Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Rodenstock Geronar 300mm f9

141 views
Skip to first unread message

sheldon_...@hotmail.com

unread,
May 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/15/99
to
Rodenstock Geronar 300mm f9

I've found out that his lens has adequate coverage for 8x10. I'd like
to hear user comments.

Thanks


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---

Bob Salomon

unread,
May 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/15/99
to
The discontinued Geronar line was a series of lenses with limited coverage
and lower performance (sharpness and resolution) developed by Rodenstock as
introductory lenses for students where cost was more important than
professional quality performance.

It is a very adequate lens capable of making good images but it will in no
way produce an image equal to the Apo Sironar N or, especially, the Apo
Sironar S.
--
bobsa...@mindspring.com http://www.hpmarketingcorp.com/
HP Marketing Corp. Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos, Heliopan, HP Combi-Plan-T,
Kaiser, KoPho, Linhof, Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar 2000

----------
In article <7hk260$4vi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, sheldon_...@hotmail.com
wrote:

Gngphoto

unread,
May 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/16/99
to
I tend to disagree. I bought my Geronar years ago when I was a student. Like
you said it was a cheaper introduction to LF Lenses. I have several an Apo
Sironar, and while I love the lens and use it mostly I do not see the Geronar
as less of a performer in optical quality. Then again my eyes do not have the
tight resolution capacity of a computerized Optical Bench. You do not have to
purchase a $2000.00 lens to get professional results or excellent performance.
Even the cheapest lenses are made of superior optics and produce excellent
results. If you ask me and many others who use these lenses often, we tend to
mutually agree that the more modern lenses are too sharp.

George

DonConnors

unread,
May 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/21/99
to
>It is a very adequate lens capable of making good images but it will in no
>way produce an image equal to the Apo Sironar N or, especially, the Apo
>Sironar S.
>--

This level of perfection is not visible if using 8x10 and contact printing...

Don

Bob Salomon

unread,
May 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/21/99
to
In article <19990521162950...@ng-ch1.aol.com> ,
donco...@aol.com (DonConnors) wrote:

Would you be saying this because you know it from practical experience with
the N and the S as well as the Geronar?

Or are you saying this because you feel it should be true even though you
have not personally checked to see if it is?

--

HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos, GO
Light, Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof,
Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock,Sirostar 2000

Paul Butzi

unread,
May 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/21/99
to
On Sat, 15 May 1999 17:32:35 -0400, "Bob Salomon"
<bobsa...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>The discontinued Geronar line was a series of lenses with limited coverage
>and lower performance (sharpness and resolution) developed by Rodenstock as
>introductory lenses for students where cost was more important than
>professional quality performance.
>

>It is a very adequate lens capable of making good images but it will in no
>way produce an image equal to the Apo Sironar N or, especially, the Apo
>Sironar S.

Would you be saying this because you know it from practical experience


with the N and the S as well as the Geronar?

Or are you saying this because you feel it should be true even though
you have not personally checked to see if it is?

-Paul


--
Web site under (slow) construction at http://www.halcyon.com/butzi/

DonConnors

unread,
May 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/23/99
to
>Would you be saying this because you know it from practical experience with
>the N and the S as well as the Geronar?
>
>Or are you saying this because you feel it should be true even though you
>have not personally checked to see if it is?
>
>
>
>--
>
>HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for

Bob:

Not only would I say it, I am saying it. Look at Weston's or Adams work
sometime... it might be enlightening...

Warmest regards,

Don

Bob Salomon

unread,
May 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/23/99
to
So based on decades old prints you are making an unfounded assumption about
optics that did not exist then, correct?

If so then your advice is not very valid. Look at Barnbaum's work today.
That is as valid as decades old work and he uses modern optics.

Rather than worry about what an old master used (usually as good as was
available THEN) you should see how your work - not theirs (after all you are
not an Adams or a Weston - are you?) would benefit from modern, state of the
art optics. Not only how a basic lens performs.


