I think I got a defective Caltar II-N 300mm lens

[John NYC]

Well, after a couple outings shooting 8x10 with the used Caltar II-N 300mm I bought from keh.com and the g-claron 240mm I bought from a forum member here, I have concluded that there is something fatally wrong with my Caltar 300mm. I cannot take a sharp shot with it to save my life. Meanwhile, every single picture I've taken with the g-claron is razor sharp. The difference is not slight. The 300mm pictures are actually blurry, and in a weird way.

So, I've written keh to see if they will exchange it. Unfortunately, I bought it back in December as the first piece of my 8x10 kit and I wasn't able to try it out earlier. (Actually I did take an indoor polaroid using it on my 4x5, but I don't think that was high enough resolution to see the problem.)

My question is now... what is this lens worth to sell? Will someone buy it for just the Copal 3 shutter? (The shutter is accurate according to the pictures I took.)

[lenser]

John,

This is a wildly off the wall possibility, but I did this with a 210mm Caltar II on my Zone VI when I failed to carve out sufficient depth on my lens board.

If yours is self mounted, and on a thick wooden board, you may not have it thin enough to fully seat the rear element on the shutter mount. If that's the case, you will be off focus.

Once I realized what I had done and that the case for the rear elements were impeded by the board and then routed the necessary area deeper, I was home free.

Tim

[John NYC]

John,

This is a wildly off the wall possibility, but I did this with a 210mm Caltar II on my Zone VI when I failed to carve out sufficient depth on my lens board.

If yours is self mounted, and on a thick wooden board, you may not have it thin enough to fully seat the rear element on the shutter mount. If that's the case, you will be off focus.

Once I realized what I had done and that the case for the rear elements were impeded by the board and then routed the necessary area deeper, I was home free.

Tim

Lens board was made by Bruce Wehman. It's a Wehman field camera. I doubt he got it wrong. But you did make me think of something. On both recent shoots, it was kind of windy. I seriously doubt if it was only windy when I was using the 300, but I am going to make sure this weekend by making one more test shot with it; no camera movements, just infinity focus from my roof.

EDIT: But you know what? I just got a linhof board adapter from Bruce. So, I'm going to test your theory just to be certain by taking the shot this weekend with the lens mounted on the camera that way.

[Ed Richards]

Even the same wind will be a lot more trouble on a 300 than a 210. If you still have that polaroid, take a magnifier to it - it is the ultimate high rez contact print and should be fine for showing sharpness.

[ic-racer]

From my own observations with a loupe on the light table and that big lens resolution database (http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html), my impression that many of those big 300mm plasmats are not the sharpest lenses. I usually only enlarge to 2x so my prints are fine but I can tell on a 55" enlargement. I still love my 300 though! It is bright to focus, and has a huge image circle and those are its strong points.

All things need perspective so what I am talking about is looking through a 8x loupe or a 55" enlargement.

My 300mm does not produce what would be called "blurry pictures" as you have obtained so you certainly may have a lemon. Perhaps it has a rear cell from different lens or something.

When testing it try opening up a few stops to f22 it may be sharpest around there.

[Jim Galli]

I'm sure KEH will treat you nicely. I think I have some 300mm cells from a shutter I robbed for a 355 G-Claron a couple of years ago. I can look if you want. It's really unusual for one of those to just be 'bad'. Cobble a Nikon digital to the back of the camera and focus through the nikon prism on something that should render sharp and take some digital snaps that you can blow up on your crt. Maybe you can figure out what you're really getting or if something is actually going haywire in that lens.

[Steve Hamley]

You might try this: open the shutter and iris, and try to project the image of a bare light bulb on the wall. If you can see the filament sharply, the lens is sharp. If there's a "fatal" problem, this test might show it. Compare to your G-Claron and see if there"s an observable difference.

Cheers, Steve

[John NYC]

One thing is certain. The g-claron has never produced an unsharp image (not one) so far. This lens has produced unsharp images every time (about four frames so far).

I studied the images and I can see why I missed the problem in my close range Polaroid test on 4x5. The images are not AS blurry on items in the foreground, but as you go back toward infinity a sort of double image starts occurring. At midrange objects, it has the effect of blurriness because the double images are so close. Between the midrange objects and the really far away objects, you start seeing it is really a double image (especially on things like lettering on signs). At infinity, objects have gotten so small that they just look blurry. So I looked at those objects with the double images. In every frame they are double images left and right. You'd think if it were wind, there would be some randomness among the four pictures I took and sometimes the double images would not be so strictly left-right beside each other.

[Steve Hamley]

Double image? Start looking for a small hole somewhere like an unplugged flange mounting screw hole. Sounds like a hole is maybe acting as a pinhole "lens".

Cheers, Steve

[John NYC]

Double image? Start looking for a small hole somewhere like an unplugged flange mounting screw hole. Sounds like a hole is maybe acting as a pinhole "lens".

Cheers, Steve

No holes that I can see anywhere. Plus my exposures were right on the money.

[ic-racer]

One thing is certain. The g-claron has never produced an unsharp image (not one) so far. This lens has produced unsharp images every time (about four frames so far).

I studied the images and I can see why I missed the problem in my close range Polaroid test on 4x5. The images are not AS blurry on items in the foreground, but as you go back toward infinity a sort of double image starts occurring. At midrange objects, it has the effect of blurriness because the double images are so close. Between the midrange objects and the really far away objects, you start seeing it is really a double image (especially on things like lettering on signs). At infinity, objects have gotten so small that they just look blurry. So I looked at those objects with the double images. In every frame they are double images left and right. You'd think if it were wind, there would be some randomness among the four pictures I took and sometimes the double images would not be so strictly left-right beside each other.

So your lens is probably OK.
I'd look for a little wobble somewhere from more extension or stiffer cable release on the 300 or lensboard not a firm fit. I guess you could have been by chance getting some film movement only with a certain film holder or some other coincidence.

In my own experience when the 8x10 film falls forward in the holder after I remove the dark slide, I get the double image at the bottom of the composition and the top of the composition is ok or not as bad. With my old Century, some wobble in the rear standard would also affect the bottom of the composition more than the top (because it would be like a base-tilt wobble)

[John NYC]

So your lens is probably OK.

I don't follow, given that I shot two lenses in the same circumstances and one always came out great and this one always blurry. The board theory will get a trial when I use the new lens board this weekend. As far as holders go, I've used all these before and they are all fine.

Perhaps this lens could have been dropped at some point and the elements are just slightly out of whack so that you can't tell on the ground glass but only examining the scans as I have been?

[walter23]

Try the light filament test suggested earlier. You can project a lightbulb (even just one on the ceiling) onto a white piece of paper through the lens and if it's really obviously screwy you'll see it.

I suspect it's more an issue of an element not seated all the way into the shutter or improperly shimmed, or the wind you mentioned, than a defective lens. Most defects in this kind of lens would be pretty obvious (like decementation or something).

[John NYC]

Try the light filament test suggested earlier. You can project a lightbulb (even just one on the ceiling) onto a white piece of paper through the lens and if it's really obviously screwy you'll see it.

I suspect it's more an issue of an element not seated all the way into the shutter or improperly shimmed, or the wind you mentioned, than a defective lens. Most defects in this kind of lens would be pretty obvious (like decementation or something).

My hunch is like you said... something wrong in just a slight, but fatal way.

Given that the blurriness is only visible when examining the scans, I don't think the light bulb test is going to work. The 4x5 polaroid test looks fine. If you just look at the 8x10 neg on a light table, it looks fine.

Before any of you say it is my scanning ability... it's not. ;-) Here's something from the g-claron from the same day: http://www.flickr.com/photos/33946021@N04/4424249376/sizes/o/

[John NYC]

In my own experience when the 8x10 film falls forward in the holder after I remove the dark slide, I get the double image at the bottom of the composition and the top of the composition is ok or not as bad. With my old Century, some wobble in the rear standard would also affect the bottom of the composition more than the top (because it would be like a base-tilt wobble)

Just to clarify... It is blurry all over with a distinct double image wherever the SUBJECT is far away but not so far that it is tiny. Doesn't matter where this falls in the film itself, bottom, top, what have you.

[ic-racer]

I don't follow, given that I shot two lenses in the same circumstances and one always came out great and this one always blurry. The board theory will get a trial when I use the new lens board this weekend. As far as holders go, I've used all these before and they are all fine.

Perhaps this lens could have been dropped at some point and the elements are just slightly out of whack so that you can't tell on the ground glass but only examining the scans as I have been?

Ok, I re-read you previous post about the close objects being better. Sounding more like a bad lens but you certainly should see that on the ground glass. If something is moving I guess you could try 1/400 and see if it is any better.

[Andrew Tymon]

How about letting us see a scan from the 300mm lens?

[John NYC]

How about letting us see a scan from the 300mm lens?

Here is a reduced version of the scene plus two example crops of what I am calling the "double image blurriness". This image was scanned in the exact same way as my one on flickr that is sharp and was taken with the g-claron. There was no wind when this particular shot was taken as I recall. The exposure was 1/30th if I recall correctly

[John NYC]

Compare those to this crop from my flickr picture taken with the 240 g-claron. Keep in mind this detail is from across the river, probably about 20 times further away than the other shot's details I posted. And this is a shorter lens.

[Kirk Fry]

Get an 8X loupe and look at the image on the ground glass, compare the two lenses.
If the 300mm if fuzzy you known the problem. If not, ether the film is in the wrong place compared to the gg or you go movement. Your g-claron is in a #1 shutter while the 300 is in a #3 large shutter that may be inducing vibration. Try taking a picture without using the shutter. Good Luck.

KFry

[ic-racer]

I agree with Krik that it is the lens it should have that double image thing on the ground glass when you observe with the loupe. If something is moving during the exposure, it is still more likely part of the camera or film than part of the lens moving during exposure.

I'm following here because if it does turn out to be a rattling lens element that would be pretty unnusual.

[John NYC]

I agree with Krik that it is the lens it should have that double image thing on the ground glass when you observe with the loupe. If something is moving during the exposure, it is still more likely part of the camera or film than part of the lens moving during exposure.

I'm following here because if it does turn out to be a rattling lens element that would be pretty unnusual.

Here's the thing. Whatever it is, I have not been able to take a sharp picture with this lens. And every picture I've taken with my other lens is sharp. Doesn't that seem odd? I mean perhaps it is true that I've just messed up the shots with this lens only. It definitely could be. But the thing is, this lens isn't really worth anything to me if I can't take a very sharp picture with it, no matter how many experiments I might perform on it that don't involve taking pictures.

So, providing it stops raining enough tomorrow... I am going to use a different lens board, one of the film holders that I know is good (used for one of the shots that came out sharp), set up my camera with everything completely at zero, spend 10 minutes focusing with my 4x loupe and take a picture from inside my house (no wind) looking out my window, with a reasonably quick shutter speed.

If that doesn't come out sharp, I'm going to conclude there is something wrong with the lens and offer it for sale to anyone who wants to buy it and do the double-image-smackdown with it. If it does come out sharp, I'm going to chalk those other shots up to user error and feel more confident using it going forward.

Stay tuned, I guess.

[John NYC]

I'm following here because if it does turn out to be a rattling lens element that would be pretty unnusual.

Also, why would this be so strange? It is a used lens that who knows how many people owned before me in the past however many decades old it is. Maybe it was dropped while it was in a padded camera case and one of the elements has shifted slightly. I'm not saying it was necessarily made defectively at the factory.

[CarstenW]

John, how many bad shots have you taken with the Caltar 300?

