Docter Wetzlar Germinar-W 240 f9

[Capocheny]

Greetings,

Just a curiosity here... how does the Docter Wetzlar Germinar-W 240mm f9 compare with the Schneider G-Claron f9 in terms of coverage, coatings, etc?

Or, to the 240 Nikkor f5.6?

Any first hand experiences with this lens?

Thanks in advance!

Cheers

[Jim Rice]

It's my understanding that it's pretty damn nice. Think multicoated g-claron, with maybe a bit more coverage, but that's just from my research here. And yes I spotted it too, but can't afford it at the moment. Here's the thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=20265

[Eric Leppanen]

Here is Kerry Thalmann's write-up on the 240mm Germinar when he was selling them earlier this year:

http://www.thalmann.com/Ebay/240mm_Germinar_W.html

Here's also a description of what I did to address light fall-off (highly specialized, I admit):

http://www.apug.org/forums/showthrea...light=germinar

I believe the latest View Camera magazine has the first installment of a three part article by Kerry, where he compares the Germinar and G-Claron, among others.

[Ted Harris]

I have been carrying both the Germinar W and my trusty Fujinon 240A for many months now. When I remembeer and have the time I make an exposure with both. I am usually shotting 5x7 or 4x5 so I am not pushing the coverage limits of the lenses. In terms of image quality I am usuallyhard pressed to tell the difference between the two. When I can discern a difference it is very subtle and subjective but I prefer the Germinar W. I really can't say much more that will not become total subjective babble. I have never used a G Claron so no help there.

The 240 A will not leave my kit however as, in its #0 shutter, it will remain the lens that travels constantly.

[Scott Davis]

The Nikkor 240 F5.6 is a massive lens with massive coverage. I still drag mine around with my 8x10 kit as it produces some excellent results, especially for shooting architecture. I'd rather have the Germinar over other options if I were looking to replace the Nikkor - I've got a Fuji 250 F6.7, and while it is a smaller, lighter lens than the Nikkor, for 8x10 I don't think it offers anywhere near the image circle. I use it as a longish-normal on my 5x7.

[Jim Galli]

I shot my 240 Docter on a sheet of 11X14 film and posted the photo somewhere Can't find it anymore. Anyways it pinched the corners in exactly the same place the G-Claron does. It is contrastier than the GC. Sometimes that works for you and sometimes it doesn't. If I were shooting 8X10 chromes in the jungle I'd think of this lens first. 8X10 portraits in the studio, dead last.

[wfwhitaker]

I've been using the 240W Germinar to shoot 8x10 chromes, although not in the jungle. I've been very pleased with the results. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I admit that I am. It's so nice when a lens works well for 8x10 and isn't the size and weight of a brick. I have no scans at this time, but when I do, I'll post them.

[Christopher Perez]

I have shot a 240 GClaron f/9, 250 Fuji f/6.7, 240 Fuji A f/9, 240 Germinar W f/9, and a 240 Symmar Convertible f/5.6.

For 8x10 work I prefer the Symmar for it's larger aperture. I would never have guessed what a difference one stop would make. By comparison, the f/9 lenses all seem dark on the 8x10 ground glass.

Having said this, the Germinar W is a favorite of mine. I have shot it on 4x5 and 5x7. I has plenty of coverage for 8x10 (with movements) and the "feel" is very similar to the GClaron in the way the resolution very gradually dimishes as you reach the edge of the field of illumination. Nice and controlled.

The Germinar W's multi-coatings (if you have that model) do help somewhat. I shot a pair of steam locomotives in a dark dimly lit roundhouse. With the floor to ceiling windows near the edge of the frame, the Germinar W handled the problem of potential flare very well. Nicer, that is, than the already wonderfully nice GClaron.

The Fuji A f/9 barely covers 8x10. It's resolution drops off more suddenly as you go beyond it's claimed 70 degrees of coverage than any of the other lenses listed here. Given it's size and multi-coatings, it's a strong recommendation for use on 4x5 and 5x7.

The Germinar W, GClaron, Fuji f/6.7 provide more "apparent" coverage than the Symmar Convertible when working with 8x10 contact prints. For 4x5 or 5x7 work, any of the aforementioned lenses will provide enormous coverage.

[Capocheny]

Thanks kindly for all the information and links related to my question... I'm tossing the idea of bidding on one of these lenses on the bay but couldn't decide whether there was enough of a difference from my Nikkor 240 and G-Claron to justify the purchase, or not.

I realize the Nikkor and the Fujinon 240A (both @ 336) has a larger IC than the G-Claron (@298.) But, as Chris stated, "The Fuji A f/9 barely covers 8x10."

Bottom line is that one company specifies a more conservative coverage than the other company. Confusing, isn't it?

Therefore, my main question is, "Is there more or less coverage with the Germinar than the G-Claron/Nikkor 240/Fujinon 240A when used with 8x10?"

Thanks again.

Cheers

[Eric Leppanen]

"Is there more or less coverage with the Germinar than the G-Claron/Nikkor 240/Fujinon 240A when used with 8x10?"

I can answer one third of your question: the Germinar provides considerably more coverage than the Fuji A (roughly 400mm @ f/64 versus 336mm regardless of aperture). On 8x10 in portrait orientation, the Fuji will give you maybe one inch of front rise, beyond which things get soft really fast. Haven't owned the other two lenses so I can't help there...