Shortcomings of a Rodenstock Geronar 150mm f6.3?

[Murad Sayen]

I recently got a great deal on a Toyo 45AX and a Rodenstock Geronar 150mm f6.3 l ens. I know that the Geronar line is Rodenstock's 'econo' product line, but wha t are it's actual shortcomings and are they enough of a handicap that I will nee d to look for a 'first line' 150 for my nature/landscape work. Is the 180mm imag e circle going to be a problem in this kind of usage?

[Brian Yarvin]

For landscape and nature photography, this lens should be your first choice. This lens might not be able to give you enough coverage for the extreme movements one might find in other types of shooting, but you'll be fine for outdoor work.

On the plus side, your lens is much lighter and takes smaller filters. Two real advantages when you're working with large format outdoors. I love these modern lenses for landscapes and portraits - the are much easier to carry and do a great job.

Brian in Queens, NY

[Ron Shaw]

Also, the image circle gets larger the closer you focus. I doubt if you really focus at infinity for many shots, as you will usually be at some hyperfocal setting. It should be a fine performer.

[TAN K H]

You'll likely find this to be a lens you'll like. BTW, it is essentially a modern version of the Cooke Triplet. With so little air glass surfaces and multicoating, the contrast should be wonderful.

Use with confidence.

I hear that in the same range, the 90mm Geronar is another budget buy worth checking out if you don't require much movements.

[Patrick Raymore]

For what its worth, I would just shell out a little more cash and get a 150mm W used(plasmat design) from one of the majors. Then you will not have to worry about the coverage or the focusing image quality in the periphery when wide open.

[Tin Can]

I have been happy with my 150 mm Geronar in my folding Horseman 4X5 and 2X3, same lensboard,perfect shutter

Now I am going to try it on 5X7 close to people in groups

In my 1890 Cycle camera with Dry plates

With my vision I just try to get a sharp center and the rest is OUTTA sight!

[xkaes]

I had a Fujinon 150mm f6.3. One of Fuji's LF economy lenses -- very small and light. I was optimistic, but after I did some simple resolution comparison tests vs a Fujinon 150mm f5.6, I sold it.

The results were not bad, but I like definition and large prints.

I'd suggest the same for you. If a direct comparison is not an option, just test your lens by itself, at different f-stops, and see which are the best -- and stick to them.

[Tin Can]

I seek wide open

soft

vignetting

glass plate

flaws

I may like

[Serge S]

Just shoot with it and see if it works for you.
You may find you like it:)


I recently got a great deal on a Toyo 45AX and a Rodenstock Geronar 150mm f6.3 l ens. I know that the Geronar line is Rodenstock's 'econo' product line, but wha t are it's actual shortcomings and are they enough of a handicap that I will nee d to look for a 'first line' 150 for my nature/landscape work. Is the 180mm imag e circle going to be a problem in this kind of usage?

[Tin Can]

Never underestimate any lens

and always keep good shutters

[Drew Wiley]

Less image circle, less correction approaching the limits of that circle than plasmats. People banter around the idea of landscape shooting as if significant view camera movements are not needed; but that's certainly not been the case in my experience. All depends on one's shooting style and intended degree of enlargement. These would also be less well color corrected. Otherwise, no harm trying to see of the shoe will fit or not.

My official Rodenstock charts show the 150/6.3 resolution collapsing pretty fast beyond a 150mm diagonal (meaning ANY movements will induce some qualitative loss in the image periphery), while the Sironar N 150 plasmat take you about 20mm further, and the Apo-Sironar S will take you clear out to around 200mm. This is all based on f/22; at f/32 you'd get a little more wiggle room.

[David Lindquist]

Until yesterday the last post in this thread was 23 years ago. And the OP doesn't seem to have ever returned. Perhaps they got the info they needed (23 years ago). Still I think reviving old threads can be useful. Probably there will continue to be folks curious about the Geronar line of lenses.

David

[xkaes]

There will always be people interested in small, light, and/or inexpensive lenses -- especially backpacking, landscape photographers. Those lenses have their benefits -- and limitations.