[ic-racer]

Also, why would this be so strange? It is a used lens that who knows how many people owned before me in the past however many decades old it is. Maybe it was dropped while it was in a padded camera case and one of the elements has shifted slightly. I'm not saying it was necessarily made defectively at the factory.

Just that you did not say it rattles, therefore unnusual in this case for a lens element to only move when the shutter is released but not when shaking ;)

It really looks OK with a loupe on the GG??

[goodfood]

I have Caltar 240 and 360. both have some spacer (rings) between lens to shutter mount. Your one may miss those spacer after the old owner clean-up or un-mount from the lens board.You can try to tight the lens and turn back 45 degree, 90 degree and so to see at ground grass or films you mark how many degree you turn out. Waiting to see your result.

[John NYC]

It really looks OK with a loupe on the GG??

Of course it does, why would I expose the frame if I thought it wasn't in perfect focus?

With a 4x loupe, the grain of the GG is getting to where you will not be able to see any more detail if you went 8x. I'm not going to buy an 8x loupe that I don't need.

Let's just wait until the weather clears up and then I will take a test shot under perfect conditions.

Believe me, there is no one more than me than would like me to be wrong about this lens being messed up.

[John NYC]

John, how many bad shots have you taken with the Caltar 300?

About five. I've taken about eight with my 240-g claron also, and they all came out perfect. That is what is making me think it is the lens. As I said just above, there is no one more than me than would like me to be wrong about this. Unfortunately it is raining cats and dogs this weekend and really hazy to boot. Next weekend I am out of town, and I work all day during the week, so unless it clears up tomorrow, looks like It is going to be a couple weeks before I can test it out.

In the meantime, KEH has not responded to my email.

[John NYC]

I have Caltar 240 and 360. both have some spacer (rings) between lens to shutter mount. Your one may miss those spacer after the old owner clean-up or un-mount from the lens board.You can try to tight the lens and turn back 45 degree, 90 degree and so to see at ground grass or films you mark how many degree you turn out. Waiting to see your result.

I have the retaining ring (that has the threads) and a ring that goes under it. I've mounted the lens that way. I just remounted it to a linhof board and put in my new Wehman linhof adapter. I use a spanner wrench to make sure it is good and tight.

[CarstenW]

About five. I've taken about eight with my 240-g claron also, and they all came out perfect. That is what is making me think it is the lens. As I said just above, there is no one more than me than would like me to be wrong about this. Unfortunately it is raining cats and dogs this weekend and really hazy to boot. Next weekend I am out of town, and I work all day during the week, so unless it clears up tomorrow, looks like It is going to be a couple weeks before I can test it out.

In the meantime, KEH has not responded to my email.

I thought I remembered that it wasn't that many. I think that 5 is not enough to form a detailed picture of what the lens is like, especially if the circumstances of the 5 photos are similar. It is of course possible that there is something wrong with it. Then again, maybe the mounting/spacing of the lens was not done properly, and a proper re-mount would fix it, or maybe there was just a bit of wind on those 5 shots, or your tripod or ballhead are too weak, or... I think there are too many possibilities open at this point.

KEH should respond at some point; they haven't made their reputation by ignoring people. If you have lost your faith in the lens, by all means send it back, make a note of the serial number, and try another, but if you have any time and are willing to do it, it would be interesting to narrow down what the actual problem is. Some indoor shots at several meters, solid tripod, careful technique, might rule out some possibilities.

[Andre Noble]

If you had a lemon of a lens, how would you get rid of it?

1) Ebay
2) KEH

I would pick option 2. That's why I don't buy lenses from option 2.

[JRFrench]

Thats a bit of a cheap shot Andre, considering how overwhelming the positive feedback for KEH is, and how Ive heard many reports of them coming through with stellar after sale support if the item isn't as expected. Its not really KEH's fault OP waited so long to test this lens.

[John NYC]

Thats a bit of a cheap shot Andre, considering how overwhelming the positive feedback for KEH is, and how Ive heard many reports of them coming through with stellar after sale support if the item isn't as expected. Its not really KEH's fault OP waited so long to test this lens.

Well, I did test it on my 4x5 in a way I thought was adequate.

One thing I want to say, I've bought thousands of dollars of stuff from KEH and none of it has ever been anything but brilliant. So, if (and that still is IF) this lens is not perfect, it will be the first time they've missed for me.

I took my test shot out my window today and will get it back tomorrow night from the lab. So, soon I will know if it was something else (mis-mounting on the other board, wind everytime, etc) or the lens.

[mcfactor]

I recently bought a copy of this lens off ebay and it has performed perfectly. I have taken about 30 shots and it is very sharp. So, for what its worth, the lens can perform very well.

[John NYC]

Well, the results are in.

The "double image" blurriness must have been caused by a gust of wind or perhaps mis-mounting on the other lens board, or some other issue that people suggested here. So, that mystery is solved. But even with the ridiculous care taken with focusing this shot and making sure the conditions were perfect, this lens is simply not nearly as sharp as my 240 G-Claron.

Attached are two images. Please excuse the brutal scan and auto-Photoshop curves. The first image is a vertical slice from top to bottom of the 8x10 neg reduced to the size I was allowed to upload here. The second is a 50 percent crop of where I focused. I wanted to see the quality both in front of and behind the focal point, so that is why I focused where I did. When you can look at the whole scene 100 percent, you can really tell the lens does not perform anywhere near like the G-Claron. I'm not going to say it is defective at this point, but it certainly isn't a stellar performer in comparison.

I'm really conflicted about what to do with this lens, as I won't find it useful for what I want to do. If I were taking portraits maybe it would be fine, but that is not what I am planning on doing with 8x10.

[ic-racer]

Now I think you are seeing the lack of sharpness I was alluding to in my first post.
If you look at some of the numbers on that lens chart (http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html) and correlate that with your results I think you are seeing like 40 LPM and might be hard pressed to find a 300mm 8x10 lens that is significantly better at the same aperture. If you don't need movements then something like the 305 G clarion would be a step above the 'full coverage' lenses. (according to that chart).

I think it just comes down to the physics of shorter lenses being sharper so, whatever 300mm you get won't match your shorter lens with the same loupe or same magnification.

Also, my comments relate mostly to those common and relatively inexpensive 300mm lenses in Copal#3 like, Nikkor 300, Fuji 300mm, Symmar-S 300mm etc. I suspect there may be some multi-thousand dollar lenses in the 300mm range that I can't comment on.

[Kirk Fry]

My Nikkor M 300mm is brutally sharp, it just does not have a lot of coverage on 8X10. I think the copal #3 shutters introduce a lot of vibration. KFry

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Might try a series of several second long exposures to eliminate shutter-induced vibration or a harmonic setting up in the tripod as the cause. 1/30s can be a brutal part of the range for a 300mm lens.

[John NYC]

Might try a series of several second long exposures to eliminate shutter-induced vibration or a harmonic setting up in the tripod as the cause. 1/30s can be a brutal part of the range for a 300mm lens.

Did you see my latest test? Do you really believe that is shutter vibration causing it to be less sharp than my G-Claron?

I think it is more what ic-racer said. Many of these large 300mm plasmats are just not that sharp.

[John NYC]

One more part of the mystery potentially solved for the double image piece... my tripod head (the assembly itself) was loose and that might have affected those shots almost arbitrarily. I tightened it up with a hex wrench now.

Obviously this didn't affect my latest test shot because I was being so careful to make sure everything was still for that.

[mcfactor]

Here is a crappy scan (on my HP G4050) of an 8x10 taken with a Caltar 300mm. There is no sharpening applied. I think it was 1/8th at f/22 or so on Delta 100 in Rodinal 1:100. It looks very sharp to me, so perhaps it is your lens.