in the market for modernish lens but....

[mark]

I want a modernish 210ish mm lens that will give me great color and cover 5x7 as well. Problem is I am not rich so will be looking on the used market. I am looking for recommendations to help guide me on this adventure.

Looking for lenses for BW is easy. FInd the right image circle and go with it. The field is wide open. COlor on the other hand is much more demanding. I shot slides with my 180 conv. symmar my 210 Komura, and my 150 caltar IIe. The color from the caltar was hands and fists above the color of the other two. Yes, I got the exposures correct. That is why I am thinking that a modernish lens is the way to go.

 

[Frank Petronio]

A mid-1980s Rodenstock Sironar MC or later Sironar-N MC should be "modern" and plentiful - I've seen them in the mid $200s on eBay. I think they were sharper than Schneiders of the same vintage.

Dagor77 sometimes has Wollensack Raptars that were multi-coated, very sharp, and the last "modern" lens made before Wollensack bit it. The sometimes come in blue Rapex shutters and are pretty cool looking.

 

[John Kasaian]

210 G Claron comes to mind.

 

[darinwc]

If you like the color from your rodenstock lens, then just get the longer version. The symmar-s will be about the same price and the fuji and nikkors all demand premium prices. The G claron might save you some money, but then again if it is in a shutter allready it might be the same price.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

A used 210 Caltar II-N is probably a good bet. It's the same as a Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-N. If you check my APUG gallery, I have a B&W with the 180mm version. Check KEH.com, mpex.com, and eBay.

Here's that shot--

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

 

[photomc]

A used 210 Caltar II-N is probably a good bet. It's the same as a Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-N. If you check my APUG gallery, I have a B&W with the 180mm version. Check KEH.com, mpex.com, and eBay.

Here's that shot--

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

Mark,
David is right on ... I have a Rodenstock Geronar 210mm that would be the same as one of the Caltar-E series. These are 6.8 lens, but are very capable, I have used the 150 on my 5x7 with quite a bit of room..the 210 is great. Nice glass without the cost of some of the better know stuff.

 

[phfitz]

Mark,

Computar Symmetrigon 210/6.3 if you can find one.

Good luck with it.

 

[Paul Sorensen]

Mark,
David is right on ... I have a Rodenstock Geronar 210mm that would be the same as one of the Caltar-E series. These are 6.8 lens, but are very capable, I have used the 150 on my 5x7 with quite a bit of room..the 210 is great. Nice glass without the cost of some of the better know stuff.

And someone is selling a Geronar 210mm in a copal polaroid shutter on APUG for $150. I was considering it but went another direction. (I got a convertible Symmar from Mpex, but I don't do much color.)

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

 

[Frank Petronio]

I am currently using a 210 Geronar because it is so small. Great lens if you don't need a lot of coverage.

 

[Dan Fromm]

You guys have me doubting my sanity.

You all go on about lenses' effects on "color" and I haven't seen it. I've looked and can't find. What do you know that I don't?

I use these lenses on 2x3 Graphics: 38/4.5 Biogon, 47/5.6 Super Angulon, 65/8 Ilex, 80/6.3 WF Ektar, 100/6.3 Reichert Neupolar, 101/4.5 Ektar, 4"/2 Taylor Hobson, 127/4.7 Tominon, 6"/9 Cooke Copying Lens, 160/5.6 Pro Raptar, 210/9 Konica Hexanon GRII, 210/7.7 Boyer mystery, 10.16" Taylor Hobson Copying Lens, 12"/4 Taylor Hobson telephoto. I've had and used 65/6.3 Raptar, 105/3.7 Ektar, 7"/4.5 Aviar (coated!), and 250/5.6 TeleOptar. And I have and sometimes use a 1 7/8"/2.8 Elcan. I usually shoot EPP. Comparisons are within emulsion, to avoid confounding differences in emulsion with differences in lenses' color rendition.

With two exceptions, I get more variation in color between shots taken with the same lens than between shots taken with different lenses. The exceptions are the 10.16"/9 Taylor Hobson, which shot consistently yellowish until I bleached out radiation damage in the rear cell, and the 210 GRII, which usually shoots a little less constrasty colors than the 210 Boyer. The 210 GRII has a little internal schmutz, and that may be why. With the exception of the GRII, all of my lenses are pretty clean internally.

My take is that you're all somewhat batty, but I'm open to the proposition that I am and you aren't.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[jimgalli]

Symmar S

I have an excellent Symmar S that can be had for $325 if you're interested. It's in late all black Copal 1 that's running perfectly. PM me if interested.

 

[removed account4]

Mark,

Computar Symmetrigon 210/6.3 if you can find one.

Good luck with it.

ditto

 

[JohnArs]

In the 210mm range was almost ever Schneider the leader in sharpness. Take a Symmar S or even better the APO Symmar and you will be happy forever!

 

[MikeS]

You guys have me doubting my sanity.

You all go on about lenses' effects on "color" and I haven't seen it. I've looked and can't find. What do you know that I don't?

My take is that you're all somewhat batty, but I'm open to the proposition that I am and you aren't.

Cheers,

Dan

Dan:

I agree with you! Back when I first got back into photography a few years ago (before I decided B&W was the way to go) I shot quite a few sheets of Ektachrome with my Graphic View Using a Symmar 210mm lens (the convertible Symmar, not the S or APO, etc.) that was made in 1956, along with a 150mm Symmar that was newer, I think it was from 1962! Both lenses were just single coated, and I never had any problem with color rendition. Heck, just last week I put a 135mm f3.5 Eurynar lens that's uncoated, from 1925 or so on my Linhof, and took some color Polaroids, and the colors looked fine to me!