[Tin Can]

The 300mm Geronar is not cheap on eBay

and a lot of more highly 'valued'

are dropping

[johnasavoia]

I read this thread when I got my first 4x5, a Toyo 45cx, along with this lens. Today I mounted it in a cardboard lensboard to test its coverage on my Burke & James 5x7, surprisingly good (I am not concerned about IQ for this use case) how wonderful to find it not only still here but with recent replies! Large format is the gift that keeps on giving. Now to find/make a proper lensboard for it.

[Vaidotas]

Here is very interesting test of some modern lens in 210 mm range with negatives and prints evaluations including Geronar 210/6.8 triplet.
Not directly related to OP question about 150 mm sibling but you can make your own conclusions what a lens is cheap Geronar.

https://web.hevanet.com/cperez/test/BigMash210.html

I bought Geronar 210/6.8 as a shutter donor and found it very decent performer.

[Mark J]

I had a 210 Geronar for a while and used it mainly on 6 x 9cm , it was surprisingly good and i took a lot of good shots on it - one in Monument valley in particular stands out. The published curves on it show very good performance out past 4 x 5" format. The 150 should be fine but won't have much shift potential, that's all. I wish I still had the 210 , to be honest, my Nikkor 210 is a lot heavier and is currently in the shutter hospital... I would appreciate the 210 Geronar for taking out with 5 x 7 this summer.

[xkaes]

As Rodenstock points out, the results are good at f16 & f22, but these data indicate the 150mm has very little movement for 4x5, as well. Anyone who can live with that might like the lens.

The graphs indicate that if you are dealing with 5 Lp/mm the results are fine, but at 10 Lp/mm and greater, the differences show.

But we all know that smaller prints won't show any difference. If I make a 4x5" print from my 4x5 it would be hard to see when compared to a 4x5" from my RB67 -- or even my 35mm.

238997

238998

[Drew Wiley]

Some tiny lenses are among the very best, like Fuji A's and Nikkor M's, though there's no 150 in either. And when it comes to affordable compromises, there are tessar-based Schneider Xenars and the 210 Fuji L, better corrected than Geronars. There are tiny well-corrected 150 and 210 G-Claron plasmats with relatively large image circles. Many 210 Schneider Xenars were private-labeled for Calumet under their Caltar label, and those often turn up at bargain pricing even though they're the same.

My whole long-haul backpacking set of 4X5 lenses is now tiny, with all of them standardized to 52mm filters, or step-ring adapted to 52mm. My day use and 8X10 set is adapted to 67mm filters instead, but overlaps with some of the same lenses I choose for 4x5 film, and even 6X9 roll film adapters. And as someone who significantly enlarges, especially in color, I personally need high-performance lenses. Just glad I bought them all prior to the price spike craziness on EBay at the moment. But I can't imagine that "follow the other lemmings" trend will last. Few will actually buy at those asking prices, when there are so many other worthy lenses to choose from which are essentially pricing sleepers.

[Tin Can]

Thanks for posting this valuable test

I have read it before, however I am now prepared to understand

Just reread on a nice day outside eagerly

Thank you!

I am going to buy another lens

I missed the boat with Docter...



Here is very interesting test of some modern lens in 210 mm range with negatives and prints evaluations including Geronar 210/6.8 triplet.
Not directly related to OP question about 150 mm sibling but you can make your own conclusions what a lens is cheap Geronar.

https://web.hevanet.com/cperez/test/BigMash210.html

I bought Geronar 210/6.8 as a shutter donor and found it very decent performer.

[Mark J]

I'm quite surprised at the poor showing of the Geronar. I'm very picky, and I used it on 6x9cm for years on slow to mid-speed films, enlarging to 20x16. It seems there are duff examples out there.

[Drew Wiley]

6X9 requires a significantly smaller image circle than 4X5 format. But as a budget "student" lens, it wouldn't surprise me if the quality control of Geronars was less stringent at some point in time than Sironars.

[Mark J]

Yes, i know, but the tests showed it poor in the centre, mine wasn't. These were made quite late ( 90's ? ) , I know Rodenstock ( part of our group ) I'd be surprised they would have relaxed the tolerances that much on a budget lens. They would get plenty of savings from the simpler construction.

Edit : Ok I see further down that he was happy enough with it at f/16 or f/2,, I suppose I probably shot mostly stopped down to there.

[xkaes]

Edit : Ok I see further down that he was happy enough with it at f/16 or f/2,, I suppose I probably shot mostly stopped down to there.

