210 mm Lens Recommendations

[jeroldharter]

I know that various threads like this have been posted before and I have read through them. Nevertheless:

I plan to buy a 210 mm lens for 4x5 B&W work, mostly landscapes, portraits and near macro shots. I have narrowed it down to a Nikkor or Rodenstock Apo-Sironar S.

The Nikon lens costs about $700 an the Rodenstock $1100. Does anybody think that the Rodenstock lens is worth the incremental cost?

 

[bobfowler]

Never used the Nikkor, but love my Rodenstock. Mine is a Sironar-N MC.

 

[roteague]

Try looking at the Schneider APO Symmar 210 f5.6. It is a fantastic lens.

 

[Frank Petronio]

The Sironar N is much more reasonable and for all practical purposes it will give you the same results in 4x5. The S would be nice for 5x7 with movements, but the N should give you all the movements you'll ever use in 4x5 (at least for portraits, landscapes and still-life).

 

[John Kasaian]

G Claron, or for even less $$ (and worth every penny of it) a 203mm F/7.7 Ektar.

Cheers!

 

[jeroldharter]

Damn you all! You are not telling me what I want to hear.

Thanks, I am listening.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

A 203 Ektar is an outstanding lens, but they're in a so-so shutter. I had S.K. Grimes overhaul mine, but it still wasn't very reliable. I've also owned a 210 Symmar-S, a G-Claron, a Kowa Graphic, and now a Fuji. All of them were excellent, but I only enlarge to 16x20. If I were you, I'd go for the Nikkor and use the rest of the money for something else.

 

[John Kasaian]

Doc,

What model Nikor lens are you referring to?

If you are shooting B&W landscapes, I don't think you'll see an appreciable difference between these lenses, or for that matter between either of these lenses and a single coated 203mm Ektar war-horse---but thats my opinion, YMMV as they say.

Portraits are a different matter. Have you considered a 8-1/2" Commercial Ektar? Or maybe a Wollensak Verito?. These are slightly less sharp(the verito wide open is really soft!) but lend a smootheness to skin tones that many find appealing/flattering. The Verito especially is noted for "bokeh"---take a look at those motion picture industry portrait stills from the 30s and 40s. The Commercial Ektar is similar to Karsh's lens (he used a 14" Commercial Ektar on an 8x10) so take a look at Karsh's portraits if you're interested. In fact, a Commercial Ektar does a pretty nice job on landscapes too. The 8-1/2" has plenty of coverage for 5x7 so it should give you all sorts of wiggle room on a 4x5.

FWIW, for macro I'd stick with a shorter lens like a 150, 127, or even a 90. Why rack those bellows waaaay out there and have to mess with bellows factor? Of course, I'm lazy and avoiding math problems comes naturally to me ;-)

Good luck!

 

[wilhelm]

I've got the Nikkor-W 210mm f/5.6, and it performs well. Don't have anything to compare it to, but I'm satisfied enough with its performance that I don't feel any need to replace it. Color rendition seems fine, it's plenty sharp, and it's pretty small and light (compared to the rest of my lenses).

You can probably find 'em used for even less money - I got mine for around $500 off ebay. Heck, now that they're discontinued, you might even be able to find a better deal on a new one.

Will

 

[jonw]

Here is an example of my Fujinon 210mm (cost around $200)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Here is my first attempt with my 9 inch Verito (tough to find)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Here is a shot of Alison with my Veritar (10"/254mm) (cost $400 to $600)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Here is an example of my 210mm RD Artar (cost around $300)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Hope this doesn't muddy your waters too much in choosing an ideal 210mm.

 

[BradS]

The Nikon lens costs about $700 an the Rodenstock $1100. Does anybody think that the Rodenstock lens is worth the incremental cost?

No. I do not think that the Sironar-S is worth the extra money. Not if shooting 4x5. I don't believe that you could tell the difference between any of the moden 210mm LF lenses offered by the big four (Nikon, Rodenstock, Fuji and Schneider).

 

[Ole]

...FWIW, for macro I'd stick with a shorter lens like a 150, 127, or even a 90. Why rack those bellows waaaay out there and have to mess with bellows factor? Of course, I'm lazy and avoiding math problems comes naturally to me ;-)
...

The bellows factor is the same at the same scale, no matter what the focal length of the lens or even the size of film. Apart from that, I agree that it's sometimes better to use a shorter lens fror macro.

As to which 210mm lens - I doubt that there are significant differences between any lenses produced over the past 40 or so years. LF lenses tend to be simple enough that the difference between single-coated and multicoated is mostly negligible, and just about any lens is capable of outstanding sharpness. The choise is more a matter of taste.

 

[vet173]

For that amount of money you could have both the 210 fuji L and an 8 1/2 in Ektar commercial. The fiji is a very nice piece of glass. The Ektar was all I had for my first 3 yrs in LF. As has been stated it has a smoother look to the image, but it is a sharp lens. Best part is it's NOT multicoated.

 

[Early Riser]

I own the 210mm Sironar-S and find it to be a great lens. I previously owned the Sironar-N and found the Sironar-S to be superior, then again my Sironar-S is the Sinar version (sinaron) which is supposedly hand picked by Sinar and might be a better sample of the lens. If you're also considering macro use, I would recommend the sironar -s as it is better optimized for closer work. While not being a true macro it is surprisingly good at close focus.

