Shortcomings of a Rodenstock Geronar 150mm f6.3?

[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