The Rodenstock literature (above) clearly states that the Geronars should only be used at f16 or f22. And even at those settings they are no match for their other lenses at significant magnifications.

[Mark J]

No that's not what it says exactly - the 'recommended working aperture is f/16 or f/22'.
So overall your advice is to use a Plasmat if you want to get great performance at f/11 and at high mag ? Seems uncontroversial.

[xkaes]

When a lens manufacturer only recommends f16 & f22, that's saying avoid the others. That's a "You're on your own -- Don't say we didn't warn you" clause.

[Tin Can]

Always follow the rules

so everybody same same

art is not art

[Joseph Kashi]

Some tiny lenses are among the very best, like Fuji A's and Nikkor M's, though there's no 150 in either. And when it comes to affordable compromises, there are tessar-based Schneider Xenars and the 210 Fuji L, better corrected than Geronars. There are tiny well-corrected 150 and 210 G-Claron plasmats with relatively large image circles. Many 210 Schneider Xenars were private-labeled for Calumet under their Caltar label, and those often turn up at bargain pricing even though they're the same.

My whole long-haul backpacking set of 4X5 lenses is now tiny, with all of them standardized to 52mm filters, or step-ring adapted to 52mm. My day use and 8X10 set is adapted to 67mm filters instead, but overlaps with some of the same lenses I choose for 4x5 film, and even 6X9 roll film adapters. And as someone who significantly enlarges, especially in color, I personally need high-performance lenses. Just glad I bought them all prior to the price spike craziness on EBay at the moment. But I can't imagine that "follow the other lemmings" trend will last. Few will actually buy at those asking prices, when there are so many other worthy lenses to choose from which are essentially pricing sleepers.

I have to agree with Drew, the G-Clarons are comparably small and have better image quality and coverage. I had a barrel-mount 240mm G-C that I directly swapped into the Copal 1 shutter that mounted a 210 Geronar, which I purchased mostly for the shutter. Another small, sharper option with 5x7 coverage is the Dailyte-pattern Kodak 203/7.7 Ektar. The cost of acquiring a fully functional Ektar, including the likely-needed CLA, will likely still be less than the cost of the Geronar plus CLA.

[Mark J]

Sorry i keep seeing CLA and CLE , can someone decode the acronym ?

[Tin Can]

I am not arguing with reality

but you guys love to pick em

[Dugan]

CLA= Clean, Lube & Adjust.
Not sure about CLE.

[Mark J]

Thanks #1 ....

[xkaes]

CLA= Clean, Lube & Adjust.
Not sure about CLE.

Think Compact Leica Electronic

239016

(1981) When Leica ceased the production of the CL in 1975 (which was actually made in Minolta's factories), Minolta was free to change the CL, and so they improved it to make the CLE. And this time they completely dropped the Leitz from the name. It was slightly larger than the CL, but boasted TTL metering with both automatic and manual exposure modes. The nifty metering arm of Leica CL was replaced by rearward-facing, silicon metering sensors that measure the light falling on the film, a bit like one of the Olympus OM cameras did it. The other clever bit is that the shutter curtain has a silver/black pattern on it so it reflects like the film does, so the camera can meter before and during the image exposure -- should the light change! The addition of automatic exposure was a major improvement to the design, although the shutter is now battery dependent. In addition, because it was now a silicon metering cell, the camera was able to offer TTL flash mode -- an incredible breakthrough in camera features at that time. This feature would appear on later cameras -- both Minolta and not. The interchangeable lenses are basically the same, but a 28mm (f2.8) lens was added to the line-up. The camera also has a self-timer and hot shoe. Most cameras were in black, but a limited edition gold version was made to celebrate Minolta 3,000,000th camera. At the time, people thought of it as a miniature Minolta XE-7. It has the same basic features -- more or less -- and the same beautiful feel of XE-7. Nowadays, people think of it as a miniature Minolta X-570. It has the same basic features -- more or less. While it lacks the SLR design, it has the same TTL flash.

[Mark J]

Good call !
I had the Minolta CLE in the back of my mind when i saw that.
I love Minolta, I had an XD7 for a few years before I 'graduated' to Leica-R bodies.

[Greg]

Think Compact Leica Electronic

239016

Once had, used, and loved a CL or CLE (can't remember which... Hey it was back in the late 1970s) with its 40mm lens. Loved it and if a digital version of it was reintroduced today, I would definitely acquire one. I've read the CL to be described as a "heavy" camera... I choose to describe it as a "solid" camera.

[Joseph Kashi]

Sorry i keep seeing CLA and CLE , can someone decode the acronym ?

CLE = Continuing Legal Education, something that lawyers and judges need to take each year to maintain their licenses to practice.

Sorry for the typo in my prior answer - I've edited and corrected it.

CLA already explained as Clean, Lube, Adjust

[Drew Wiley]

I don't know how far back the Gereonar name goes. Rodenstock and Fuji upgraded their methods of lens manufacture and quality control before Schneider did. Prior to that era - let's just say around 1970, correctly or not, quality control involved a lot more hand inspection and fine-tuning, which means highly skilled labor expense; and that, logically, would have been devoted more to high-end professional lenses rather than entry level options. Even when my brother sold Commercial Ektars back in the 60's, he claimed there were three different quality levels of them, even within the same category, with Linhof getting pick of the litter. Modern computerized lens manufacture has leveled the playing field quite a bit. I'm obviously speaking in very generalized terms; but variations in performance seem to symptomize pre-70's lenses a lot more than post 70's.

CLE = Call a Leica Exorcist. Don't need those cameras haunting this thread.

[Mark J]

At the risk of opening old wounds ( oh what the hell, I like a bit of sport ! ) :

I finally found the datasheet for the late Xenar 210/6.1 ( thanks, Marco ! )

240325

[Vaidotas]

At the risk of opening old wounds ( oh what the hell, I like a bit of sport ! ) :

I finally found the datasheet for the late Xenar 210/6.1 ( thanks, Marco ! )

240325

Thanks, Mark

Image resolution is a bit small, so here is link to full Rodenstock catalogue.
https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00817/00817.pdf

[Tin Can]

Copy and saved

Thank you!

I like my several Geronar in perfect shutters

Good enough for me



Thanks, Mark

Image resolution is a bit small, so here is link to full Rodenstock catalogue.
https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00817/00817.pdf

[Mark J]

Thanks, Mark

Image resolution is a bit small, so here is link ....
It's a shame because the capture was a decent size and detail. It just seems to be presented quite small on the thread, and doesn't enlarge. Is there an 'FAQ' about this ?

[Tin Can]

Try again

I can read it easily

Click the link



It's a shame because the capture was a decent size and detail. It just seems to be presented quite small on the thread, and doesn't enlarge. Is there an 'FAQ' about this ?

[Mark J]

Do you mean the link to PacificRim ? - yes that's fine.
I was meaning my capture with the Xenar comparison.
Let me use imgbb....

https://i.ibb.co/gPmwKrH/Xenar-Geronar.jpg (https://ibb.co/z7Qbvmj)

[Mark J]

In the last few days, I have found out that this sort of asymmetric triplet was already described by H.D. Taylor in his 1895/96 US patent and sold as the 'Series III'.
Analysis shows that this asymmetric style of triplet is the better solution for slower speeds and wider fields.

[Tin Can]

Too bad or not, the Thread Title

Creates a feeling that may lower value

However the recent discussion makes all Geronar a better lens for me

[Mark J]

I think I will post a new thread, which will compare the Geronar to the Series III, and show full analysis of the 210mm f/6.8 example - then we don't have to keep reading about how bad the lens might be !
I received an extra table of tech info including the design fields of view, with more of the 300mm data , that I got from a friend in Italy, Marco Cavina. It is worth putting all this info together.

[Vaidotas]

Mark, it’s intriguing announcement.
By the way, 1912 Cooke lens cataloque advertised Series III as wide angle lens despite that Series VIIa Primoplane wide angle lens was already introduced three years earlier and was present in the same catalogue.

[Mark J]

Well OK, but the Cooke III lens dates back at least to the 1896 US patent and maybe to the UK 1893 patent.

ps. - latest news ..
I was so impressed , I bought the .... lens.
I scored a very nice Geronar 210mm from EBay at the weekend, for £225. It was just lacking lens caps and for some reason the knurled knob on the shutter-cocking lever. All of these are easily fixed. Otherwise it is a late model with black Copal 1 and very good AR coatings. The glass is spotless.