Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 90

Thread: 210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,176

    Re: 210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

    Quote Originally Posted by IanG View Post
    Macro lenses aren't as critically sharp at Infinity as a standard lens and with process/repro lenses there can be issues of sdistortion when used at longer distances compared to a Symmar/Sironar etc.

    Some G Claron's were spaced to give better results at Infinity but Scneider never actually recommended them, rather they stated they could be used for longer distances.

    Another issue Schneider raise is they can vignette wider than f16 when used at infinity and should be used at f22 or smaller, the angle of view and image circle is much less than a Symmar at infinity.

    Ian
    Ian, how extensively have you used G-Clarons yourself in the field?

  2. #12
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,338

    Re: 210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

    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?

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    8,470

    Re: 210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    You certainly don't hear any doubts from folks actually using this seris of lenses, do you?
    Since you asked, I wasn't passionately in love with my 150/9 plasmat type G-Claron, in a shootout both of my 150/9 Apo Ronars beat it handily. That said, the 150 Apo Ronar won't cover 4x5 and the 150 G-Claron will.

  4. #14
    IanG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Aegean (Turkey & UK)
    Posts
    4,122

    Re: 210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

    Quote Originally Posted by John NYC View Post
    Ian, how extensively have you used G-Clarons yourself in the field?
    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

  5. #15
    IanG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Aegean (Turkey & UK)
    Posts
    4,122

    Re: 210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    Rectilinear correction will be even better than a general purpose plasmat of similar vintage, and probably better than most newer models
    Only within it's designed working parameters which is not at distance and infinity.

    G Claron's are optimised for 1:1 and designed to work betweem 5:1 and 1:5.

    Ian

  6. #16
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,338

    Re: 210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

    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.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,176

    Re: 210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

    Quote Originally Posted by IanG View Post
    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
    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.

  8. #18
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,338

    Re: 210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

    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.

  9. #19

    Re: 210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

    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

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,176

    Re: 210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    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.
    Yes, it is only on 8x10 at frame edges and using rise when I have seen this on the 240mm. I have not seen it at all on the 305mm.

Similar Threads

  1. Lens image circle to cover 4x10
    By Vui Shin Chong in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-Dec-2005, 08:18
  2. Cheap lenses for 5x7? 215mm Caltar?
    By John Kasaian in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 16-Aug-2005, 19:12
  3. super symmar 210 HM for 8x10
    By giancatarina in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 7-Jan-2005, 19:17

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •