Does everybody hate their MASSIVE PLASMATS?

[gorm shackelford]

I'm looking for some longer lenses for 4x5, for both architecture and

(backpacking) landscapes. The standard answers on this forum seem to be the

process and process-style optics, namely the Fujinon A 240mm, C 300mm, C 450mm

and also the Nikkor M 300mm and M 450mm, the Schneider G Clarons, or the

Rodenstock Apo-Ronars (though I understand the Claron Craze and Ronar Riots

came largely from a time when they were available new, for a song). Other

websites, such as Kerry Thalmann's, seem to confirm this. Many thanks, by the

way, to Kerry and the regulars of this forum for your generous service to the

photographic community!!!

 

The arguments against the long focal-length plasmats (Symmar, Sironar, Nikkor

W, and so on) seem to be based mostly on weight and (shutter) size, since most

longer lenses have generous coverage, even at infinity, for 4x5, and are as

sharp as each other at working apertures. That said, when I look at prices of

new, long plasmats, versus the prices of new Fujinons, I see a big gap. In

smaller formats, these price gaps are usually indicative of something really

handy (the addition of an image stabilizer, a faster max-aperture, or faster

auto-focus motor). And looking at the used market, it seems the prices of the

hulking plasmats in the 300mm and 360mm focal lenths are only slightly less

than brand-new C Fujinons from Badger, though the 240mm plasmats can be had for

less than a new Fuji A. (Thalmann's Future Classics seem to be less available

used than the comparably-long plasmats, and would probably have to be bought

new). Even the faster apertures of the plasmats are "made light of" by those

who claim the f/12.5, f/11, and f/9 lenses are still easy to focus, owing to

the angle at which the light arrives at the ground glass. I guess I'm just

asking if I should be skeptical of these price differences, or just accept

that, yes, this is LF Heaven, and I should just invest in some diminutive long

lenses? And are your lengthy, weighty plasmats really such a burden in the

field, in the context of everything else you're lugging? Do they offer no

rewards for that burden? And wouldn't I be crazy to turn my nose up at a new

lens, in a new shutter, for the same price of one of these well-worn, glass

monstrosities of yesteryear?

 

So much of my pleasure in using a traditional tool such LF comes from the

belief that the extra effort must be worth something, perhaps something

intangible, but something --- mystique? Extra effort should not have to mean

extra suffering, but there's something about the idea of that tiny 450 that

feels like those times I've tried to convince myself that 35mm is good enough

for these purposes, and there's somthing about the idea of flogging myself with

a backpack-full-of-plasmat that seems like it must be redemptive.

 

Will anybody weigh in, please, on the side of their long plasmats?

[leica ron]

A while ago I chose a 305 G-Claron and a 450 Fujinon simply because many alternates came in the massive (to me) Copal #3. I prefer a smaller maximum aperture and a smaller shutter size than a faster, heavier, bigger lens ....

[gorm shackelford]

Thanks for the reply, Ron --- did you buy your 305 G Claron new? And do you think they're still a steal at today's post-hype used prices? The nice thing about the Clarons and Ronars is that they occupy an in-between place on the price scale --- cheaper used than the big plasmats, and more abundant used than the small, long Fujis and Nikkors.

[jon_wilson]

I personally prefer the copal #3 shutter size. My fingers a too big and my eyes getting older. Besides, I also shoot 8x10 & 11x14 and the larger cameras I use hold some barrel lens which weigh upwards of 10 lbs. I know they are not "backpack" friendly, but they do make some nice portraits and landscapes. Jon

[gorm shackelford]

Thanks, Jon --- that's a good point about the tactile and operability differences between big and little shutters. I feel the same way about using a 6x9 back on my 4x5. It's just harder to see the effects of the movements on a smaller fraction of the ground glass.

 

Are there any other defenders of, or defenses for, big lenses out there?

[leica ron]

Hi Gorm,

 

I did buy the Claron new, it was one of the last made. I bought it from the View Camera store in Arizona. I like the idea that it's a lens of an old design. I paid a little over a grand for it.

 

I did buy a used one before that one from mid-west camera exchange for $750, but returned it when i realised that it was a circa 1978 lens and it had been used well - not my idea of 'excellent', so I returned it for a refund.

 

For me the downside of an f5.6 plasmat in a Copal #3 is it's weight. At the time I didn't want that kind of bulk pulling down the front of my then Wisner 4x5.

[gorm shackelford]

Thanks, Ron! I have the same worries about that kind of weight on the front of a 4x5, especially when tilted a bit. I'm using a Sinar F2 at the moment, but am in the process of picking up the pieces of a Sinar P here and there, and I think a P will handle the extra weight, even if the F2 won't. Is anybody out there having problems locking down their big lenses when tilted?

[jason_greenberg_motamedi]

I have found most compact lenses to be rather crude or unrefined in comparison to the f5.6

plasmats. I don't mean that they are less sharp, but rather that they have a particularly harsh

and unpleasant rendering of out-of-focus areas. This is especially true of the "process

plasmat" G-Claron, Fujinon-A, and Computar f/9 lenses. One notable exception is the tessar

type Nikkor-M series, which I have found to be wonderful. I have never used a Fujinon-C lens

so can't comment on them.

[leica ron]

Interesting thought about out-of-focus areas ... for bokeh I rely on my Leica glass which I do

shoot wide-open. I haven't noticed this because I nearly always shoot the Claron at around

f16-22.

[gorm shackelford]

Thanks, Jason --- I've read about this harshness is some of these lenses, but some claim that bokeh is largely a function of the shape (number of blades) of the aperture, and most of these lenses are mounted in the same Copals, aren't they? Or is bokeh more ethereal than that? I did read somewhere that the Copals in which the Nikkors are mounted were "specially designed for Nikon," but I don't know if that's just marketing hype...? Also, aren't the Fujinon C lenses optimized for longer distances (preferable for my work), and the Nikkor M lenses optimized for closer?

 

Ron --- following up on your Leica comment (LOL), how many of you landscape and architecture shooters use out-of-focus areas in your shots, and therefore worry about bokeh?

 

Jason --- for the sake of bokeh, do you (or would you be willing to) carry the bigger variety out of the studio?

 

Thanks, guys!

[michael_briggs2]

A generic Copal shutter, and those used by the German manufacturers, is designed to have small aperture scales added later, by screwing them on. The Copal shutters on Fuji and Nikon LF lenses have a one-piece integral metal component for the cylindrical surface, with the piece having labels for the lens name and two aperture labels. And I think the position of the aperture control is somewhat different. As far as I know, these cosmetic differences are all that "specially designed for Nikon" means.

 

I think that the Nikkor-M lenses are designed for distant use. One early brochure said that they had the same design as the Apo-Nikkor, which as a process lens, is designed for close use, but I think that all that this statement means is that they are tessar designs. One shouldn't extrapolate too much from a short statement by a copywriter writing in a language different from that of the lens designer and factory.

 

Do you really realize how massive and heavy the large plasmats are? That is, have you seen and hefted one? If not, really think about the weight difference. Unless you photograph in a studio, your house, or from the back of a car, most of us will find carrying the additional weight of a 300 and 450 mm plasmat a real burden after awhile. To give one example, a 480 mm Apo-Symmar L weighs 1840 g, a 450 mm Fuji-C 285 g. That's a 1.55 kg / 3.4 lb difference! Now add a smaller weight difference for a 300 mm lens and the increased weight of the LF kit becomes larger. Also, can the front standard of your field camera support the giant? (If you use screw-in filters, the filter size is another factor to think about.)

 

Re the prices: comparing used and new prices of two different types of lenses is complicated. I don't think that there is any trick. The compact, long LF lenses have designs with a relatively small number of glass components of small size (matching the lenses compact size!), and typically fit in #1 rather than #3 shutters, factors which help keep the manufacturer's costs down.

[jason_greenberg_motamedi]

Gorm,

 

I never back-pack with LF and rarely travel far from the studio or car, so I can't really

answer your question. However, I should point out that my plasmats, even those in Copal

3 shutters, are tiny in comparison to some of my portrait lenses.

 

Regarding aperture shape; this certainly has an effect upon bokeh, but I don't think it is

the only factor. I have a 210mm G-Claron and a 210mm Sironar-N in copal 1 shutters with

the same number of blades and I can (usually) tell which lens took the image from the

bokeh. Also, other than cosmetics, Nikon's Copal shutters aren't any different from the

others.

[ole_tjugen]

I certainly don't hate my Symmar 360mm f.5.6 - nor the 300mm f:5.6. Yes, they're massive. I don't use them on smaller cameras; I have a 355 G-Claron I use for 4x5".

[big toys are better]

Did anyone mention the other burden of long non-telephoto designs for LF-- namely that you need lots of bellows draw? There are ways around this when using a 300mm + lens on a short draw 4x5 camera, such as adding some form of extension, but understanding the consequences of using long lenses on a particular camera is important to ultimate success.

[doug_dolde]

I have a 300mm APO Symmar that I use on 4x5. Yeah it's a beast and overkill but it's also the best longer focal length lens I have ever used. Sharp as a tack and very contrasty.<div></div>

[gorm shackelford]

Thanks, all!

 

Michael --- yes, I've handled a number of the big oafs at a rental place, and my gut reaction is that they're TOO HUGE to use. But not as huge as, say, a Canon 400mm or 70-200mm, which I've been happy to have in the field at times. So I'm just worried that I'm pansying out for not wanting to carry them, but only if there is a good reason for carrying them.

 

Doug --- nice photo! What sort of 4x5 are you using to support your 300mm? Do any of you with Sinar experience think it would groan under a tilted 300mm or 360mm 5.6?

[doug_dolde]

Arca Swiss Field 4x5

[jim_galli4]

I try to match lenses with camera size and intent.

 

I have a diminutive Charton 2 3/4 pound 5X7 that I consider my serious walking camera. I limit it to a couple of the dagor type G-Clarons (a 100mm f9 WA Zeiss Dagor, 150 G-Claron dagor type, 225 G-Claron dagor type and perhaps the 270mm same) and can keep the total weight down around 8 pounds pack and all. Very well balanced outfit that works well for that task.

 

Then I have massive dumb cameras like the Folmer 12X20. I don't consider an f5.6 355 convertible Symmar in #5 too big for that camera as I always seem to find the best shots for it within steps of the pickup. Camera size and intent.

[gorm shackelford]

Thanks, Jim --- I guess it all comes back to what Weston said about cars and the photogenic....

 

Other that Doug, I haven't heard anybody shouting from the rooftops about the plusses of their big lenses. Maybe nobody has been able to carry their big lenses up to the rooftops...?

 

So, the conclusion I'm drawing is that, at a similar price point, the popular choice is for littler lenses? I wonder why Schneider and Rodenstock aren't manufacturing lenses like the Fuji A and C, if, as Michael suggested, they really are cheaper to manufacture, owing to the size of the elements and the cost of the smaller shutters? Moreover, if the Tessar-type Nikkor-M is historically an older design than the plasmat --- and cheaper --- and if the majority of shooters on this site are happier with these littler lenses, I wonder how the bigger plasmats ever made it big? Obviously the extra coverage made it a better design for shorter focal lengths, but why the ubiquity of the big, long plasmat across the big four (now the big three) manufacturers?

[profhlynnjones]

Hi Gorm,

 

I have been involved in the importing and distribution of Fujinons, Schneiders, Rodenstocks, Ilexs, and some others in the past (wrote all the catalog and advertising literature for Fujinon and the USA made Caltars).

 

The A and AS Fujinon's are 70 degree angle of view, A is conventionally coated, AS is multi coated, both absolutely superb. I have used them at infinity as well as close up (they are officially corrected at 1:1) but they are great at distance.

 

CS lenses are re-spaced 4 element artar type lenses for infinity and studio distances (as close as 1:5), and apochromatic. The maximum apertures which ar weird relate only to the diameter of the shutters.

 

300mm f8.5, image circle 380, 66 deg, 10"x12", Copal #1

 

450mm f12.5, image circle 486, 57 deg, 11"x14", Copal #1

 

600mm f 11.5, image circle 620, 55 deg, 14"x17", Copal #3

 

The G Claron is designed for 1:5 to 5:1, covering 65 deg, 6 element

 

If you should encounter 6 element apo plasmat type Kowa Graphic Lenses (also same as Computar Apo), the coverage is around 80 deg from 150mm through 300mm (don't use the 360mm, it was made for a special purpose), these are among the best I have ever seen from 2:1 to infinity. They are convertible, remove the front group to more than double the focal length.

 

The original US/Ilex made Calumet "S" Caltar in 215mm, f4.8 is at least 72 degrees, they are single convertible to about 14" (355mm) Focal length about f10 and at an indicated f11 really f22 or smaller, they are very sharp.

 

The 4 element process (apo) lenses are very sharp but remember that the angle of view is quite narrow, anywhere from 35 to 45 degrees, so you will need a pretty long focal length for any swings and tilts.

 

Also remember that unless specifically indicated in the literature, angular coverages are f22 at infinity. Process lenses are f22 at 1:1 unless they tell you otherwise.

 

Lynn

[michael_briggs2]

"Moreover, if the Tessar-type Nikkor-M is historically an older design than the plasmat --- and cheaper --- and if the majority of shooters on this site are happier with these littler lenses, I wonder how the bigger plasmats ever made it big? Obviously the extra coverage made it a better design for shorter focal lengths, but why the ubiquity of the big, long plasmat across the big four (now the big three) manufacturers?"

 

Probably for use with larger formats than 4x5, and in many cases for use in the studio.

[darin_cozine]

I thought my 15inch wolly telephoto was too big.. then i mounted it on a board for my graflex SLR and its a perfect match!

 

Point is.. it all depends on the camera you are using.

[gorm shackelford]

Just wanted to say another thanks to everybody who contributed to this thread. I thought it had been lost in the database crash, but found it again today! Thanks all, and happy shooting!