I've a the lens above mentioned, but I really don't know how it's performance ? 6 elements with 4 group made?
welcom some experienced photographer advances.
I've a the lens above mentioned, but I really don't know how it's performance ? 6 elements with 4 group made?
welcom some experienced photographer advances.
This lens is a single-coated, four element in four group design. Rodenstock states that it has two "working" apertures -- f16 & f22. Wider than that it will not cover 4x5, but at any f-stop the resolution drops quickly towards the edges. At least it's small, light, and inexpensive.
A used f/8 90mm Nikkor, Super Angulon, or Fujinon will way out perform a Geronar WA and they can be had now for bargain prices. Rodenstock in their literature markets this lens for "students and beginning photographers" which should clue you off to its capabilities.
IMHO the WA f/8 series are Multicoated 6 element in 4 groups, IIRC... isn't it a double Gauss ?Originally Posted by xkaes
Image circle is 170mm, while 4x5 requires some 154mm, so allowing some movements.
Not a bad performer, here (http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html) Mr Perez measured a very acceptable performance for the 150mm version in that practical test, so not a bad product in general.
The 150mm:
f/11 60 38 24
f/16 76 48 34
f/22 48 54 48
That particular sample showed some weakness in the corners under f/22, but also showed excellent center shapness at f/16, still this is not a lab test, and each sample is different.
It is Copal 1, if it was Copal 0 it would be even more compact.
Papi, if this list https://www.graflex.org/lenses/lens-spec.html is correct the 150/6.3 Geronar is a triplet and the 90/8 Geronar is a 4/4 double Gauss. You can't reason from one to the other.
I've got the Rodenstock literature -- the three plain Geronars are triplets and the WA Geronar is a 4 element optic. All are Copal #1 except the 150mm which is #0. They were all designed to be inexpensive. Rodenstock calls them "budget-minded" and producing "good" results so, of course, they are not multi-coated.
Dan, yes, you are right, if the lens in the C.Perez list is a 150mm plain triplet then the 90 WA pointed by OP should be a better lens than that triplet.
The right test is here, page 6 http://www.arnecroell.com/lenstests.pdf
MTF performance is measured for just the Geronar WA 90mm f/8. And it shows a good performance, in the same page we have MTF data for other reputed lenses to compare.
Tests made by Arne Cröll, http://www.arnecroell.com/
Still we should remember that this is not high technology lab test and always there is the sample to sample variation... of course...
Yes, here also says 4/4 for WA 90, page 6: http://www.arnecroell.com/lenstests.pdf
But it says Multicoated, for a 1984 WA 90mm sample, serial 1058XXXX.
What I was not understanding is it was Double-Gauss with 4/4 instead six elements, some sources around (that should be wrong) cite 6 elements...
Papi, there are many 4/4 double Gauss wide angle lenses. ( ( | ) ), where | stands for the diaphragm.
I'll believe that when I see some actual documentation from Rodenstock. Their official literature from 1984 -- not the linked creation -- does not say that it is multi-coated. More importantly, that's illogical. They state it is a budget, intro, student lens. That means they cut every corner they could. The first thing to go would be multi-coating -- just like all the other budget lens lines from other manufacturers, ex. Minolta's Rokkor vs Celtic lines.
hmmm... there are a lot of Geronars around showing "MC" stamped.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks