Nikkor-M 200/8 twice as good as a plasmat???

[Kirk Fry]

Nikkor-M 200/8 USD 525

Other than if you are a backpacker, is this lens really twice as good as any number of 210mm plasmats one could buy instead??? All of which can be had for about half this price. Keep in mind a Nikkor-M is a Tessar design from about a century ago. If you want small, a G-Claron at f9 is about the same size and will cover 8X10. Educate me, what am I missing??? KFry
PS I own a 300mm Nikkor-M and it is an awesome chunk of glass. But at this focal length a 300mm plasmat is in a whole different universe in terms of size and weight.

[John Whitley]

I think you sunk it in one: this lens is priced for light weight combined with moderate rarity. When weight is a concern, one could carry two such lenses for less total weight than a single 210/5.6 plasmat.

According to the LFF 4x5 lens page the G-Claron won't cover 8x10 -- its image circle at f/22 is only 260mm. Is that not correct?

[IanG]

Remember that Schneider were still selling new modern f6.1 210 Xenars up until the early 2000's, they have an angle of view of 60º, the G-Claron is only 64º.

The 210 Xenar like the Nikkor-M is better corrected for normal photography than a G-Claron which is a flat field lens. The Xenar's can often be found at very reasonable prices and are smaller and lighter than the older faster versions, also optically better as well.

Ian

[Doremus Scudder]

You've hit the nail on the head. The Nikkor M 200mm is worth more to many of us just because of it's lightweight and uncompromised performance. It's priced at a premium these days due to its comparative rarity in the marketplace.

If you can deal with the weight of a plasmat, it will give you more image circle and equal or better performance.

If you are looking for lightweight lenses in that focal length, there are some alternatives. I own both a Kodak Ektar f/7.7 203mm and a Fujinon L 210. Both are smaller than plasmats and are superb performers. The Ektar is a dialyte, single-coated and really small. The Fujinon, a Tessar design I think, is slightly larger, but still smaller than a plasmat. It's single-coated as well. The Xenar that Ian mentions is also nice and significantly smaller than a plasmat. G-Clarons perform well at infinity despite their being optimized for closer work if you stop down a bit. These are also single-coated, I believe (which is all that's needed for four-element designs usually. The plasmats, with six elements and more air-to-glass surfaces really benefit from multi-coating though).

There are also the Fujinon A lenses in 180mm and 240mm focal lengths. These are on either side of your 210mm focal length, but both are sweet lenses, small due to the smaller maximum aperture, but plasmats indeed and multi-coated. All the above normally sell for a lot less than the Nikkor M 200mm on the used market.

That said, I'm still waiting to get my hands on one of the Nikkors at the right price :-)

Best,

Doremus Scudder

[jeroldharter]

My G-Glaron 210mm covers 8x10, with room for movements stopped down. It is a good lens. I have not compared it on 4x5 relative to my Caltar 210 plasmat style lens. Nor have I compared it to my Sironar-W 210 which I have not had a chance to use yet.

I think the cost is for the light weight, small size, rarity, and good press from Kerry Thalman and others regarding "classic" status.

[Kevin Crisp]

The G Claron 210 is not very big in a Copal 1. Excellent coverage. An overlooked option is the Repro-Claron which covers 5X7 and is in Copal or Compur "0" so is very small.

I've never totally understood and/or accepted this "flat field" argument on the graphic industry lenses like the G Claron and the R Claron. Other lenses are designed for curved subjects? Or 3d objects? Isn't having something "flat" uniformly sharp a worth goal for any lens?

[Ken Lee]

I've never totally understood and/or accepted this "flat field" argument on the graphic industry lenses like the G Claron and the R Claron. Other lenses are designed for curved subjects? Or 3d objects? Isn't having something "flat" uniformly sharp a worth goal for any lens?

My guess is that process lenses (designed for the Photo Engraving industry) have adequate, but modest coverage. When shot straight ahead, they are razor sharp. Hence the association with "flat" subjects. They generally open no wider than f/9 - which is what makes them relatively compact and light. They are corrected for 1:1, but we know that many people use them at other distances too with fine results.

Lenses designed for "table-top" photography, are modified plasmats, which give excellent correction over a wider circle of coverage than process lenses. They enable the kind of View Camera movements we often need when shooting "3-D" subjects with adequate depth of field and perspective control. They open to f/5.6, a more comfortable level of brightness for composing and focusing. They are corrected for a range of ~1:3 to 3:1.

You might find this brief article interesting.

[Ron Marshall]

Twice as light; out of production; many pros have dumped their plasmats: hence the price differential.

[Frank Petronio]

People pay $5K for an Ebony with the intention of traveling or backpacking with it. So why pay through the nose for a lens too?

I wonder how many actually travel more than a mile from the car?

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Price probably reflects what Ron mentions. It's maybe not that the Nikkors have become so expensive; it's that the so many of the 210mm f/5.6 Plasmats as pro/aspiring pro/student lenses have been dumped en masse that they've become astoundingly cheap. (And, yes, they're astoundingly good. I have Caltar IIN's in both 135mm and 210mm. Think I sniped the 210mm for ~$185 a couple of years back.)