300 mm Plasmats

[jeroldharter]

I have been thinking about getting a 300 mm plasmat for use on my 8x10 field camera.

I know they are big as I already have a 360.

But they don't seem to come up very often. Only a few bargain condition lenses at KEH, uncommon on EBay.

I am not fishing for offers but I just wonder where they are? Were they uncommon in the heyday? I see a lot more 305 G-Clarons and Nikkor M's, Apo-Ronars, etc.

[jeroldharter]

I forgot to ask if I am crazy for wanting one?

I print at 16x20, usually landscapes, buildings, abstracts. Sometimes close enough for bellows compensation but no macro or table top stuff. I have a 305 G Claron and a 300 Nikkor M (not enough image circle for me). So I am really asking if I would see any difference in contrast or sharpness in a 16x20 print, TMY2 in Xtol.

[John NYC]

My 305 G-Claron appears sharper to me than a Caltar II-N I owned briefly. Only one anecdotal data point there.

[Daniel Stone]

I have a Fujinon-W 300mm in a Copal 3 shutter. Its big, its heavy, and gets used a lot :). Oh, its tack sharp too!

Ebay has a LOT of 300mm Plasmat lenses, look at all the Sironar's, Fujinons, Nikkors, Sironar's,etc... LOTS to choose from :D.

-Dan

[Ole Tjugen]

I don't think you're crazy for wanting one - I have a 300mm Symmar, and I think it's great!

No, I don't think you will see much difference on a 2x enlargement. Some difference in contrast and/or tonality perhaps, but sharpness? Only difference you'll see is in DoF if you shoot wide open.

Ole (who has 100, 135, 150, 180, 210, 240, 300 and 360mm Symmars)

[Ken Lee]

The Fujinon 300A is a plasmat, but opens to f/9 only. It's small and light compared to the other plasmats. It takes 55mm filters. It's nasty sharp and covers 11x14.

[Jim Becia]

I have a Fujinon-W 300mm in a Copal 3 shutter. Its big, its heavy, and gets used a lot :). Oh, its tack sharp too!

Ebay has a LOT of 300mm Plasmat lenses, look at all the Sironar's, Fujinons, Nikkors, Sironar's,etc... LOTS to choose from :D.

-Dan

Jerold,

I'll second Daniel's 300 Fuji-W. I bought one from KEH (bargain - no lens caps)) for $295 and it is sharp as a tack, but big. It is much easier to focus than my 300f9 Nikkor and huge coverage on my 8x10. I have printed a few 36x45 prints (inkjet) from an 8x10 transparency and it blows me away. Whether you would see the difference between the plasmat and you Nikkor or G Claron, I don't know, but my "guess" would be no.

Having purchased several "bargain" lenses from Keh, I would not hesitate if the price is right. So far, I have always received lenses that are more than "bargain" rated as far as I am concerned. Jim

[Two23]

I was just looking through my 1933 edition of Das Deutsche Lichtbild and came across an ad for Myer Plasmat. Here's what it said:

Ein Spharo-Achromat hochster Vollendung! Liefert naturwahre Bilder von unver=gleichlicher Plastik u. Tiefenwirkung!

So, there you go. There's also an ad for Rodenstock Imagon among other things.


Kent in SD

[ic-racer]

Hard to find? My impression is that 300mm plasmats are the most common 8x10 lens out there. Here is my lens, the extra weight does not seem to be a problem when hauling it around.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/ic-racer/DSCF4723.jpg

[Darin Boville]

Attractive camera by the way. What brand is that?

--Darin

[domaz]

I got my Caltar-II S 300mm 5.6 for a very good price at KEH. It is an absolute monster on anything but the 8x10. I haven't even been able to find a lens cap for it because the huge 105mm caps it requires are not very common or easy to find. Very sharp lens though.

[E. von Hoegh]

I forgot to ask if I am crazy for wanting one?

