Opinions on ILEX CALUMET CALTAR 375mm f6.3 for 8x10 - Worth $450 in 2012?

[dachyagel]

I've already read some of the most Googled posts on this lens -- the Ilex Calumet Caltar 375mm f6.3. I can get one for about $450 right now and I would be using it on an 8x10 C-1. I know that it is a Tessar and I'm pretty familiar with the drawbacks (and pluses) of using a Tessar type lens -- nonetheless, I'd like to get some opinions on performance and usability on this lens, as well as retained value.

The lenses that I use most often are my Nikkors -- a 210mm and a 300mm M f9 -- which are both fabulous multicoated lenses that I've been very happy with.

My main consideration here is cost; if I hold out for a 360mm lens in a Copal 3 with magnanimous coverage, it's going to set me back at least $700 if not a $1000, whereas one of these Ilex Calumet Caltars can be had for considerably less.

So -- if it isn't a keeper per se, will it be worth the funds now? And is there a fair chance that I would be able to resell it at or around the purchase price in a year or two, when I can afford a more modern lens?

Thanks in advance for your input....

[Gem Singer]

KEH (www.keh.com) has a Caltar-N 360 (Rodenstock Sironar N) listed on their website for a comparable price.

The Caltar N is a 6-element plasmat, multi coated. Mounted in a newer Copal shutter.

That Ilex Calumet Caltar is an old lens mounted in an old shutter. I wouldn't pay $450 for it.

[dachyagel]

Thanks -- I didn't realize that the Caltar II-N 360mm was a rebranded Rodenstock Sironar N.

That makes a big difference!

[Jan Pedersen]

The 375mm Caltar lens is a very nice lens but as Gem is saying 450$ is a bit high and maybe 100$ more than the recent selling prices.
I have an example and like it much more than a modern multi coated plasmat, i had a Fuji 360 6.3 for a short time but found it to be to contrasty for my liking.
Whether you will like it or not depends on what you will use it for and what type of lenses you already use, if they all are modern multicoated lenses the Caltar will give you different look.
One consideration on the Caltar is that there are no filter tread.

[neil poulsen]

I read an article where the people responsible for the design of this and the other tessars designed along with this lens singled out this lens as being not high quality.

This lens may have its proponents, but it's not one that I would purchase.

[Frank Petronio]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/130612448257...#ht_500wt_1156

Sold a state-of-the-art 360 APO Symmar for $666 a few weeks ago. And I originally bought it for slightly less than that but made the fees back, so $600 should be enough if you are patient.

[rdenney]

I read an article where the people responsible for the design of this and the other tessars designed along with this lens cited this lens as being not high quality.

This lens may have its proponents, but it's not one that I would purchase.

I've read just the opposite. I don't have the 14-3/4" Caltar, but I do have the 12" version, and it's as good as any tessar-derived lens I've owned. My understanding from Lynn Jones (who I hope will chime in) was that Ilex freshly formulated these lenses specifically as a replacement for the Kodak Commercial Ektar, which had been discontinued. Given that Kodak had been the principle supplier for Calumet to sell with Calumet view cameras, they worked with Ilex on the replacement. The lenses were also sold under other labels.

Some of what I've read suggests that the 14-3/4" model was a triplet rather than a tessar like the 12" and other lengths. I dunno. I did read one report from a studio professional who thought it was a standard go-to lens at that focal length.

If the longer lens is a tessar, and if it's like my 12", it will perform very well indeed for 8x10. Tessars, of course, need to be stopped down and they don't have as much coverage as a plasmat. In return, they provide a smoother transition from sharply focused to unfocused, which to my eyes provides a more three-dimensional rendering. But the key advantage to the Caltars is that they provide something (reported by some to be) on a par with the Commercial Ektar at a lower price. If it's priced the same as the Kodak, then there's no advantage.

For 4x5, my 12" is fine and plenty sharp for the prints I make. With shorter lenses, I'm usually wanting as much crispness as possible in the overall rendering, not just resolution on the focus plane, and I prefer plasmats or more modern wide-angle designs. But with longer lenses, the more three-dimensional rendering seems preferable to me. This lens is not really particularly long for 8x10, so maybe that effect wouldn't have as much value if I used that format, but then 8x10 doesn't require as much enlargement.

I would not be afraid of the Ilex shutter. I do not have a lens in a No. 5 shutter such as this lens would use, but my No. 4 shutters are within a quarter stop at all but the highest speeds. The Acme No. 4 in which my 12" Caltar is mounted is slow at 100 and 150, but accurate at all other speeds. Given the Copal No. 3 doesn't even have those speeds, I would think it stands the comparison pretty well.

Rick "who paid around $300 for the 12" Caltar, and thinks that is about right" Denney

[dachyagel]

I'm not afraid of the shutter (I don't have a problem shooting at slower speeds), but I do shoot at wider apertures fairly often, which makes any Tessar tougher to deal with.

I didn't really intend for this thread to become a rehash of other threads that sort through the history of the Ilex Caltars, but if there is someone who owns this particular lens (the 14 3/4"), feel free to chime in.

Personally, I think I have already reached the decision that it isn't worth what I would have to pay for it. To me, a lens with primitive coatings and an ancient shutter should, in most circumstances, be considered a bargain lens. And a bargain lens should come at a bargain price.

[c.d.ewen]

I didn't really intend for this thread to become a rehash of other threads that sort through the history of the Ilex Caltars, but if there is someone who owns this particular lens (the 14 3/4"), feel free to chime in.

Personally, I think I have already reached the decision that it isn't worth what I would have to pay for it. To me, a lens with primitive coatings and an ancient shutter should, in most circumstances, be considered a bargain lens. And a bargain lens should come at a bargain price.

Good decision. $450 is too much, particularly when I'd sell you a set of 14 3/4" cells for $50 (you supply the Ilex 5). Years ago, I did what was a somewhat common practice: buy a 14 3/4" Caltar for a couple hundred bucks, just to get the Ilex 5. Since then, I've taken a number of barrel-mounted lenses and made adapters for them to be used in the Ilex 5.

If a modern shutter is what you want, don't settle for anything else.

BTW, I tried the 14 3/4" on a 12x20 when I got it - sharp, but not clinically so; good coverage, but vignetted the corners.

Charley

[dachyagel]

Will those cells fit in a modern shutter? If so, it might worth my sending them to SK Grimes.