I said that I got the apo symmar with an eye to upgrading to 11x14---here are the reasons, since you ask:
because it has more coverage
Wrong, according to ULF doyen Don Hutton,
"The Schneider APO Symmar 360 and 480 I own both cover around 500mm but have mechanical vignetting". So, the G Claron reportedly has greater coverage. Also, even if Don is wrong (and I doubt that), why would need more than the G Claron's 12x20? That's over 590mm coverage. Thus, not a factor for 11x14.
because it's optimized for farther distances
Implying that the G Claron is no good for "father distance", I assume? Mine is superbly sharp at infinity. It is also used by many, many ULF landscape shooter (just Google it), so it must be a very, very good landscape lens. And, given so many ULF images are contact printed and any sharpness difference is not going to show (assuming that there is a difference, that is), this is a fairly moot difference. Unless, of course, you're intending to shoot USAF 1951 test charts. But, then, you'd want to fill the frame, meaning that you'd need a lens that is optimised for "unfarther" distances, meaning that the G Claron is your go-to lens for making massive prints of USAF 1951 test charts.
Longer lenses have greater edge-to-edge GG brightness (they utilise more of the lens' "hotspot"), even on 11x14. As such, faster lenses are not as necessary in this focal length as they are in, say, 4x5 wide angle. How often do you see ULF fresnels? I shoot a 240mm f9 on my 7x17 (wider image size/wider angled lens than the 14" range, so should be darker in the corners than on an 11x14) with no trouble whatsoever, even in dark settings like rain forests.
because it is the length I wanted when I bought the 8x10
You're talking about a 1.3% difference in focal length between the two, and this has nothing to do with 11x14. So, what's your point here?
because I wanted a plug and play if I wanted to upgrade to 11x14
I don't even know what that means, let alone what it has to do with this topic.
don't be afraid of the size...it fits in a copal 3 ...and is pretty well balanced on each side of the shutter, so there's no significant moment like a huge petzval or something like that
It is not the shutter size that is of concern here. The problem is not the balance of the lens around said shutter (whatever that's meant to imply); it is the weight of the assembly. And, thus, the torque this weight imparts on both the front standard and the front rail.
when you lug around 11x14 stuff, an extra kilo or 10 don't make no [sic] difference--if you're packing 11x14, the lens is the lightest thing you carry, no matter WHAT lens--the weight is insignificant.
What??!?!?!?!? Unlike smaller formats, weight is critical with ULF. You're kidding yourself if you don't think an extra half kilo will be noticeable over an extended hike. The bigger the format, the greater the need to reduce weight wherever possible. You reach your carrying limit far sooner as the format increases, regardless of what this limit is. To quote well-considered LF expert, Kerry Thalmann, "
Forget the 360mm plasmats (APO Symmar, APO Sironar, Nikkor W, Fujinon CM-W, etc.). They can weigh more than the typical lightweight field camera and have rear elements too large to fit through the front standard openings on many cameras".
I think it's a superiour lens to the g claron---that's why. Which is why I recommended it too. See?
Actually, no I don't. In my opinion, apart from being slightly brighter image on the GG, you have not really made any valid point about the Symmar being a better option.