I print at 16x20, usually landscapes, buildings, abstracts. Sometimes close enough for bellows compensation but no macro or table top stuff. I have a 305 G Claron and a 300 Nikkor M (not enough image circle for me). So I am really asking if I would see any difference in contrast or sharpness in a 16x20 print, TMY2 in Xtol.

Unless it's an early one, your 305 G-Claron is a plasmat, with the advantage of good coverage and small (less expensive) filter size.:)

[Darin Boville]

Ahhh, a Shen-Hao FCL810-A, I see.

--Darin

[John NYC]

By the way, despite my earlier comment, I don't think you are crazy for wanting one. I have wanted one again recently for shallow DOF reasons and for ease of focus in low light. It is just that I would never myself assume again that one might be sharper than a g-claron. In fact, I have pretty much been converted to the camp now that the differences in sharpness between lenses on 8x10 is trivial in _practice_, and probably more dependent on individual lens samples than differences in lens construction.

EDIT: By sharpness, I mean center sharpness. Corner sharpness can be way different because of coverage or other differences in construction.

[Noah A]

Why would you be crazy? It's a great design for 8x10 and I would think you'd be crazier NOT to have one.

For 4x5--well that may be different. I've been using a late-model 300mm Apo-Ronar and it's very sharp. But for 8x10 I'd want the extra coverage of a plasmat.

[drew.saunders]

As of now, Friday the 14th, ~10AM PST, Keh.com has seven 300/5.6 plasmats and three 300/5.6 Macro Sironar lenses in stock. Except for the Macro Sironars, most are under $400, with a Fujinon-L in Ex condition at $289 looking to be the best deal (is the -L a Plasmat or Tessar?, they have a Fujinon-W too, which I know is a Plasmat).

Plus, if you don't want the weight, they have a Fuji 300/8.5 and three 300/9 Nikkor's. Lots to choose from if you want to avoid the 'bay.

[Mark Sampson]

It's hard to go wrong with any modern 300mm lens. Let your desired size/weight/coverage help you decide, along with the lens' physical condition. I will say that I've used a 1973-vintage, single-coated 300/5.6 Schneider Symmar-S under some very demanding conditions, and that it has more resolution than most films are capable of recording.

[E. von Hoegh]

It's hard to go wrong with any modern 300mm lens. Let your desired size/weight/coverage help you decide, along with the lens' physical condition. I will say that I've used a 1973-vintage, single-coated 300/5.6 Schneider Symmar-S under some very demanding conditions, and that it has more resolution than most films are capable of recording.

The convertible Symmars are better than people seem to think, as well.

Or, you could just get a Dagor, the "ur-Plasmat".

[Ole Tjugen]

Or, you could just get a Dagor, the "ur-Plasmat".

No, the "Ur-Plasmat" is the Meyer Plasmat. ;)

I think the Zeiss Doppel-Amatar is actually closer to being an ur-Plasmat than the Dagor is, but I may be mistaken. Anyway the origin is a double-gauss/dialyte, not a double cemented triplet - I think... :-D

[E. von Hoegh]

I always worked with the idea that the Plasmat was an airspaced Dagor, to get rid of the spherical abberation the Dagors have wide open. Kinda looks like one...

Tha Amatar is a "reverse" Dagor, and I use the quotes because it's construction is covered in the U.S. patent on the Dagor.

[Kevin Crisp]

The G Claron isn't huge, fits in a Copal 1 shutter. It never seemed too dark to me on any camera I used it on. Prices have gone up on them, and the 355 too.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Of the modern, multicoated f5.6 plasmats, the Fujinon-W is the smallest and lightest. It takes realtively small, affordable 77mm filters. It's not a tiny lens, and still requires a Copal N. 3 shutter, but it's not huge or overly heavy. It is also generallly the lowest priced of the mondern, multicoated f5.6 plasmats. It makes a great "normal" lens for 8x10 with plenty of coverage and a nice, bright image on the ground glass.

