210 mm Lens Recommendations

jp80874 said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jp80874
..... For macro and close to normal
lens landscape I use a 180mm Rodenstock Apo-Macro Sironar f5.6. ......

John Powers


Maybe then I should use the 210mm Schneider APO-Symmar f5.6 after all.

John Powers

Click to expand...

I doubt if the APO- Symmar is better at macro than either the macro sironar or sironar-s. The Sironar-s has ED glass and is designed to work at a wider range of reproduction ratios. It's optimized for 1:10 ratio whereas most other general purpose lenses are optimized at 1:20 ratio. At infinite focus I could not tell you how the symmar would compare to the sironar-s.

jp80874 said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jp80874
..... For macro and close to normal
lens landscape I use a 180mm Rodenstock Apo-Macro Sironar f5.6. ......

John Powers


Maybe then I should use the 210mm Schneider APO-Symmar f5.6 after all.

John Powers

Click to expand...

You might want to do a search, there was a thread a month or so back dealing with doing macro in 4x5; the thread talked a lot about lenses.

Sorry, I'm sick in bed today. I may not be as clear as I would like to be. I meant that I will continue to use the 180mm macro for its intended purpose, macro. My first solo show a year ago was twenty 11x14, B&W, macros shot with that lens.

I will stop using the 180mm macro for landscape as well as macro and start using the 210mm Schneider APO-Symmar f5.6 in its place.

Actually in my case it is academic because I mostly shoot 8x10 now with different lenses with larger image circles except the mentioned 450mm Nikkor-M Sinar f9 . I had wanted to offer Jerold another way of looking at the problem. It turns out I needed the help more than he did.

John Powers

I have an old 180mm Xenar (very old, uncoated) which I use if I absolutely need 180mm. And a newer 210mm Xenar, same qualifications.

Most of the time, at least the last year, I use either a 165mm f:6.8 Angulon or a 240 f:5.6 Symmar convertible. They are both plenty sharp for most purposes - if you stick your nose right up to a 40x48" print from 5x7" film shot with the Angulon, you may possibly begin to think that you can convince yourself that you see a hint of softness in the very corners. But you can't convince me!

Another great advantage of these lenses (except that they're cheap) is that I use bouth of them on 4x5", 5x7" and 8x10". Which has the strange side effect that I sometimes carry more cameras than lenses!

The Nikkor-W is a perfectly good lens, well mine is at least. So no doubt is the Sironar (I have 150mm Sironar). All other things being equal go for the one(s) that have the same filter size as your other lenses!


Richard

Thank you for all of the input. In the end, I decided on a Rodenstock Sironar N. I bought the Caltar version which was almost $200 cheaper. Although not the best reason for choosing, I wanted to keep the 67 mm filters that I had collected. I ordered the lens last night.

Congratulations on picking the Caltar. I've got the 300mm Caltar II-N for my 8X10, and it's marvelous. I've also had the Caltar 75mm 6.8 for my 4X5. (I even have a 210mm Caltar HR. That's a Fujinon, and sharp as a tack. Dean