210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

[Drew Wiley]

Interesting, Kevin. My Apo Nikkor process lenses are also fairly late, and were installed
with multi-bladed apertures, well after these kinds of apertures were disappearing from
most taking lenses with shutters. An exception would be the late Kern dagors in Compur. Maybe this was just how the production lines worked. Certainly once the classic Copal 3s shutter disappeared, the newer Copals had less blades. Makes me
tempted to retrofit certain optics onto the older shutters; but it's generally much more
cost effective just to buy an older lens for the instances like portraiture where selective focus and good bokeh are desirable.

[Dan Fromm]

Call it not testing, call it "measuring", call it as you like it. Just don't declare with "authority" that aerial lens made specifically to perform exceptionally in their resolution and contrast as "unusable" because you put them on your Graflex machine and tested (no, not that - measured) them and that Apo -Ronars handily beat C-Clarons if you don't want to look technically naive.
The assumptions and incorrect assertions are entirely on your part, the way you declare these amateurish findings. But don't worry - this whole forum is already full of them (thanks to your diligence too), adding even more won't make it worse...

Thanks for the kind words.

Many aerial camera lenses are unusable on view cameras because of short back focus, size, weight, and the cost/difficulty of getting timed exposures with them. Usability involves more than just optical performance.

Many lenses for aerial cameras, if the various Soviet lens catalogs and USAF data sheets are to be believed, are not particularly sharp wide open on-axis and are very bad at the limits of coverage. Unfortunately, many are designed for use with monochromatic light, which makes them useless for general photography. Are you calling GOI and USAF liars?

Which aerial lenses have you tried to use? What problems did you encounter? How did you solve them? Do you use any?

I have on hand a 200/2.0 S.F.O.M. lens that covers 4x5. It is 6" in diameter, weighs around 14 pounds. How would you use it on any of your 4x5 cameras?

The question "which of these lenses of similar specifications should I use?" comes up often here. Be helpful, tell us how you answer it for your own lenses.

I stand by my report that the one 150/9 G-Claron I had shot worse (from f/9 to f/22) than the two 150/9 Apo Ronars I still have. Are you calling me a liar? I hope not.

I may well have had a bad example of a 150 G-Claron. Remember that used lenses may have been abused and can perform worse than they did when originally delivered.

[Kevin Crisp]

The 150 G Claron tested here:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testin...0mm_thru_163mm

bested some multicoated plasmats. If you don't like it, don't use it.

I've used G Clarons in 150, 210, 240, 305, 355 and R Clarons in 210, 305, 355 and 420 and never had one that wasn't a quite decent lens.

It does seem to me to come down to weight, since I've never found the f:9 maximum aperture to be a problem. The G Clarons have a lot of useful coverage too. I don't think you'll go wrong with either choice if you have a good gg.

[Armin Seeholzer]

My G-Glaron 150mm which I boot new was sharper then my already long gone 210mm Symmar, but had no chance against my APO Symmar 210mm at large distances! So its maybe also a bit a part of the age! My Symmar was from around 1970 the 150mm G- Glaron is from 2001 short bevore they stopped production!
For there price G-Glarons are almost famous in my opinion, but for work in the blue hour or even at dark they are also a nightmare!

Cheers Armin

[Brian Ellis]

I used three different G Claons - 210, 240, and 305 or something like that for general purpose photography. They are excellent lenses for that purpose. Their design is such that the usable image circle increases as you continue stopping down so you can't really pay much attention to Schneider's numbers. I used the 210 for 8x10 and had plenty of room for movements at f/22 and smaller. If you look at the specs you'd never think it even covered 8x10.

I'd take the G Claron over the Symmar. With a 210 lens f/9 won't be a problem for composing and focusing and I'd rather have the Copal 1 shutter than an old Compur.

[GPS]

Thanks for the kind words.

Many aerial camera lenses are unusable on view cameras because of short back focus, size, weight, and the cost/difficulty of getting timed exposures with them. Usability involves more than just optical performance.
...

You see Dan, you try to deviate the post to a different point...
So, on a different point I tell how I do with lenses "unusable"... I have lenses that I couldn't use on my view cameras be it because of their weight, focal length etc. Instead of declaring them unusable I simply construct my own cameras for them and then I use them. I could not use my 800mm Nikon on a field view camera in high mountains winds, when it snows etc. I could not even use it on high mountains where only longer trekking gets you there. But instead of declaring them unusable I construct my own cameras for those conditions and then use the lens. Many of the aerial lenses you declared unusable would be superbly usable with my cameras, even without shutters (aerial lenses with their speed are very suitable for lightning photography during a night time...)
And yes, there is a difference to say - my Apo-Ronar didn't give me as sharp a picture as my C-Claron - and to say Apo-Ronars beat handily C-Clarons. The first utterance speaks about your experience with the lens, the second about technical naivety.
But be it as you like it - if you want to make the sweeping statements of a Mr. Amateur Tester or those of a knowledgeable photographer. Just don't be surprised when some people react at the technical devil points...

[Dan Fromm]

And yes, there is a difference to say - my Apo-Ronar didn't give me as sharp a picture as my C-Claron - and to say Apo-Ronars beat handily C-Clarons. The first utterance speaks about your experience with the lens, the second about technical naivety.

GPS, you misquoted me. You've been doing this very consistently.

And I'm sorry, but you still haven't answered the questions I asked you.

[Kevin Crisp]

Is preening condescension anything other than preening condescension if you put those little yellow smiley faces in your sentences? Let me give it a go.

[GPS]

...

Why do you refuse to accept that my rankings of lenses are reproducible? And why do you refuse to understand that since I'm most concerned with on-axis performance -- remember, I shoot 2x3 so for lenses longer than around 100 mm performance far off axis isn't very important to me -- I've done many of my trials with the lenses hung in front of a Nikon.
...

GPS, you misquoted me. You've been doing this very consistently.

And I'm sorry, but you still haven't answered the questions I asked you.

Since you asked again - I answer again. The "rankings" of your lenses are not based on a sufficiently correct test. They're your own experience with your lenses, not an objective result of appropriate lens tests - for which you have nowhere near the equipment, the knowledge and the capacity.
A lens hung in front of your Nikon is just another amateurish lens experience you try to elevate on some kind of authoritative lens "ranking". How did you focus your Nikon? With your scientific eye I suppose...
Just read the comments above to see how "objective" such rankings as yours are...
No Dan, a Graflex and the fence near you is not sufficient to make one a lens test guru however much one would aspire for the position.

[GPS]

GPS, you misquoted me. You've been doing this very consistently.

And I'm sorry, but you still haven't answered the questions I asked you.

And in case you're still into it try to describe your testing methods (a Graflex camera and the near fence) and its results as an objective lens test somewhere for a publication other than that on an internet forum. Maybe you will finally understand the value of the tests and the objectivity of the results. After all, you have tested so many lenses even aerial ones that the public would be charmed to see the scientific results of this testing technique... Don't be surprised if you're refused for the reasons I already told you though.