Kerry

[E. von Hoegh]

The G Claron isn't huge, fits in a Copal 1 shutter. It never seemed too dark to me on any camera I used it on. Prices have gone up on them, and the 355 too.

The OP has a 305, maybe he wants the wider aperture? Or doesn't know it's a Plasmat? Maybe it's an early one.

[Mark Sawyer]

I always worked with the idea that the Plasmat was an airspaced Dagor, to get rid of the spherical abberation the Dagors have wide open. Kinda looks like one...


Yes, the Plasmat was derived from the Dagor, and was often refered to as an "air-spaced Dagor", including by Kingslake. Separaiting a previously cemented surface in the front an rear cells gave four more surfaces for corrections. The Plasmat really took over when coatings minimized the reflections of these surfaces. (I have an early Hugo Meyer uncoated Plasmat that's very sharp to the corners and has great coverage, but as you would expect, low in contrast.)

[jeroldharter]

The OP has a 305, maybe he wants the wider aperture? Or doesn't know it's a Plasmat? Maybe it's an early one.

I have a later one, I think, mounted in a black Copal shutter.

I have no complaints about it, but wondered if I am missing out on anything. Part of what got me wondering is that I just started using a lens I picked up last year, a Rodenstock 210mm Apo Sironar W and it is excellent. It has a lot more coverage than my 210 G Claron but is relatively huge. So I wondered about the 300's.

[John NYC]

I have a later one, I think, mounted in a black Copal shutter.

I have no complaints about it, but wondered if I am missing out on anything. Part of what got me wondering is that I just started using a lens I picked up last year, a Rodenstock 210mm Apo Sironar W and it is excellent. It has a lot more coverage than my 210 G Claron but is relatively huge. So I wondered about the 300's.

I am not surpised by that as the g-claron 210 is not really an 8x10 lens, whereas the 300mm is. In retrospect, I find the amount of stretching of the corners of my 240 g-claron on 8x10 to be annoying. I suspect the problem is even worse in the 210 g-claron. I don't see that in my 300mm g-claron.

[Drew Wiley]

I use a 250 G-Claron on 8x10 with no problems at all, provided it's well stopped down; you'll have plenty of wiggle room with a 270 or 305. These are fairly common and
often only slightly more expensive than a big clunky 5.6 plastmat. Or if you really want
something nice and light with big coverage, get the 300 Fuji A multicoat; but it won't come cheap.

[jp]

I've got a symmar-s 300/5.6. I bought it cheap because it's filter ring was dented. It's kinda too big for most filters anyways. Sharp, thin DOF when wide open. Smooth out of focus background like many good lenses, but "clumpier" than a tessar which is common and not undesirable. It's not too big for 8x10 normal use; it's sized for the camera. It's copal-3. The only reasons I see to get a darker smaller lens is for faster shutter speeds (copal-1) or more filter choices.

As far as Fuji's, the fuji tessars are Fujinars. I think they are mostly plasmats otherwise.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

As far as Fuji's, the fuji tessars are Fujinars. I think they are mostly plasmats otherwise.

The Fujinon-L series (210mm, 300mm and 420mm) are Tessars. The 420mm makes a good slightly long lens for 8x10 (like a 210mm on 4x5) and will even cover 11x14 or 7x17. It comes in a Copal No. 3 shutter, weighs a smidge over 2 lb. and takes 67mm filters. There aren't a lot of choices in 420mm/16.5" lenses for 8x10 that come in shutters. Too bad, I love the 210mm focal length on 4x5. The 420mm APO Ronar and 16.5" Red Dot Artar are two examples, but they have less coverage and usually sell for more than the Fujinon. The 16.5" Dagor has more coverage, but sells for a LOT more, especially in a factory mounted shutter - if you can find one.