I don't understand why folks all say older lenses are only good for B&W, I've done color with older lenses and never had a problem with it! As a comparison, I also have a Rodenstock 210mm Geronar which is a 'modern' lens (probably made in the late 80's or so), and it does color the same as any other lens I have, I haven't noticed color pictures taken with it being any better than any others I have taken.

So, either you & I are the only sane people here, or we're the only nuts, take your pick!

-Mike

 

[Ole]

The only lens I have ever seen which gives a distinct tone to colour pictures is the old APO-Lanthars. Over the years the radioactive element has gone brown. It can be "cleared" by massive exposure to UV light, but I kind of like that warm tone

 

[Struan Gray]

To date I have only used older, single-coated lenses for LF, but I know from smaller formats that modern multi-coated glass can make a difference. The sort of all-over glare that is more prevalent with single coating can wash out subtle colours like those of a Nordic winter, or the soft light of the damper parts of the Atlantic seaboard. If you use Velvia you're not going to notice, but on subtler films it can make a difference.

Ole, no part of the Atlantic seaboard is damper than Bergen. I'm not surprised you need warm glass.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Struan, are you comparing a 15 element zoom lens with a simple tessar? I ask because most lenses for LF have a lot fewer air-glass interfaces than most lenses for 35 mm still, hence are inherently less flary.

 

[Ole]

Dan, I know what Struan means. He might be comparing a simple 6-elements in 4 groups lens to another of the same construction but better coating.

One fine lens I have has 4 separated elements - uncoated it's very, very soft. With coating (even single- ) it's very, very sharp. The only difference is flare.

But I can't see that I have had any problems with subtle colours? Nor soft light - remember that once it's clear here, the air is clearer than just about anywhere else in the world. I have had comments that people have difficulties with the scale of my photos, since there is no increase in haze with distance

 

[Struan Gray]

The only direct comparison I have done using the same camera body was with Hasselblad 150 C and 150 T* lenses on a 500 CM. Otherwise I'm comparing my Kowa single-coated lenses with friends' Hasselblad or Mamiya lenses, or with the same scene shot through my Pentax 35 mm glass. It's not a scientific test, but I see clearer, cleaner colours from multicoated glass.

I've kept the Kowa, and I use single-coated lenses in LF, but that's a bang-per-buck issue, not one of absolute quality. I'm not a sharpness freak, but i do appreciate the extra clarity of tone that I see from multicoated lenses and I plan to migrate my LF to them as and when the funds turn up. I have also had shots spoiled by straightforward ghosting flare, even when using a lenshood, and that too is reduced by multicoating.

 

[Struan Gray]

FWIW, I've just ordered a multicoated 150 mm Sironar-N to replace my convertible Symmar. It'll be a while, so don't hold your breath, but when I get some time later in the summer I will test them side-by-side.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Struan, its kind of funny.

My uncoated 101/4.5 Ektar gives lovely color. My uncoated dialytes (14"/5.6 Aviar, 130/6.8 Goerz Doppel Anastigmat), however, give very flat Ektachromes. My slightly coated 14"/10 Apo Process Lustrar Ser. II, another dialyte, does much the same. On the other hand, my single-coated dialytes (5", 7" Aviars; just sold the 7") give good Ektachromes. I've just begun using a single-coated 305/9 Apo Nikkor, so far, so good.

My single-coated 38/4.5 Biogon gives variable results, depending on whether I expose correctly. Over, a little pastelish; bang on, as seen; under, over-saturated, especially the sky. It and my little Ektar are among the reasons I'm so skeptical of claims that coating, especially multi-, improves color rendition.

Please, when you get that Sironar-N, shoot three Ektachromes with it and with y'r convertible Symmar, at 1/2 stop under, on, and 1/2 stop over, then match 'em across lenses by density and report the differences.

 

[jimgalli]

Ultimately a slight shift in developer ph will affect color more than any of the other possibilities. So if someone was going to "test" it would be important to do everything the same day, same conditions, and souped together. To form opinions about which lenses have which casts probably has more to do with your local lab adding some fresh juice to the tired soup than what the lens was really doing.

 

[avandesande]

Nobody once has mentioned the enlargments that they are talking about. The problem is the the FL changes for the different wavelengths, and coatings are supposed to correct this. You won't see this at small enlargements.

 

[Struan Gray]

I'm not so much interested in colour casts, as colour clarity. Even when I shoot transparency film, which isn't often, I regard the film as a capture medium on the way to a print. In which case I'm not too worried by small colour shifts: it's not as if I'm doing fashion catalogues.

What does bother me is the way flare and glare suck the life out of delicate shades and nuances of tone. It's the difference between looking out of a clean window and a dusty one. I have convinced myself that multicoating is desirable, but not at any price. The attached alpenglow photo was taken with an 18" APO-lustrar with a very mottled coating. It works, and is one of my most-used lenses.

So I sort of agree with those who say 'it doesn't matter'. Except that sometimes it does. The second attachment was taken with my 150 Symmar. There's a blob of subtle flare in the middle despite my having tried every trick I knew to avoid it.

 

[Struan Gray]

Aaaagh. I goofed: those were both taken with the Symmar. The point's the same though.

I don't plan on taking both lenses to Scotland this year, and before I go I'll be testing on B+W, but when I'm back in August I'll try to find a suitable test subject. As I said though, don't hold your breath.