modern vs. older lens

[craig_allen5]

I'm fairly new to LF (4x5) and thinking about upgrading to a modern lens, replacing my Kodak Ektar 203mm f:7.7 (coated) in Graphic synchro-compur. Looking at the Caltar II S 210mm 5.6 in copal 0. This would compliment the 135mm Caltar II S I already have. Besides the new copal shutter and 5.6 aperture, which will help gather more light for focusing, am I that much further ahead for B&W landscape work with the more modern 210mm Caltar?

 

<p>

 

Thanks in advance for you comments...

[robert_a._zeichner1]

I'm certain that a case could be made for the more modern coatings used

on the Caltar, but there's less than a stop difference in the maximun

aperture of the lenses in question and I doubt focusing will be that

much easier. The Ektar is a fabulous lens. It has near apochromatic

performance and is very sharp. For B&W work, I'd not bother to make

the change. I currently have an f 5.6 Symmar-S in a copal shutter and

the f 7.7 as well, although not in as nice a shutter as yours is

mounted in. I keep the latter on my camera (it's so compact I can fold

it up mounted on the Wisner) and with a adapter, can use the smaller

filters that fit my Nikkors and Repro Claron. The 210 Symmar-S sits on

the shelf.

[j.ryder]

I have your 203mm lens older brother the 7.7 anastigmat and frankly

it is my least favorite lens. I also own 7.7 anastigmat versions in

150 and 170 mm lengths and I love them. I can only assume I have a

dud 203mm and a caltar would be a signficant improvement for it. If

you are unhappy with your 203 it may have something wrong with it. On

the other hand I think there is a difference in the kind of pictures

made by vintage and modern lenses. Only you can evaluate if that

difference is desiable to you. Since you already own one modern and

one vintage lens which "look" do you prefer, why? Do you even notice

a difference? Many of these kinds of questions are very individual,

depending on a whole variety of factors, but I would welcome your

judgements on your present lenses.

[wayne_crider3]

I'd get a 90mm instead and keep the 203 unless yours is bad for some

reason. Does you camera have a fresnel?

[doremus_scudder1]

Don't replace your 203 unless you really need more coverage, and make

sure you are getting a better lens. The 203 Ektar is legendary for

its lightweight, sharpness (especially at large apertures) and

reliability. Also, be aware that many of the compact lenses in the

200mm category these days are triplets and are not nearly the optical

equal of your Ektar (this includes the Caltar compact lenses). The

only compact lens that I know of that would be a direct replacement

for the 203 would be the Nikkor M 200mm, which is not significantly

better than the Kodak. An increase in coverage (i.e. stepping up to a

plasmat 6-element design like the Caltar II you are considering or

wider) is going to give you a lot larger, less portable and heavier

lens. If the increased coverage is important then go ahead and

upgrade. I spend a lot of time in the field, and my 203 is with me at

all times. I can't imagine lugging around a larger lens. Hope this

helps. :^D)

[charlie_strack]

If the 203 produces results comparable to your current 135 Caltar II

S, then keep the 203. If the results are not as good, consider

replacing it. Also, if you're having shutter problems you might

consider replacing.

 

<p>

 

But if your results are good and it performs well, why replace it?