A good 5x7 standard lens?

[brian steinberger]

I'm looking to have my first 5x7 camera soon (Ansco). And I'm looking for advice on a lens. I tend to like just slightly wider than standard focal lengths. So I'm thinking 210mm?

I've been looking at the rodenstock geranor 210/6.8 and the Computar Symmetrigon 210/6.3. Anyone have any experiences with these lenses? Or any other recommendations for inexpensive (under $200 used) 5x7 standard lens?

Thanks!

 

[Jim Jones]

The venerable Kodak Ektar 203mm f/7.7 was my favorite lens on 5x7 and 4x5.

 

[Alan Gales]

I used to own a Caltar lens that was a rebadged Rodenstock Geronar 210mm F/6.8. I used it on a Crown Graphic. It was small enough to fold into the camera. I liked it.

The Geronars have less elements and less coverage than other modern 210mm lenses. They were considered a budget entry level lens. For 5x7 you would probably be better off with a 210mm F/5.6 lens with the extra coverage. They are easy to find under $200.00 in the U.S. and they come in a modern Copal shutter. Take your pick of Schneider, Rodenstock, Fujinon, Nikkor or Caltar. They are all similar in quality. Let condition and price be your guide.

 

[brian steinberger]

I used to own a Caltar lens that was a rebadged Rodenstock Geronar 210mm F/6.8. I used it on a Crown Graphic. It was small enough to fold into the camera. I liked it.

The Geronars have less elements and less coverage than other modern 210mm lenses. They were considered a budget entry level lens. For 5x7 you would probably be better off with a 210mm F/5.6 lens with the extra coverage. They are easy to find under $200.00 in the U.S. and they come in a modern Copal shutter. Take your pick of Schneider, Rodenstock, Fujinon, Nikkor or Calter. They are all similar in quality. Let condition and price be your guide.

Do all these 210mm 5.6 lenses cover 5x7? I was under the impression that not all did.

 

[Oren Grad]

210 mm is dead-normal for 5x7 - give or take a mm or two because of variation in film holders, it's exactly the format diagonal.

Modern 210 mm plasmats are one of the biggest bargains in photography right now - they are very good, very common and very cheap. Unless your budget is very tight, or you have some other criterion you're trying to achieve (for example, smallest/lightest), you might as well go first class with a plasmat from one of the big 4 vendors - Fuji, Nikon, Rodenstock, Schneider. 1980's-vintage 210mm plasmats such as Rodenstock Sironar-N (also private-labeled as Caltar II-N) and Schneider Symmar-S (also private-labeled as Caltar-S II), Fujinon W and Nikkor W are commonly available in very nice condition for less than $300 and sometimes for less than $200. Watch the FS postings here and at the Large Format Photography Forum.

 

[Oren Grad]

Do all these 210mm 5.6 lenses cover 5x7?

Yes, with vast room for movement on 5x7. Typical coverage for even the least expensive modern plasmats is 70-72 degrees at f/22 and infinity focus, which approaches or exceeds a 300 mm image circle - way more than you need.

 

[removed account4]

i love using my 210/370 symmar convertible

 

[MDR]

The 5.6/210 Symmars-S are really really cheap these days and were the main lenses for many if not most lf photographers who used 4x5 or 5x7 cameras. If you want something a bit longer the 240mm Symmars aren't really much more expensive than their 210mm sibling in fact they often go for even less don't know why.

 

[brian steinberger]

Thanks guys!!

 

[Robert Ley]

If you like a slightly wider than normal lens I would suggest a 180mm plasmat. I have a 180mm f:5.6 Nikon that I love for 4x5 but has more than enough coverage for 5x7. For some reason the180 lens is shown very little love in LF and I can't figure out why. The 180's although not as plentiful can be had for some good prices. I think that I paid about $175 for mine in excellent condition.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[brian steinberger]

Robert, what would 180mm focal length translate to in 35mm format?

 

[MDR]

Don't think that way shooting LF is very different than shooting 35mm people would rarely shoot a portrait with a standard lens in 35mm but many LF photographers are doing that. But to answer your question it would be around 40mm

 

[brian steinberger]

I understand. I'm just trying to get a rough feel for the focal length.

Don't think that way shooting LF is very different than shooting 35mm people would rarely shoot a portrait with a standard lens in 35mm but many LF photographers are doing that. But to answer your question it would be around 40mm

 

[Alan Gales]

Do all these 210mm 5.6 lenses cover 5x7? I was under the impression that not all did.

