Caltar vs Sironar
Paul Masincup
ebay. It was listed as a Rodenstock Sironar N 210mm. I paid $339 plus
shipping. I felt it was a pretty good deal. It arrived today and turns
out that its a Caltar II 240mm. I sent him an email and he was very
apologetic and offered to take the lens back and give me a full refund,
or I could keep this lens. I have a 5X7 view and 240mm is not a bad
thing. I checked Calumet and the 240 Caltar retails for $1169. The lens
he sent me looks in perfect condition, virtually new. I guess the
question is: Am I getting less than I thought I was getting with the
Caltar instead of the Sironar? Would YOU keep it?
Paul
Brian Reynolds
Have you taken any pictures with it to see if you like it?
Assuming it takes good pictures I would keep it. The price is very
good. Current Caltar lenses are manufactured by Rodenstock. Calumet
comes right out and says so on their web page. The Caltar II-N I
bought new a few years ago came in a Rodenstock box with a Calumet
sticker on it. The lens is engraved Caltar instead of Rodentsock.
--
Brian Reynolds | "But in the new approach, as you know,
reyn...@panix.com | the important thing is to understand
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what you're doing rather than to get
| the right answer." -- Tom Lehrer
Donn Cave
| I had an interesting situation arise. I bought a lens from a guy on
| ebay. It was listed as a Rodenstock Sironar N 210mm. I paid $339 plus
| shipping. I felt it was a pretty good deal. It arrived today and turns
| out that its a Caltar II 240mm.
Just Caltar II? Not II S, or II N?
Donn
Paul Masincup
that appears virtually new. I find this whole thing very strange.
Paul Masincup
Bob Salomon
If you bought a lens, advertised as being a Rodenstock Sironar N then
the lens should not be marked as a Caltar. It is immaterial that the
lens was actually made by Rodenstock. This is false advertising and
should be reported to ebay and the lens returned or an adjustment made
in the price.
Even Calumet lists the Caltar and the Apo Sironar N as different items,
with different catalog numbers and at different prices. The Caltar is,
of course, less.
Would you and others have bid the same on a lens listed as a Caltar?
Joe Thibodeau
Paul,
I had a Caltar 240mm on an 8x10 and it was sharp as a tack. The
problem is that it comes in a Copal 3 shutter rather than a Copal 1
shutter. So if you don't mind lugging around a tank the lens will be
just fine. I also believe that Caltar's are made by Rodenstock and are
Sironar-N's to start with.
Joe
Joe Thibodeau
Paul,
I must also warn you that there was a camera house in Florida selling
a Caltar 240mm for $500 on Ebay that had no aperature scale on it! The
scale on the shutter was etched in by hand! This lens' has been a
problem on Ebay and several people including myself bought the lens
expecting a calibrated aperature scale like all modern day lens'.
Check the aperature scale. These folks took the lens back but left me
a nasty Ebay feedback in the process when I complained.
Joe
Kerry L. Thalmann
news:bobsalomon-55D13...@reader0900.news.uu.net...
Yes, Bob is right. The 240mm APO Sironar-N does sell for more new
than the equivalent Caltar II-N. In this case, exactly $30 more -
$1199 vs. $1169. Since Paul got a used lens in what he describes as
"perfect condition, virtually new" for $339, I hardly think he's been
taken advantage of. Yeah, the seller's description is inaccurate - he
described the lens as a 210mm Rodenstock Sironar-N - a lens Calumet
sells for $799.99 new. So he thought he was getting a used lens that
cost $799.99 new, and instead, he got a much more expensive ($1169 -
new) lens. Again, I don't think Paul was ripped-off by the seller.
In fact, he got a great deal. Typical used prices for the lens he
actually received run about 2x what he paid.
WRT Caltar II-N vs. Rodenstock APO Sironar-N, performance will be as
identical as manufacturing tolerances permit. You are just as likely
to see as much difference between two APO-Sironar-Ns as between an
APO-Sionar-N and a Caltar II-N. These lenses are made in the same
factory, by the same people to the same level of quality. The ONLY
differences are price (as Bob noted), labeling on the lens barrel, and
who services the warranty (Calumet or Bob's company - HP Marketing).
In this case, Paul bought a second-hand lens from a private seller.
So, warranty service does not apply here.
The real question is is the lens right for Paul's needs. Paul is
probably the only one who can answer that question. As others have
mentioned, the 240mm is in the larger Copal No. 3 shutter (compared to
the 210mm in a Copal No. 1). It also has a larger image circle (350mm
vs. 301mm) than the 210mm focal length. For the type of 4x5 shooting
I do personally, I prefer smaller, lighter lenses. But Paul is
shooting 5x7 and has his own preferences and needs. One thing to
consider, if you ever decide to move up to 8x10, the 240mm will cover
with enough left for modest movements. The 210mm will not cover
8x10 - even straight on.
Kerry
Joe Thibodeau
I have Kerry to thank indirectly (read your reviews from some post
somewhere) for directing me to the Fuji 240mm f/9 and the Fuji 450mm
f/12.5 both fine light lens that I use for 4x5 and 5x7.
