Recommendations for 210mm lens

[derekh]

I'm thinking of getting a used 210mm LF lens, but I'm not sure which one I should get. My only critieria is a 67mm filter size, so I can use my existing filters. I'd like to pay less than $400.

 

[Ole]

67mm filter size is HUGE for 210mm - the Xenar f:4.5 and Symmar f:5.6 both use 58mm, and the Symmar-S 77mm. Get a 58mm to 67mm adapter and a $100 lens?

 

[BrianShaw]

Fujinon 250 SF uses 67mm filters. Maybe the same for the "non-SF" Fujinon also?

 

[AZLF]

I bought a Schneider Zenar F-6.1 210 mm off ebay about a year ago for about $200.00. It is in perfect shape. I'm sorry to say I have not used it very much so far but the few shots I have with it are very sharp and the shutter is crisp and accurate. The filter size is 46mm.I use a 46-49 mm adaptor which allows me to share filters with two other cameras in my herd. I watched prices for a few months after I bought this one and the price at that time was remaining fairly steady at around the price I paid.I'm sure there are those who prefer other 210's but I have had no cause for complaint with this one.

 

[JosBurke]

I suggest a step up ring from whatever the lens you buy has threads for --my Fuji 210 has a 58 mm front thread and I too use 67 mm filters as they serve dual purpose with my Hasselblad glass. My Fuji 250 6,7 OTOH has a 67 mm thread but that is a very expensive and rather sought after lens due to it's coverage--same goes for my older single coated 210 Fuji--8x10 coverage----pick your glass and get a step up ring--problem solved!!

 

[Donald Miller]

I have shot the Symmar S 210 mm for over twenty years. It is as sharp as I want it. I sized all of my filters for 77 mm and used step down rings for my other lenses.

 

[haziz]

I'm thinking of getting a used 210mm LF lens, but I'm not sure which one I should get. My only critieria is a 67mm filter size, so I can use my existing filters. I'd like to pay less than $400.

Rodenstock Sironar N or its Caltar (Caltar II N) equivalent uses 67 mm filters and are very sharp. They should be available used in your price range. I believe the more recent (W and CMW) Fujinon 210 and the Nikkor W 210 also use 67 mm filters (I know the Fujinon W 180 does). I am also very happy with the Fujinon W 180. Another fine option would be the Nikkor 200M with a 52-67 step up ring if you insist on 67 mm filters. If getting new filters is an option, you should be able to find 52 filters easily since it is the usual Nikon (and others) size. It is an f8 lens but that is not too much of a problem at this focal length (I am assuming this is for a 4x5, coverage would be tight for 5x7). That lens is very sharp and is quite tiny (small lens+Copal 0 shutter).

Sincerely,

Hany.

 

[Colin Graham]

the nikkor 200 M is excellent if you dont mind a tessar design. Small, in a copal 0 and takes a 52mm filter or stepping ring. Mine's fabulous.

 

[ReallyBigCameras]

These days, $400 will get you a nice multicoated 210mm f5.6 plasmat from one of the "Big Four" (Fujinon, Nikon, Rodenstock or Schneider). For example, Dead Link Removed currently has a 210mm f5.6 Nikkor W in 9+ condition listed on their web site for $375. This is a fairly modern, multicoated lens that takes 67mm filters.

Kerry

 

[jimgalli]

May as well go for the Caltar II-N or Rodenstock Sironar-N (same thing). Certainly one of the best, and comes with 67mm filter ring.

 

[roteague]

I've got a Schneider APO Symmar 210 that I like quite well. It take a 72mm filter. But, I don't think basing your lens choice on filter size is such a good idea. I do what Donald does, buy all my filters at one size (72mm in my case) and just use step down rings.

 

[jbbooks]

I just listed a Nikkor-W 210mm, f5.6 in the classifieds under "cameras and lenses for sale".

 

[derekh]

I've got a Schneider APO Symmar 210 that I like quite well. It take a 72mm filter. But, I don't think basing your lens choice on filter size is such a good idea. I do what Donald does, buy all my filters at one size (72mm in my case) and just use step down rings.