For general use on a 4x5 neg being printed to a reasonable size, not too large, I don't think you'll see much difference between most of the better 210mm lenses out there. However should you decide to use a roll film back and subject your neg to greater magnification due to the smaller film dimension, differences become noticeable.

 

[jp80874]

Just to muddy the water still further I almost never use the 210mm Schneider APO-Symmar f5.6 that came with my Linhof Technikardan. For macro and close to normal
lens landscape I use a 180mm Rodenstock Apo-Macro Sironar f5.6. For long distance landscape I use longer than 210, a 300mm Fujinon C f8.5 and 450mm Nikkor-M Sinar f9.

John Powers

 

[df cardwell]

I know that various threads like this have been posted before and I have read through them. Nevertheless:

I plan to buy a 210 mm lens for 4x5 B&W work, mostly landscapes, portraits and near macro shots. I have narrowed it down to a Nikkor or Rodenstock Apo-Sironar S.

The Nikon lens costs about $700 an the Rodenstock $1100. Does anybody think that the Rodenstock lens is worth the incremental cost?

Jerold

Tracking price and performance over the past 20+ years:

1. Performance amongst all the 210 lenses are virtually identical
2. The relative prices fluctuate.

They are all the SAME lens, built to the highest possible standards.

Whatever differences that may appear in a given sample are absorbed in the Photographic System ( 1/Scene + 1/Lens + 1/Camera Adjustment + 1/ Exposure + 1/Development ).

Have fun with your new Nikkor. It is a superb lens.

.

 

[photobum]

The specs say:

Nikon W: 70 degrees@f/22 IC 295mm 67mm filter.

Sironar S: 75 degrees@f/22 IC 316mm 72mm filter

Worth $400. bucks more? Maybe, if you will also try to fit a 8x10 inside the IC. But the IC ratings tend to be flexible.

 

[Ted Harris]

I have actually done real world side-by-side comparisons of the Apo Symmar, Sironar N and Nikkor 210. The images from the Apo Symmar and the Sironar N were virtually the same, basically not possible to tell them apart. The image from the Nikkor had virtually the same sharpness and resolution as the other two lenses but it had slightly less contrast. Same results with the 150's. Given tht the 'S' series outperforms the 'N' series (although I am not sure you will notice the difference in results in most situations) IMO you will have the same results. I did the tests some 4-5 years ago and did scan them at the time. If you email or PM I will see if I can dig 'em up if you want to see for yourself.

In terms of specifications the Nikkor is more closely aligned to the Apo Symmar, Fuji CMW and Sironar N than it is to the Sironar S. In fact, although the differences are slight the Nikkor has a bit less coverage than the other three. For generallandscape work the differences shouldn't matter.

 

[Curt]

First lense; Schneider Symmar 210 f5.6.

 

[Donsta]

My experience with lenses echoes Ted's. Last year I tested 10 modern 150mm lenses - I shot a real world 3D target and a test chart with each lens with Tmax100 and a chrome of the 3D target. The only lens which slightly underperformed the others was a Nikkor 150mm. The others were virtually impossible to tell apart at less than 15X. There were very slight differences in color rendition, but sharpness was amazingly consistent. I'm sure that sample variation has more to do with any slight differences than anything else. I am convinced that in real world situations, one's own technique will be the limiting factor 99/100.

I have used a variety of 210mm lenses - Symmar S, Nikkor, APO Symmar, and a Rodenstock Sironar-S - I personally think that the best value would be a used APO Symmar - around $550. I'm not a great fan of 210mm lenses - I find a 180mm or 240mm suits what I'm doing more often. If you can live with a 240mm, I'd strongly recommend that you grab one of the 240 Germinar-Ws which Kerry is selling at the moment. I have used mine extensively for the past 4 months on both 4X5 and 8X10 - it's a great lens and much smaller and lighter than any of the 210mm plasmats.

 

[Early Riser]

..... For macro and close to normal
lens landscape I use a 180mm Rodenstock Apo-Macro Sironar f5.6. ......

John Powers

I also own both the 180mm Sironar-S and the 180mm Apo-macro sironar. Having tested both lenses side by side I can say that the macro is a little better at macro work than the sironar-s, but is definitely not as good as the sironar-s at landscape ratios.

 

[jimgalli]

Jerold, you will not possibly be able to make good pictures unless you order 7 or 8 Sironar-S's (forget that other trash) and test them all for MTF curve placement, then abandon all but the single best.

 

[BradS]

I own the 210mm Sironar-S and find it to be a great lens. I previously owned the Sironar-N and found the Sironar-S to be superior, then again my Sironar-S is the Sinar version (sinaron) which is supposedly hand picked by Sinar and might be a better sample of the lens. If you're also considering macro use, I would recommend the sironar -s as it is better optimized for closer work. While not being a true macro it is surprisingly good at close focus.

Hmmm, I thought that I read somewhere that the Sinar Sinaron-S is actually a Sironar-N that had been hand picked by Sinar and subjected to considerable additional testing.

 

[Early Riser]

Hmmm, I thought that I read somewhere that the Sinar Sinaron-S is actually a Sironar-N that had been hand picked by Sinar and subjected to considerable additional testing.

Brad a Sinaron-S is a sironar-N, a sinaron-SE is a sironar-S. Confusing.

 

[jp80874]

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

I also own both the 180mm Sironar-S and the 180mm Apo-macro sironar. Having tested both lenses side by side I can say that the macro is a little better at macro work than the sironar-s, but is definitely not as good as the sironar-s at landscape ratios.

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

John Powers