210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

[Drew Wiley]

Have you ever actually owned and shot any of these lenses, Ian? I think THAT is the
relevant question.

[Sevo]

Aren't virtually all photographic lenses "flat field" lenses?

There are very few exceptions - IIRC Minolta made one or two "VFC" 35mm SLR lenses whose field curvature could be controlled with an extra ring, intended as a extremely odd contribution to the shift lens genre. And process lenses for non-flat subjects (like CRT screen reproduction, telecine or phototypesetter lenses) generally had a field curvature exactly matching their subject. Very ancient designs have a non-flat field as a inherent flaw, but they were already outdated by the late 19th century and only survived as intentionally odd and blurry portrait lenses. Fish-eyes technically often don't do much against field curvature, but at their huge DOF that is invisible. And fast asymmetric lens designs tend to have only one aperture at which they are truly flat. But that would be about it, and nothing of the above except for some odd portrait and process lenses is relevant for LF - any general purpose LF lens made in the past seventy or eighty years can be considered flat field...

[Kevin Crisp]

I scratched my head the first time I heard the "flat field lens" saw. I wondered what kind of shapes the "regular" lenses were optimized for.

[John NYC]

Test charts are flat field subjects perhaps you don't trealise that

So a repro/copy lens will give far better results because that's what they are designed for.

No rocket science in that . . . . . . . .

Bacck in the late 70's & 80's the best lens tests in UK magazines dropped test charts for this reason and used more practical testing under real life situations, that mades far more sense.

Ian

You are just out in left field now, but OK, hey if you won't point out the tests you think are bogus, show me these tests that pit the G-Claron performing worse... you know, the tests you respect?

[Oren Grad]

Courtesy of the Wayback Machine:

The Myth of the "Flat Field" Lens

[Darin Boville]

Aren't virtually all photographic lenses "flat field" lenses?

Until you use them at large apertures and/or close up--not stuff LF photographers often encounter

--Darin

[GPS]

Guys,
take now a more distant look at the content of this thread (Ken Lee would say the least pleasing perspective ) and see the following: 3 (perhaps even 4) people think the G-Claron lens is "better". 1 person thinks the Symmar is better. 3 people think both lenses are the same for a photograph. 1 person think that Apo-Ronar beats handily the G-Claron but says nothing about the Symmar. 1 person thinks neither lens is better or worse than the other. 1 person thinks G-Claron is better than this Symmar but worse than that Symmar, 1 person thinks there is nothing to care about in both of these lenses...
You start to see the logic? What is interesting is that those people who prefer Symmar to Claron and vice-versa both appeal to their tests with the lenses! Then there is the one who swears on his tests (beating the Claron with yet a different lens) and all these gentlemen are positively sure of the strength of their tests... Uncertainty persists though about what is better for the test - a chart, a real world object (a fence? a wall? landscape?)...

Do you start to get it? This people with their tests are not the means with which one can get an objective opinion about the comparative quality of lenses. That was my point I came with to the discussion. The reason why their opinions are well short of objectivity is the technically amateurish way their "tests" are made in. Sure they don't like hearing this but let them beat each other (calls were already made in the thread!) with the objectivity of just their testing technique...

The conclusion? Unless you have scientific test results all this talk (and the questions in that sense too) is just technically useless amateurish garbage.
Sorry to rain on the lens testing parade. There are many who prefer the much closer perspective of their home made "tests", I know...

[Cor]

Courtesy of the Wayback Machine:

The Myth of the "Flat Field" Lens

..that reminds me: wasn't Ron Wisner supposed to have a set of G-Claron elements (3?0 you could screw in one shutter to obtain a set of different focal lengths and F stops ? (the correct name for such a set escapes me at the moment), perhaps it did materialise, but I seem to remember people pay up front for such a set, and it never materialised..but I could have this totally wrong, just from memory..

Best,

Cor

[Cor]

An interesting photograph with an x lens beats a dull photograph with a y lens. Unless you're into earth imaging or counterfeiting greenbacks, pick either and get out there and make pictures By futzing around with optical theories about one lens or another, you're basically give yourself ready made excuses for failure. Even if a G is superior to a Symmar( or vice-versa) there are bound to be other lenses that are even better. This is how people end up chasing magic bullets. I maintain that any lens can be a magic bullet if it s used to the best of your abilities.

100 % agree, actually I was just wondering if I left my older 210 Symmar at home in favour of my 210 G-Claron out of weight concern.. Would I than obtain exposed negatives of lesser quality (purely in the technical sense, so resolution, contrast etc.) The general consensus seems that this is not the case (keeping a less than cooperative person out of the equation, but compulsive as he is will need to react anyway..)

Thanks & best,

Cor (who will run the comparative test anyway in a purely amateur and subjective way, after all it should work for me.)

[gary mulder]

According to my experience the differences between individual second hand optics are far more significant than the general specs of a design. We are talking about 20 - 40 year old lenses. How knows what life the have had.