Well, I think it is a reasonable thing to do, considering that I don't want to spend hundreds of $$ on a duplicate set of filters. As I said in my post, I don't have a whole lot of dollars to throw around, and those 72mm filters are pretty expensive.

I'm sure there are plenty of great lenses out there that take 67mm or smaller filters, so I don't feel that this criteria is overly restrictive.

 

[Mark Carstens]

But, I don't think basing your lens choice on filter size is such a good idea. I do what Donald does, buy all my filters at one size (72mm in my case) and just use step down rings.

Second that, but I've standardized to step up to 77mm.

I've got a Schneider APO Symmar 210 that I like quite well.

Second here too, and I have it listed on APUG as we write, but you probably wouldn't want it. It's a daunting $50 over your budget (shipping included). Too bad too. It's so dang sharp, I nearly lost a finger last time I used it.

Good luck with your decision, derek.

Regards,
Mark

 

[robsoe]

I'm thinking of getting a used 210mm LF lens, but I'm not sure which one I should get. My only critieria is a 67mm filter size, so I can use my existing filters. I'd like to pay less than $400.

I recently bought caltar-IIN (=rodenstock apo sironar N) 210mm f5.6 in 10 condition for $299 from a used dealer. It has 67mm filter thread.

 

[roteague]

Second here too, and I have it listed on APUG as we write, but you probably wouldn't want it. It's a daunting $50 over your budget (shipping included). Too bad too. It's so dang sharp, I nearly lost a finger last time I used it.

I paid a lot more for mine that you are asking, and would gladly do it again. It is a great lens, tack sharp.

I once thought that I would standardize on a particular filter size, in my case 72mm. Then I bought a Schneider Symmar XL 80mm 4.5 , which takes an 82mm filter - you want to talk expensive!! The center filter alone is $325. I couldn't afford all the filters I needed when I bought the lens, so I just added them as I could.

Additionally, I recently replaced all my Cokin filters with the equivalent Lee filter - again, very expensive!!!

Why? In one word - quality. It will show up in your images.

You are better off getting the best optics you can, even if you can't afford all the filters right away. Add them as you can afford them, then you will have a great photo set.

 

[Steve Bell]

I recently bought a used near mint Sinaron S 210mm F5.6 MC lens for 175 GBP, and am very happy with it. One reason for buying this as oposed to a Schneider was the smaller 67mm filter, the same as used on my 90mm.

 

[Feral Donkey]

About a year and a half ago I picked up a Schneider Xenar f6.2 used from a camera shop out in Washington State for about $220. That was my first modern lens and it really impressed me. It really showed me for the fist time really what this format is capable of. I've done some of my best work with that lens. If you're covering 4X5 then that might be the way to go. I've done movements as extreme as my Toyo 45CF field camera will let me, granted it's not as much movement as a regular view camera, but I had no loss of clarity or darkness in the corners. I like it because I can close up my camera with it inside.

 

[bobfowler]

Another vote here for the Sironar N. I got mine for less than $300 (used) in perfect condition. Wonderful lens...

 

[matt miller]

My 210 Angulon uses 67mm filters. You could probably find one within your budget.

 

[Richard Kelham]

Another vote for the Nikkor-W 210mm. It is bitingly sharp – as are all the modern aplanat lenses – and, yes, it does take 67mm filters!

 

[Ole]

Another vote for the Nikkor-W 210mm. It is bitingly sharp – as are all the modern aplanat lenses – and, yes, it does take 67mm filters!

I'm not sure what kind of lens construction the Nikkor-W 210mm is, but I'm pretty sure it isn't an aplanat. Plasmat, perhaps?

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Nikkor 210:

 

[Baxter Bradford]

And another fan of the Nikkor 210W adds his vote.

 

[Richard Kelham]

I'm not sure what kind of lens construction the Nikkor-W 210mm is, but I'm pretty sure it isn't an aplanat. Plasmat, perhaps?

Oops! Quite right – shouldn't post past my bedtime!


Richard