Joe
Bob Salomon
"Kerry L. Thalmann" <large...@thalmann.com> wrote:
Kerry,
The point is.
An Apo Sironar N was auctioned. A Caltar was delivered.
This is simply unethical and the seller should be reported.
He placed a misleading auction and did not deliver what he offered.
Price, warranty, service, etc. have nothing to do with it. The item
delivered was not the item listed.
Kerry L. Thalmann
> Kerry,
>
> The point is.
>
> An Apo Sironar N was auctioned. A Caltar was delivered.
>
> This is simply unethical and the seller should be reported.
>
> He placed a misleading auction and did not deliver what he offered.
>
> Price, warranty, service, etc. have nothing to do with it. The item
> delivered was not the item listed.
Actually, the point is:
A 210mm Sironar-N was auctioned, a 240mm Caltar II-N was delivered.
Your entire argument is based on the premise that Paul received a LESS
valuable item than described, when in fact he received a MORE valuable
item.
I agree, that in principal due to the inaccuracy of the listing, the
seller should be willing to accept a return for a full refund (which
Paul says he is). However, given that the lens Paul received cost
$1169 new and he paid $339 for one he himself describes as "virtually
new", he really did get a good deal. This was a case where the
seller's inaccurate description probably cost him money, not the buyer
(where else is Paul going to get a "virtually new" current generation
240mm 5.6 lens of this quality for $339?).
Ultimately, it's up to Paul whether or not he keeps the lens. I was
simply offering my opinion (which is what he asked for) about whether
or not he got less than what he paid for. Paul's exact questions
were:
"Am I getting less than I thought I was getting with the Caltar
instead of the Sironar?
My answers are:
No, in this case, you are getting MORE than you thought you were
getting (a lens that sells for $1169 new vs. a lens that sells for
$799.99 new).
"Would YOU keep it?"
That's up to you. If you are happy with the 240mm focal length and
the condition of the lens, you got a heck of a good deal. You are not
likely to find a comparable quality lens in "virtually new" condition
for much less than 2x what you paid.
Kerry
P. MacGahan
> It is says on the lens "Caltar II-N 1:5.6 f=240 MC". It's in Copal 3 shutter
> that appears virtually new. I find this whole thing very strange.
> Paul Masincup
In my opinion the best advice so far is to try the lens and see if you like
the results. Theoretically, you can take all sorts of action and allege
fraud. The counter-claim might be "whoops! I made a mistake" and it might
be genuine or not. There is a lot of risk seeking a remedy and even some
risk in shipping it back with the agreement of the seller.
If it is an excellent lens and you are happy, it really doesn't matter
what's on the barrel.
If the lens is unsatisfactory, you have an honorable way out.
Bob Salomon
large...@thalmann.com wrote on 12/13/02 1:53 PM:
No, he could have also received a lens that sells for more then an Apo
Sironar N branded lens. He could have received one with Sinaron on it.
If you are offering a specific item on ebay that is what you should deliver.
Not another branded item.
Kerry L. Thalmann
news:c16kvuolc17te1n5l...@4ax.com...
>
> I have Kerry to thank indirectly (read your reviews from some post
> somewhere) for directing me to the Fuji 240mm f/9 and the Fuji 450mm
> f/12.5 both fine light lens that I use for 4x5 and 5x7.
Joe,
Yes, two of my "Future Classics". For my needs, I definitely prefer
the much smaller and lighter 240mm Fujinon A over any of the f5.6
plasmats in this focal length. However, I paid a lot more for it than
Paul did for that 240mm Caltar II-N. Plus, I know nothing about
Paul's needs or photographic style. For all I know, a fast maximum
aperture and a little more coverage may be much more important than
the weight and size of the lens.
Hope you like your little Fujinons. I'm using both of mine on 4x10
these days. Once again, they are a great match to my application,
with plenty of coverag for my needs, but still small enough and light
enough to accompany me on the trails.
Kerry
Donn Cave
don't sound like it. How's this for a summary
- The sale was fraudulent.
- The item is physically identical to what it was advertised as, and
they are also identical in terms of attached warranties etc. (i.e.,
there are none.)
- $339 is a very good deal
- If it's actually a good lens, can only be determined by testing.
- If it turns out not to be, the seller's refund offer is convenient.
- Copal 3 shutters are big.
- It's otherwise a good size for 5x7 (I didn't like mine very much for
4x5 or 8x10, too big and too small respectively, but it's great for
6 1/2 x 8 1/2.)
Donn
Bruce MacNeil
Does not sound like fraud at all. Sounds like a mistake. The guy immediately
"offered to take the lens back and give me a full refund..."
Not something a fraudster would do.
Have you ever made a mistake? I make lots of mistakes.
Cheers - Bruce
For what it's worth - that is a great lens.
"Bob Salomon" <bobsa...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bobsalomon-C2202...@reader0900.news.uu.net...
T Pole 1
Keep it!! Caltar, as you know, is Calumet's line of lenses. And as you seem to
know its a Rodenstock. Keep it!!! You got one good deal.