210 f/9 G-Claron vs 210 f/6.8 Geronar

[akavalun]

I'm just beginning to get into LF photography and will be purchasing

a 210mm lens in the near future. I do a lot of hiking so I was

looking into the lighter weight, slower lenses. I know that all of

the "big four" make great optics, but are there any advantages to

either one of these 2 lenses? Both of these can be had from KEH for

under $300, so price is not much of a factor. Will I lose anything

in the way of sharpness just by purchasing a slower lense? I've

read that longer lenses in the slower ranges are easier to focus

than shorter ones of the same speed. Any help will be greatly

appreciated. Happy new years!!

 

Long live film....

 

Adam

[robert_ley]

Adam, I recently replaced my 210 Symmar-S with the Geronar for the weight reduction and size difference that the Geronar affords. It uses 58mm filters so I can use my standard 67mm filters with a step ring and can ditch the 77mm filters that I only used on the Symmar. It does have a smaller image circle, but is multicoated and has a newer and more accurate shutter. I have not noticed any problem with the IC with the Landscape shots that I use it for and the reduction in weight is nice in the pack. BTW these can be had off Ebay for usually less than $200.

[brian_ellis16]

"I've read that longer lenses in the slower ranges are easier to focus than shorter ones of the same speed"

 

That's generally true. In slightly oversimplified terms, proportionately more of the light transmitted by a short focal length lens strikes the ground glass at an oblique angle and at a greater distance than is the case with a longer lens. F9 should be fine with a 210mm lens, it would be less fine (for me at least) with a 75mm lens. But the type of viewing screen you use (e.g. plain ground glass, Fresnel, BosScreen, Maxwell, etc.) is an equally important factor in how well you can view the image.

 

I've never used the Geronar so I can't compare it to the G Claron but I've used the 210 G Claron for 8x10 and it did a very good job. Obviously using it with 4x5, if that's the format you're getting into, would provide you with lots of coverage since the 210 G Claron will cover 8x10 when stopped down to F22 or smaller.

[akavalun]

I guess i should have elaborated a little more on my background. I will be using the 4x5 format, a tachihara woodfield. The other focal lengths i'm planning on purchasing are a 75, 125, and 300. I will be shooting landscapes in the desert southwest. Hopefully this helps a little more.

[thomas_vaehrmann]

The Geronar is a good triplet but still a triplet. The G-Claron is a six lenses four elements Plasmat-design optimized for repro 1:1 but still good at infinity. I would opt for the G-Claron, mine is one of the best I have and I wouldn't expect a triplet to come close to it.

[brian_ellis16]

Spring for a Maxwell screen. They're expensive but they're one of those things that once you buy it you don't ever again have to worry about being able to see a bright image in its entirety no matter what lens you use (within reason) for the rest of your life or the rest of the time you own the camea, whichever is less.

[chuck_pere]

I'd also go with the G-Claron. If you plan to do any closeup work it will be better in this range. And better coverage. But I can't believe that these lenses are similar in price. I would think that a G-Claron would be more expensive and that would be one of the major advantages of the Geronar. I sold my Geronar for $185 and think that you should be able to find one for around $200. I replaced mine early on with a Sironar-N and had kept the Geronar as a unused backup for years. The small weight difference between the Sironar and Geronar didn't bother me. My quick testing showed my Sironar had better edges but the center was about the same. Another lens to look for if size is a problem is the Nikon 200 f8. It has a good reputation but may cost more.

[cxc]

If you are shooting outdoors in reasonably bright light then speed should not be an issue. The G-Claron has many landscaper fans, including me.

[david_karp]

The Geronar is a triplet, and it is very sharp at the center of its image circle. If you intend to use a lot of movements, it is probably not the best choice. The more complicated design of the G-Claron will almost certainly give better performance at the edges of the circle. Also, as noted above, G-Clarons regularly sell for more than the Geronars. The G-Claron will be a better "deal." Of course, there are always lens to lens differences, and if the G-Claron was dropped or the elements knocked out of alignment, then it might perform worse than the Geronar. Make sure you have a return option, in case either lens is a dog.

[paul_brenner1]

I agree with all the comments, including David's at the end. The G-Claron is a superb lens with a bigger image circle than the Geronar. If they are both about the same price, and assuming the G-Claron is in a shutter (they also come in barrel), go for it, unless you are going for minimum weight.

 

Having said that, the Geronar is a very fine lens. It was my first 210mm lens (I had a Caltar IIe, which is the same lens, made for Calumet). I sold it when I bought a Horseman 210 f/5.6 plasmat, which were being blown out at a fraction of their retail when Horseman got out of that business (at least in this country.) The Horseman is great, but I wish I had kept the Geronar also, for its small size, low weight, and really fine performance (and it was fine for the modest movements I use.)

 

Paul