Anyone know about Rodenstock geronars??

Hi,

I just picked a 300mm f9 in copal 0 up on e-bay for £250 in as new condition. I know little other than it covers about 330mm at f22 at infinity, so I presume will cover 8x10 with ease at f32/f45 with a little room for basic field movements. I got it thru the post today and it is tiny, much smaller than my Nikkor sw 90 f8!!!! which will help make my future 8x10 outfit nice and light. I may have bought a lemon, but has anyone got any experience with these lenses, especially on 8x10???

As I am unable to shoot 8x10 yet (lacking film holders, lens boards, enlarger not yet repaired etc) I will not be able to find out for myself for some time. I assumed it would be similar to a G-claron, albeit with smaller coverage?

The best person to ask is Kerry Thalmann, he hangs around the LF forum. He is very knowledgeable. Another very knowledgeable guy is Jim Galli, he checks this forum once in a while, hope he can help you.

Tom Stanworth said:

Hi,

I just picked a 300mm f9 in copal 0 up on e-bay for £250 in as new condition. I know little other than it covers about 330mm at f22 at infinity, so I presume will cover 8x10 with ease at f32/f45 with a little room for basic field movements.

As I am unable to shoot 8x10 yet (lacking film holders, lens boards, enlarger not yet repaired etc) I will not be able to find out for myself for some time. I assumed it would be similar to a G-claron, albeit with smaller coverage?

Click to expand...

I am fairly certain that the Geronar is a triplet design, thus very unliike the G-Claron. I suspect that the coverage you mention of 330 mm at infinity is about the absolute limit of this lens, whereas the 300mm G-Claron will cover 7X17" at infinity.

Triplets are pretty easy to manufacture and ususally can be purchases less than Tessar and Plasmat designs.

Sandy King

It is indeed a triplet design, I have a Rodenstock info sheet in front of me that says it gives good performance up to 60 degrees. Image circle is given as 340mm @ f22.

Clayton

Since you asked the question generically, I'll respond regarding the 210mm Geronar. I acquired the lens with an Omegaview camera purchased on ebay, and promptly posted a question about its' quality on apug as you are doing. The responses were quite accurate vis a vis my subsequent experience with the lens. It's a decent performer stopped down to f22 or smaller, and has offered acceptable contrast and sharpness consistently. The image circle is smaller than other, more expensive lenses of this focal length but has never failed nonetheless, to handle the rise and fall I've required in it's use. All the large format photos I've posted here were made with it. Hope yours is as successful for you as mine has been for me. Good luck with it.

Are they similar to the simple Xenars? I have a 150 5.6 and it has limited coverage, but is pins sharp and tiny.

Tom

Tom Stanworth said:

Are they similar to the simple Xenars? I have a 150 5.6 and it has limited coverage, but is pins sharp and tiny.

Tom

Click to expand...

Utterly different, Tom. The Xenar is a Tessar-type lens, with (as you say) limited coverage and exellent sharpness. The Geronar is a Triplet-type, and a completely different beast. The G-Claron is close to the old Double Protar series IV...

Although being a triplet, the Geronars can get you out of sticky situations: it might not be possible to carry an equivalent plasmat-type lens to the location due to size and weight issues but the Geronar might get there with you to take the picture.

The Wide Angle Geronar, made as a 90mm lens, is a different beast altogether: compared to the more modern designs heralded by the Biogon, it is of the traditional Double-Gauss type as made by countless makers in the past, and is indeed extremely small and lightweight. While I use several modern Super-Angulons and Grandagons, I still like the Double-Gauss wide-angle lenses not only for size and portablity, but also for the "flavour": it has very flat field and low astigmatism but the maximum aperture is for focussing only.

Ole, small correction: the Double-Protar was Series VIIa, not Series V which was the wide-angle version of the four-element asymmetrical Protar.

The G-Claron is of symmetrical Plasmat construction, f/9 maximum aperture, and optimised for low-magnification close-up work, and has no resemblance to the Double-Protar. In many ways the G-Claron can be considered as a more versatile version of the Repro-Claron which resembles the better-known Apo-Ronar in many ways.

Seele said:

Ole, small correction: the Double-Protar was Series VIIa, not Series V which was the wide-angle version of the four-element asymmetrical Protar.

Click to expand...

There were two convertible double Protar types made: Serie VII (4 elements/group) and Serie IV (3 elements/group). In the "Vade Mecum" the Series IV is said to be a wide-angle f:12.5, with reference to a UK-made Ross version and the note that no original Zeiss lens has been seen. he information I have lists it at a cheaper alternative to the Serie VII convertible. The VIIa designates a set of two VII-lenses.
I did not mention Serie V (AKA Weitwinkel f:18), Serie IIb (Tessar) , or Serie Ic (also Tessar).

Another question on Geronars....

If the 300mm f9 gives a circle of 340mm aT F22, will this increase as I stop down further. I would imagine it will be used at f32 more often than not, as f16/22 is where my LF lenses see most use. I know some designs do not increase coverage much below a certain f stop, what about this triplet design lens? Certainly more coverage would be handy, though as I am a field user I dont need to much coverage. 360mm or so at f32 would give more wiggle room.

Cheers,

Tom