Oren answered yes for me and I agree with his answer.

They are going to be larger and heavier than the Grandagon which was designed for 4x5 but they will have more coverage which you need.

 

[Ari]

Another suggestion is a Fujinon-W 210; great lens.
The modern version has very good multi-coating; the older version is single-coated but has a large enough IC to cover 8x10 with decent movements.
Both are sharp performers and, like many 210s on the market, both are not too dear.

 

[outwest]

I've used the 203 Wide-Field Ektar, the 210 Gerogon, the 210 Symmar convertible, the 210 Sinar-N, and the 215 Ilex Acuton (also a convertible). The only one I didn't care for was the Symmar convertible and its shutter ended up with a 210 G-Claron for 8x10. The Gerogon, a modern computed multicoated triplet is small and light and great on a 4x5 and at f/16 and above wants for little. It was perfect for a long lens on my old Busch Pressman 4x5. The 210 Sinar-N is without fault and lives with the 4x5 Technika. The Ektar is a superb lens from a period when Kodak quality control was at its peak. I've tested 3 of them against each other on charts and there was no difference at all. Its Supermatic shutter needs a little getting used to and these lenses usually go for $300 or more. It lives with the 5x7. One of the uncoated pre-Ektar versions lives with a Speed Graphic. Which brings us to the Acuton. The Ilex and Caltar versions are so underappreciated that it is near a crime. Just a week or two ago 2 of these went for $100 each on a list. A modern Plasmat it can just cover 8x10 and is my favorite lens on whole plate. It would be an excellent lens to have on a 5x7, and with its convertible feature gives options. I haven't used a 210 Symmar-S but I have 150 and 180 versions and they are excellent. The 180 is also in the 5x7 kit.

 

[Ian Grant]

I need to mount my 210 f6.8 Geronar in a shutter and test it it's a great light weight multi coated lens, I also have the 150mm f6.3 Geronar.

A good budget lens is the Congo f6.3 210mm, a Tessar type lens and covers 7x5. However I agree with Jim Jones the f7.7 203mm Ektars are great lenses very sharp and mine is well coated (UK made version in a Protor SVS #0 shutter). I have a 210mm Symmar S but it's much larger than the other lenses mentioned here.

In fact I have a 1919 CZJ f4.5 240mm Tessar on my Improved Seneca View at the moment, I paid £30/$45 and the glass is excellent & the Compound shutter smooth and accurate.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

The Gerogon, a modern computed multicoated triplet is small and light and great on a 4x5 and at f/16 and above wants for little. It was perfect for a long lens on my old Busch Pressman 4x5.

The triplet is the Geronar and Multi Coated.

The Gerogon f9 210mm is a Repro/Process lens the equivalent of the G-Claron and coated (not Multi coated).

Ian

 

[ic-racer]

Symmar-S 210mm is pretty common and can be found inexpensive. I used the one I used to have on 8x10 format.

 

[outwest]

Sorry, I got my nars and my gons mixed. Yes, 210mm f/6.8 Geronar.

 

[Alan Gales]

Sorry, I got my nars and my gons mixed. Yes, 210mm f/6.8 Geronar.

Don't feel bad. Once on LFPF we were getting mixed up on our Sironars and Sinarons.

 

[alanrockwood]

How about a 210mm Tessar?

 

[outwest]

Dang, I butchered that one also. Sironar-N not Sinar-N. Fingers are getting faster than the brain.

 

[L Gebhardt]

If you like a slightly wider than normal lens I would suggest a 180mm plasmat. I have a 180mm f:5.6 Nikon that I love for 4x5 but has more than enough coverage for 5x7. For some reason the180 lens is shown very little love in LF and I can't figure out why. The 180's although not as plentiful can be had for some good prices. I think that I paid about $175 for mine in excellent condition.

I use the same Nikon 180mm lens as my normal lens on 5x7. It's close to equivalent with the 135mm for 4x5, though the aspect ratio is different. With 35mm the aspect ratio is closer and by my calculations a 180mm is equal to a 38mm lens when cropped to the same 1.5 aspect ratio. When 35mm is cropped to the 5x7 aspect ratio (1.42) the 180mm lens is like a 36mm.

 

[brian steinberger]

Thanks again guys for all your suggestions. I kind of like the 180mm lens idea.

I've got my eye on this right now. What do you guys think?