience the differences between individual second hand optics are far more significant than the general specs of a design. ...

"My experience" -that's the correct way to say it. Indeed - if you take a sharp picture with a lens, you have the right to say - it is a sharp lens because an unsharp lens cannot take sharp pictures. But it doesn't work the other way round - an unsharp picture is not (for a multitude of reasons related to the whole chain of possible causes of fuzzy pictures) an unmistakable sign of an unsharp lens. You just have to say - I did not manage to take a sharp picture with the lens.
That's what makes a comparison between lenses difficult - as soon as you need to qualify the slight differences in the lack of lens quality (obvious lemons apart) only technically serious tests will do. Otherwise you have no way to correctly judge if the fuzziness is caused by the lens or the lack of precise measuring.

[Kevin Crisp]

Wisner did sell, in very limited numbers, a convertible plasmat set. They were single coated, in brass mounts, and reportedly made for him by Schneider. They didn't look like G Clarons to me. The execution, all in all, with the walnut box and brass aperture chart, was elegant.

I had the 5X7 set for a time. The combined elements (many of which were so close in focal length as to not be meaningfully different) performed very well. I found the single elements so soft on the edges even when stopped way down that I sold the set. The result was similar to the two Zeiss protar sets I once had, and which I sold for the same reason. I have many B&L lenses which perform acceptably as single elements if you refocus at taking aperture for the shift.

I do question the idea that an amateur cannot meaningfully test the quality of a lens at home; it isn't hard. True, it won't result in a l/mm result unless you shoot a test chart, but it will tell you if the lens performs well in real life. Put the negative on the light table and use your loupe and you'll know if it is sharp in the middle and the edges. Shoot it on a too-big sheet of film and you can draw a circle and determine useful image circle at taking apertures. So long as you know how to use a tripod and how to focus, you can eliminate the suggestion that the shortcomings are yours and not the lens. On one photo in particular, I wished I had tested the single element of the Wisner before I needed it. The negative was sharp in the middle and then quite fuzzy on the edges.

[John Kasaian]

..that reminds me: wasn't Ron Wisner supposed to have a set of G-Claron elements (3?0 you could screw in one shutter to obtain a set of different focal lengths and F stops ? (the correct name for such a set escapes me at the moment), perhaps it did materialise, but I seem to remember people pay up front for such a set, and it never materialised..but I could have this totally wrong, just from memory..

Best,

Cor

The would be a casket set. IIRC, Jim Galli has a combination of G Claron elements he put together himself, but it's not a casket set.

[BrianShaw]

(not that anyone really should care, but I'm enjoying this thread, learning a lot, and remain amazed at you folks' stamina.)

[E. von Hoegh]

I wanna join the deluded idiot club.

I routinely evaluate lenses by photographing things like newspapers, electric meters on the neighbor's house, whatever is handy and has fine detail.
If I don't feel like using and developing film, I set up a star test.

Does this qualify me?

[Dan Fromm]

I wanna join the deluded idiot club.

I routinely evaluate lenses by photographing things like newspapers, electric meters on the neighbor's house, whatever is handy and has fine detail.
If I don't feel like using and developing film, I set up a star test.

Does this qualify me?

Absolutely. Welcome, brother!

[Ole Tjugen]

The would be a casket set. IIRC, Jim Galli has a combination of G Claron elements he put together himself, but it's not a casket set.

Which reminds me that http://www.casket-set.com will be up soon. As soon as I get the pages uploaded, which is proving to be more tricky than anticipated.

[IanG]

Have you ever actually owned and shot any of these lenses, Ian? I think THAT is the
relevant question.

I've already told you I own these lenses, and I've used them as well. You can come and see them if you doubt me The G Claron & Xenar are mint . . . . . . .

My experience is that in real life situations they don't behave like they would shooting a test chart.

I'll return to my comment that you need to know how your lenses behave. I've a planned test to compare a 150mm f5.6 Sironar N, 150mm f5,6 (late) Xenar, early 1950's 150mm f4.5 T coated CZJ Tessar, 150mm f6.3 Geronar, and 150mm f9 G Claron, all in suberb condition, I may add a 135mm Caltar (Symmar), 1930's 135mm Tessar and 1913 165mm f6.3 Tessar.

When it comes to lenses I'm open minded and in thne case of say a 90mm f6.8 Angulon have tried 3 in 25 tears, owned the first and last borrowed the other) the last is a good lens the two earlier real dogs.

I ju8st think there's a lack of realism sometimes when certain lenses get over hyped.

Ian

[IanG]

According to my experience the differences between individual second hand optics are far more significant than the general specs of a design. We are talking about 20 - 40 year old lenses. How knows what life the have had.

I'm talking about lenses less than 10 years old where the seller I bought from was the original purchaser.

But in practice even 100 year old lenses have been fine bought S/H.

Ian

[gary mulder]

I'm talking about lenses less than 10 years old where the seller I bought from was the original purchaser.

But in practice even 100 year old lenses have been fine bought S/H.

Ian

Sorry if I offended people.

Just my tought that a "f5.6 210 mm Symmar (chrome on the outside), single coated, in an older Synchro Compur (old shutter speed range), single coated" and a "f9 G-Claron 210 mm mounted in a Polaroid Copal 1, I guess single coated." should be older than 10 years by now.