--
bobsa...@mindspring.com http://www.hpmarketingcorp.com/
HP Marketing Corp. Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos, Heliopan, HP Combi-Plan-T,
Kaiser, KoPho, Linhof, Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar 2000

----------
In article <19990523184742...@ng-ci1.aol.com>,

Paul Butzi

unread,
May 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/24/99
to
On Sun, 23 May 1999 19:35:35 -0400, "Bob Salomon"
<bobsa...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>So based on decades old prints you are making an unfounded assumption about
>optics that did not exist then, correct?
>
>If so then your advice is not very valid. Look at Barnbaum's work today.
>That is as valid as decades old work and he uses modern optics.
>
>Rather than worry about what an old master used (usually as good as was
>available THEN) you should see how your work - not theirs (after all you are
>not an Adams or a Weston - are you?) would benefit from modern, state of the
>art optics. Not only how a basic lens performs.

Would you be saying this because you know it from practical experience
making 8x10 contact prints from negatives made with the N and the S as
well as the Geronar?

Or are you saying this because you feel it should be true even though
you have not personally checked to see if it is?

Come on, Bob, tell us how you came to hold your opinion!

Frederick Perry Arnold Jr

unread,
May 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/24/99
to
>>not an Adams or a Weston - are you?) would benefit from modern, state of the
>>art optics. Not only how a basic lens performs.
>
[[ Discussion Snipped ]]

Just a footnote here (warning: I own and use a 203 7.7 ektar as my prime lens,
purchased at a more moderate price than even a used 210 geronar)

In Weston's _Daybooks_, there's an entry about a lens
he purchased, that reads in essence,

"Paid five dollars for a lens; friends tell me that I paid too much..."

Due to a bit of luck in college, I got to hang a Weston exhibit, saw some
of the contact prints from that era up close, and would have to say that
it's the quality of the photographer's eye and imagination, once
a certain minimal quality level of equipment has been reached.

That being said, back to producing negatives.....


-fred
--
"No science has ever made Frederick P. Arnold, Jr.
more rapid progress in a A&HPRC, U. of Chicago
shorter time than Chemistry." 5640 S. Ellis Ave
-Martin Heinrich Kloproth, 1791 Chicago, IL 60637

Richard Knoppow

unread,
May 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/24/99
to

See Charis Wilson's recent biography of Weston for more. He used a
rig consisting of an Eastman Century Universal view camera with a
Turner-Reich convertible lens and Reis tripod for quite a long time. A
lot of his best known images from the mid 1930's were taken with it.
_Through Another Lens: My Years with Edward Weston_, Charis Wilson and
Wendy Madar, New York, 1998, North Point Press, a division of Farrar,
Straus and Giroux ISBN: 0-86547-521-0
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com

DonConnors

unread,
May 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/25/99
to
>Rather than worry about what an old master used (usually as good as was
>available THEN) you should see how your work - not theirs (after all you are
>not an Adams or a Weston - are you?) would benefit from modern, state of the
>art optics. Not only how a basic lens performs.

You seem to be the worried one here, Bob.

Modern lenses are good, some older lenses are good enough... there are
beautiful, emotionally strong photographs that have been taken with both
(perhaps, dare I say it, even by you)...

Cheers,

Don

sham...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
May 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/26/99
to
Didn't mean to start such a war, but thanks to all those that relpied!

Roger Cole

unread,
Jun 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/12/99
to
On Mon, 24 May 1999 15:39:36 GMT, fpar...@midway.uchicago.edu

(Frederick Perry Arnold Jr) wrote:

>>>not an Adams or a Weston - are you?) would benefit from modern, state of the
>>>art optics. Not only how a basic lens performs.
>>

>[[ Discussion Snipped ]]
>
>Just a footnote here (warning: I own and use a 203 7.7 ektar as my prime lens,
>purchased at a more moderate price than even a used 210 geronar)
>
>In Weston's _Daybooks_, there's an entry about a lens
>he purchased, that reads in essence,
>
>"Paid five dollars for a lens; friends tell me that I paid too much..."
>
>Due to a bit of luck in college, I got to hang a Weston exhibit, saw some
>of the contact prints from that era up close, and would have to say that
>it's the quality of the photographer's eye and imagination, once
>a certain minimal quality level of equipment has been reached.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This last paragraph deserves to be repeated in many of the r.p.*
newsgroups. It is all too rare to see an essential photo truth so
clearly and succinctly stated!

Roger Cole

0 new messages