Some time ago, I happened upon an orphaned 210mm lens. It is a 1:6.3 / 210mm Caltar type-Y
It takes 49mm filters up front and the lens caps have a script 'Y' on them.
I guess I always assumed that it was a Yamasaki or Komura Commercial Congo...but recently, I was told that it is infact a Rodenstock Ysarex...?
Does anybody know for sure? Can somebody look at Kerry's famous VC mag article and see if it mentiones it?
Thx.
According to Kerry's article, there was only one "Y type" Caltar - and that was a 240mm f6.8 made by Rodenstock in the 1973-76 period. It had a 49mm front filter thread.
There was a 210mm f6.3 "Caltar-Pro Series" lens made by Komura in 1980. This was listed as having a 46mm front filter thread.
Your lens doesn't seem to match either of these.
I aksed the good folks at Calumet directly. They indicated that this lens is in fact a Rodenstock Ysarex. So, I guess I got a "poor man's Lanthar"....cool!
Um, er, ah, there are some real idiots of sellers on eBay who push the Ysarexes as a "poor man's Apo Lanthar." This is complete nonsense. The Apo Lanthar is a tweaked heliar. The Ysarex is a tessar. Let's not propagate the lie here.
Uh...OK. I'll consider myself properly spanked. I'll go stand in the corner now and give myself a time out for propagating lies....
One question though....what does "poor man's" mean to you? Might the bull shit police of the internet allow that this acknowledges the design differences between the two?
I actually have one of those lenses. It is indeed a 240mm 6.8 lens, and it is spectacular. Whatever its heritage--the lens is fantastic, and that is all that matters with respect to a piece of equipment.
Brad, all kidding and slapping of hands aside, I've always understood "poor man's X" to mean an inexpensive substitute for an X that's somewhat like an X but not as good as one.Originally Posted by BradS
When I see "poor man's X" in eBay listings, I take it as an attempt to insinuate that the item on offer will substitute fairly well for an X. This reading is strongly reinforced by text that asserts that the item on offer is in fact the same design as an X. If you look at seller rabenwolf's current listing of an Ysarex, you'll see what I mean. This is plain dishonest and Wolfgang should know better. Listings by, e.g., Pak Harry 194, are even worse.
As it happens, I've shot relatively f/4.5 and f/6.3 tessars against an f/3.7 heliar and much prefer the tessars. They're sharper and have more coverage. I've also shot f/9 tessars against f/10 heliars. Here the heliars are better.
So I don't think its fair to assert that a tessar is as good as a heliar. It just might be better, but it could be worse too.
Cheers,
Dan
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks