240mm f/6.8 Caltar Type-Y specs?

[Steve Goldstein]

Does anyone have coverage info on this lens? I believe it's a rebadged Rodenstock Ysarex, but I've been unable to find much about it - it isn't listed in any of the Calumet catalogs on the cameraeccentric site (unless I missed it, which is entirely possible), and my searching of this site didn't turn up much either. I guess it should cover 5x7 if it's a Tessar...

Thanks all!

[BradS]

Yes. It is indeed a Rodenstock Ysarex. There was also a 210mm f/6.3 version. Both have four elements in three groups (tessar design) and are single coated. They're a bit quirky...you either grow to love 'em or...not. I love mine.

[rdenney]

I have a Type Y 240. The coverage seems to me fairly typical of a tessar, meaning that it is probably officially something like a 280ish-mm coverage. I have not tested mine for coverage; I don't go past 4x5. It probably won't cover 8x10 at infinity. If I am able this evening (this is a very busy weekend coming up), I'll throw it on the Sinar and crank in enough shifts to simulate the corner of 8x10 coverage and see how it does.

In 4x5 application, the lens seems to me a first-class tessar, very sharp when stopped down.

Rick "suspecting it will be just shy of sufficient" Denney

[aduncanson]

I use one on 5x7. I just popped it on my 5x7 Cambo, shifted the front and back standards to the extreme opposite positions (a 50mm net shift). When stopped down to f/16, the image seemed evenly illuminated and sharp out to about 2cm from the corners under a 4x loupe (your assessment of a print may differ.) That would suggest coverage of 54 degrees, about what you should expect from a Tessar.

Conclusion: Certainly suitable for landscapes at least to moderate print sizes.

[Steve Goldstein]

Brad -

Could you describe what you mean by "quirky"?

[BradS]

Brad -

Could you describe what you mean by "quirky"?


Maybe Quirky isn't quite the right word. I have six or seven 210mm lenses, including the 210 Caltar type-Y and a couple of genuine Xenars....and a host of others (and have had many more come and go - I have a thing for the 210mm focal length on 4x5).

Since they share nearly the same design, it seems natural to compare the Rodenstock Ysarex (Caltar Type-Y) to the Schneider Xenar. Making this comparison, I notice that the Ysarex produces a very subtle glow - much like the Wollensak Raptar. The Xenar has no such "glow". This characteristic was very much unexpected in the Ysarex. I expected the Ysarex to produce results that were essentially indistinguishable from that of the Xenar...but that is not the case. This is why I love/hate the Ysarex. It is a lovely optic but, finds limited use in my photography.

There are some who are of the opinion that the Ysarex's use of Lanthanum glass is responsible for its unique "look"....I am not qualified to comment on that however.

[Steve Goldstein]

Thank you. I also have a Xenar (Caltar version) and just came into a Type-Y for very small money. I'll do some comparisons to see how this manifests, both in portraits and landscape. I can see where it could be useful.