300 mm Plasmats

[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.