300 f9 geronar coverage is good for 10x8

[Tom Stanworth]

Hi,

I asked ages ago about this lens and its coverage stopped down etc, having one on the way from ebay. For anyone who has wondered about its coverage, I can say this. It covers the whole ground glass VERY evenly with no sign of vignetting wide open. In fact with about 3 inches of front rise on my 8x10 field I could see no vignetting. I am therefore confident that at f32 I will get loads of room to spare for movements.

I was not expecting anything like this coverage. I know that this method of assessing field is not the same as shooting (which will show how much of the field is sharp), but I will post more definitve results when I have shot using it (2 weeks away or so). All I can say is that I can get to the edge of coverage with my 150 5.6 Xenar very easily on my RSW45, when viewing the ground glass. Stopped down I would say that its coverage is slightly in excess of the stated 173mm. It would expect that the 300mm Geronar will be in excess of the stated 350mm.

By the way Roger Hicks says of the geronars, " ....often dismissed as being too simple (triplet)...sharp...very contrasty...."

By the way it is TINY and far smaller than my 360g Nikkor 90mmf8. I would guess it in the 250g region. If it is sharp and has good coverage in practice, this lens has to be a 10x8 backpackers dream...

Tom

Tom

 

[jovo]

Nice to know this, because I like my 210 Geronar, and was eyeing a 300mm one at Keh. I look forward to your posted photographs with this lens.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Just an update. Having enlarged sections of what would be a 40" print, I can confirm that my Geronar 300 is plenty sharp enuogh corner to corner on 10x8. Shot at f32 onto FP4 (slightly overdeveloped in DDX), the results are pretty well as good as a 20" off my 5x4 using any of my lenses at similar aperture. Subjective I know, but I adore fine detail in big prints and there was plenty of it (it was like being a kid at Christmas). I will prob do a scan at some point, followed by a 305 G Claron/300 Geronar comparison, with IC compared.

on a 20x24, the detail blew me away. FAR beyond that which I could ever achieve with 5x4. The Geronar also appears to be extremely contrasty, but then again a multicoated triplet should be.

More to follow...

Tom

 

[Eric Rose]

I have a 300 Gernoar that I use on my 4x5. Excellent lens, very sharp and as you say contrasty. The guy who sold it to me had bought a Nikkor 300 lens to replace it and now wishes he hadn't wasted the extra money as he couldn't see any difference in the prints.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

file attached. This is an original sized (tiny 1cm x 1.7cm) section from a 40" enlargement. I printed a section to 10x8 RC and scanned, cropped this portion, applying average unsharp mask to get over the softening of the scan. Because of the low resolution of the screen, you'll have to enlarge it a fair amount to see the detail, but you'll get the idea of how much detail this lens puts down. Plenty enough for very close inspection of a 40" print.

Original aperture of F32. Movements were applied and depth of field was required for this section to be totally sharp. I chose it as the nature of the subject made assessment easy. So this is very much real world stuff....representing teh reality of what I will get back fro the field.


Not a perfect test by any means, but enough to show that this lens leaves nothing to be desired in terms of real world resolution. A section from a 20x24" simply has more info than the eye can resolve without a loupe.

Tom