The little 150mm f6.3 Fujinon-W is also a Tessar. It's absolutely tiny (40.5mm filters, 136g) and one of my all time favorite lenses for backpacking with an ultralight 4x5 camera. Combine it with a 90mm f6.8 Angulon (118g) and a 210mm f6.3 Zeiss Tessar T (195g) and you have a 3 lens set that weighs less than one pound (449g = 15.8 oz.), all in factory mounted shutters and all taking 40.5mm filters. Combine those three lenses with a Gowland Pocket View and you have a 4x5 camera and three lenses set that weighs less than 3 lb. Who says large format needs to be heavy and hard to carry?

Kerry

[E. von Hoegh]

Tessars, especially the f6.3 versions can be really great performers. They typically have a bit better coverage than the f4.5 versions.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Tessars, especially the f6.3 versions can be really great performers. They typically have a bit better coverage than the f4.5 versions.

Very true. The little 150mm f6.3 Fujinon-W is an absolutely fantastic performer. The only thing it really lacks, compared to the 150mm f5.6 plasmats is a bit of coverage. Fuji rates it at 67 degrees and a 198mm image circle. I was a bit skeptical at first, but after using it for several years, and many backpacking trips, I'd have to say these figures are very realistic.

The 210mm f6.3 Zeiss Tessar T (single coated, post WWII vintage) is difficult to find in a factory mounted Compur No. 1 shutter, but if you can find one, it is another fantastic performer. Zeiss claimed a coverage angle of 70 degrees, which equates to a 294mm image circle. Again, that seems a bit optimistic, but I've never run out of coverage on 4x5 and it would also make a great, compact "normal" lens for 5x7.

Getting back to lenses for 8x10, the previously mentioned 420mm Fujinon-L has an f8 maximum aperture (constrained by the Copal No. 3 shutter) and is rated for a much more conservative 53 degrees of coverage. Even with such a conservative coverage spec, it still has an image circle of 480mm - plenty for 8x10 and even enough for 11x14 or 7x17 with modest movements.

Of course, probably the best known and most readily available of the f6.3 Tessar types are the Kodak Commercial Ektars. These are still highly regarded, and for good reason. They came in 8.5", 10", 12" and 14" and all were rated for 64 degrees of coverage. The 12" and 14" with image circles of 381mm and 444mm make great lenses for 8x10. The 8.5" has plenty of coverage for 4x5 and decent coverage for 5x7. I personally prefer the 210mm f6.3 Zeiss Tessar T in this focal length due to the smaller, lighter shutter and standard threaded filter size, but the Commercial Ektar is much easier to find and usually less expensive. The 10" Commercial Ektar has plenty of coverage for 5x7 or whole plate. It does just hit the corners of 8x10, but there are better choices in this focal length range (250mm f6.7 Fujinon-W) for the 8x10 format.

I have owned, and used all four focal lengths over the years, and if you get one in decent condition, you will not be disappointed in the performance. Kodak had amazing quality control back when these lenses were manufacturered, and the Commercial Ektar was their flagship, high end, professional product line. I have yet to see a Commercial Ektar, that was not suffering from obvious abuse, that wasn't a great performer. They were made from the mid-1940s through the mid-1960s (the latest I've seen was a 14" I used to own from 1967, the other focal lengths were discontinued 2 - 4 years earlier).

Thanks to their great performance, good coverage, inexpensive cost, compact size and lightweight, I am a big fan of the slower Tessar type lenses. The multi-coated Nikkor M series is the ultimate culmination of the Tessar evolution. I have owned and extensively used the 200mm f8, 300mm f9 and 450mm f9 Nikkor M lenses and they are three of my all time favorite large format lenses. The 200mm and 300mm are very compact and lightweight and offer comparable performance (but less coverage) than the best of the modern f5.6 plasmats, and the 450mm Nikkor M offers ULF coverage in a very compact size and light weight. I highly recommend all three.

Kerry

[jp]

Kerry, thanks for the Fuji details! I like tessars too and will keep those lenses in mind. I have a Fujinar 210/4.5 in a copal-3s which I like quite a bit for 4x5. I alternate from tessar to triplet to soft focus on 4x5 and don't even use my Plasmat 210mm.