LF 210mm. Which one?

[waynecrider]

I've always heard the 210mm Sironar-S was an amazing lens. Does it have any competitors for 4x5 usuage when enlarging to 16x20?

 

[Troy Ammons]

I have only used about 10-12 LF lenses, but of those I have used and own 3 G-Claron lenses, and IMO they are very very sharp lenses. That includes the 210. I had a rodenstock Sironar 150mm that I always thought was tack sharp until I shot a G-Claron lens. Now I own 3 and thats it. I just wish they made a 90mm lens too.

 

[lee]

I have G Clarons too Troy and like them very much. I am using a 210mm G Claron on my Durst 138 enlarger.

lee\c

 

[BradS]

Are we talking about lenses to use on the enlarger or, lenses to use on the camera?

I've heard that the new Schneider APO Symmar-L is on par with the Sironar-S but, alas, I have no data with either one.

 

[Troy Ammons]

From what I understand the G-clarons are process lenses.

A lot of them that you see on Ebay are mounted in a barrel so you have to buy a shutter. Even with that I bought a 150 in shutter for $65 and a 240 for $110 and bought a used shutter from mpex.

My 210 was as sharp as any medium format lens I have used except for the Mamiya 7 and the $3000 Pentax 67 300mm EDIF lens.

 

[lee]

the G- Clarons are process lenses and they can be used as taking lenses and as enlarging lenses. The 150 mm fits into a copal #0 without any modification other than a scale for f/stops. The 210 thru the 305 fits directly into the copal #1 without any modification also and the 355 mm fits into the copal #3 without any modification. The only problem that might be seens as a problem is they are slow. f/9.

lee\c

 

[Ole]

Enlarging 4x5" to 16x20" is a 4x enlargement. All 210mm lenses produced in the last 50 years (as well as many of the older ones) are capable of giving sufficient resolution on 4x5" film for that.

I use/have used a 210 APO-Lanthar, a 210 Xenar, a 210 Angulon (1947 vintage), as well as 180 Dagor, 180 Xenar, 240 Symmar, and a 210 Aplanat. Within your specification the only difference is in contrast, not sharpness.

 

[jimgalli]

You could spend the extra $1000 plus bucks but according to Kerry Thalmann's / Chris Perez' resolution charts an ordinary Symmar - S like the one I have (there was a url link here which no longer exists) would do as well or better. I've also found that true in actual practice having used a Sironar-N but not the -S. Years ago I did a shoot out between a Symmar-S and Sironar-N and while the resurlts were for ANY practical purpose indistinguishable, I felt the Symmar had a very slight overall edge and that was the lens I kept. Just now my 210 stash includes an early dagor type G-Claron that I adore, and the harder to find Computar.

 

[BradS]

You could spend the extra $1000 plus bucks but according to Kerry Thalmann's / Chris Perez' resolution charts an ordinary Symmar - S like the one I have (there was a url link here which no longer exists) would do as well or better. I've also found that true in actual practice having used a Sironar-N but not the -S. Years ago I did a shoot out between a Symmar-S and Sironar-N and while the resurlts were for ANY practical purpose indistinguishable, I felt the Symmar had a very slight overall edge and that was the lens I kept. Just now my 210 stash includes an early dagor type G-Claron that I adore, and the harder to find Computar.

Jim, That 210 Symmar-S you have offered here has been tempting me for weeks. I wake at night dreaming about it. I believe it would complement my 135mm Symmar-S nicely (although, my 135mm si single coated and I see that the 210 you have offered is in fact the highly desireable multi coated version). I'm still recovering from my "drunken sailor" spending of a couple a months ago.

 

[jimgalli]

Brad, you need to forego any further agony and just buy it

Jim, That 210 Symmar-S you have offered here has been tempting me for weeks. I wake at night dreaming about it. I believe it would complement my 135mm Symmar-S nicely (although, my 135mm si single coated and I see that the 210 you have offered is in fact the highly desireable multi coated version). I'm still recovering from my "drunken sailor" spending of a couple a months ago.

 

[Scott-Tx]

i tested four 210 lenses before buying...

2 APO Symmar
1 APO Sironar-S
1 Fuji CM-W

the sironar-s was the best in all tests. the fuji cm-w's were a close second. the schneider came in third. i was so surprised by this after reading chris and kerry's reports that i tested a second one, but it didn't fare any better.

the 210 Sinronar-S is one of the finest lenses i have ever used.

 

[Dave Wooten]

I agree with Scott,

I admit I do use my 210 S also on 8 x 10....not much movement, but good for landscapes and pull the bellows a bit for portraits...covers 5 x 7 with movements...

 

[Dave Wooten]

Above I was referring to the Rodenstock Sironar S it just does cover the 8 x 10

 

[Scott-Tx]

i also use my 210 Sironar-S on 8x10... works like a champ.

 

[MikeS]

I just got a 210 G-Claron. I also have a 210 Geronar. Is there anything I can do with the Geronar that I can't do with the G-Claron? (in other words, do I have any reason to keep the Geronar now that I have the Claron?) The Claron came in a barrel, so I would be using the same shutter for either lens, and I really hate having multiple lenses in the same focal length (unless there's a good reason for it).

-Mike

 

[JohnArs]

Hi all

My APO Symmar 210 mm is my sharpest lens and I have total 18 other lenses wich stand behind it by just a tiny bit.
Its my reference lens for lenstesting when I got a new one!

 

[Scott-Tx]

johnars,

what other 210's did you test it against?

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Enlarging 4x5" to 16x20" is a 4x enlargement. All 210mm lenses produced in the last 50 years (as well as many of the older ones) are capable of giving sufficient resolution on 4x5" film for that.

I use/have used a 210 APO-Lanthar, a 210 Xenar, a 210 Angulon (1947 vintage), as well as 180 Dagor, 180 Xenar, 240 Symmar, and a 210 Aplanat. Within your specification the only difference is in contrast, not sharpness.

Agreed. My 203 Ektar was every bit as good as the 210 Sironar N I had, just slower AND FAR SMALLER. Buy any used symmar/Sironar 5.6 is you want a fast lens o a 210 Claron/203 ektar if you dont (preferring small size)and I doubt you wil be disappointed.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

I had a 203 Ektar for a good number of years. It was a great lens in a mediocre shutter.

My guess is that these lenses have quite a bit of manufacturer variation. Some are really good, some average, and some poor. Hence you never know what you're going to get until you actually try it. A quick look at Chris Perez's lens tests will bear this out. Mind you, it's really hard to do good lens testing.

My own 210 is a fuji, and I'm very happy with it, but then I usually only make 11x14s from 4x5.

 

[JohnArs]

Hi Scott

I tested it against a Symmar S 150mm, Rodenstoch APO N 360mm, APO Ronar MC 300mm, APO Ronar 480mm APO Nikkor 610mm and many more on a house with a distance of 500 meters with very tiny mosaic stones on the hole surface!
How did you do the test with the test chart 5 meters away or what!
Thats very the S is better!

 

[Ole]

BTW, I "tested" my 240 Symmar by shooting the view from my cabin. As long as I could count the 16 subdivisions of each window of a farmhouse 8km (5 miles) distant by examining the negative (MACO UP100+, 18x24cm, in an ancient plate camera), I concluded that the lens is sharp enough for me.

 

[Scott-Tx]

Hi Scott
How did you do the test with the test chart 5 meters away or what!
Thats very the S is better!

i test all of my lenses two ways:
1. using a test chart at 50x the focal length
2. in the field taking identical shots. subject must have elements with fine detail close in and at infinity.

i always conduct the tests two or three times to ensure repeatibility.

 

[MattCarey]

I have only used about 10-12 LF lenses, but of those I have used and own 3 G-Claron lenses, and IMO they are very very sharp lenses. That includes the 210. I had a rodenstock Sironar 150mm that I always thought was tack sharp until I shot a G-Claron lens. Now I own 3 and thats it. I just wish they made a 90mm lens too.

If I could sidetrack the discussion a bit--

what's a good price range for a G-claron (210mm) with and without shutter?

Thanks,

Matt