Shortcomings of a Rodenstock Geronar 150mm f6.3?

[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.

[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.