Sironar or Symmar for field camera

[Neil Grant]

I’m thinking of getting a 210mm f/5.6 for my 4x5 camera and assumed that the brand would be immaterial: SK, Rod or even Nikon. ButI think this may not be quite right. From spec sheets, looks like the Sironar has a smaller diameter rear group so is less likely to foul the bellows. What do you people prefer for your 4x5 field cameras? THanks.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I’m thinking of getting a 210mm f/5.6 for my 4x5 camera and assumed that the brand would be immaterial: SK, Rod or even Nikon. ButI think this may not be quite right. From spec sheets, looks like the Sironar has a smaller diameter rear group so is less likely to foul the bellows. What do you people prefer for your 4x5 field cameras? THanks.

What size lens?

 

[ic-racer]

210mm on a 4x5 camera? The bellows will be pretty well extended on a 4x5 field camera. Seems like the rear elements would need to be pretty large to touch the bellows.

 

[Sharktooth]

They're both excellent. The bigger concerns will be condition and price, since they're most certainly very old.

Although the Sironar and Symmar are both great, they're a bit large and heavy. For a field camera, you might also consider a smaller size lens of the "Tessar" type. They have less covering power, so the movements are limited, but they tend to be smaller and lighter to carry around.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Lightweight wooden field camera here. I really would never even consider a 210mm f/5.6 Plasmat for carrying in the field; too heavy and bulky, My preference are for lighter designs, albeit at the expense of maximum aperture. A few of these are the Nikkor M 200mm, the Schneider G-Claron 210mm, the Fujinon A 180mm, and one of my personal favorites, the Ektar f/7.7 203mm. I'm sure there are others. Even the Fujinon L 210mm Tessar is smaller than the f/5.6 Plasmats. Coverage on 4x5 is no problem with any of these lenses; they all cover 5x7.

If you're interested in building a lightweight kit, consider one of these.

Best,

Doremus

 

[MARTIE]

Odd... I find my Sinaron S 210mm f5.6 quite light and compact especially when compared to the likes of many wide angles which tend to be fairly bulbous by comparison.

 

[P Sanders]

With a Chamonix or Shen Hao 4x5 format, a 210mm f5.6 is just fine concerning coverage and bellows. The Deardorff 4x5 / 5x7 the bellows is substantial and with a 4x5 reducing back you’re good, as 5x7 you may wish to position the front lens board in wide angle mode and check the bellows.

It’s not so much the weight of a single lens, as which other lenses in addition you carry. Some people opt for a range of 90, 150 & 210 mm, others enjoy more of a wide angle grouping with a 75mm while some prefer 135, 180 & 240 or 300mm.

Coverage, weight and aperture may be more of a concern at the extremes, wide angle (coverage and aperture/weight) and long lenses (weight and aperture).

 

[abruzzi]

Schneider G-Claron 210mm, the Fujinon A 180mm, and one of my personal favorites, the Ektar f/7.7 203mm.

ditto on all three, especially the Ektar.

I'm not sure why, but I've ended up with way to many 210mm lenses. Its a useful focal length on 4x5 and the Ektar has always delivered. I'd also add the Xenar 210/6.1 to the list--not quite a small as the Ekatar but smaller and faster than the G-Claron.

 

[xkaes]

As mentioned, most people looking at field cameras want/prefer lighter lenses -- which are easy to find -- but that depends on how much gear you are carrying and how far you plan on going. So depending on that and other factors, a typical 210mm might work for you -- especially if you have other uses for it where you need a lot of movement. I use a Fujinon NW 210mm f5.6. It has a 300mm image circle -- almost 8x10" size!!! It's not the smallest, but not the heaviest either.

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm

 

[Bob Merlin]

What about an older Symmar 210mm f5.6 convertable lens? Since it's convertable, a shorter one might work for you.

 

[Franklee]

You can tell the age from looking at the shutter, the latest would be Copal 1 shutters with black aperture indicator and shutter speed ring. Also if a lens has old glass on a new shutter or versa can be a sign that something unusual happened.

Fujinon is also the equal to or better than the German lenses, don't rule them out.

Schneiders are prone to Schneideritis, the flaking of the interior black paint. This has no effect other than cosmetic but might scare some people off.

 

[Vaughn]

I have a Computar Symmetrigon 210/6.3 that’s quite nice on 4x5, but I use it more on 5x7. Very sharp and contrasty. In a Copal No.1, so not small, but not big. Not very common. Will not cover 8x10.

I am fond of the f5.6 lenses (and their close cousins, the f6.3 and 6.7). Just easier working with that stop or two brighter GG when working in low light conditions — relative to f9 or f11 lenses, which also I have and use.

That ease-of-use in the predominately low light conditions I work in easily makes up for the small weight difference.

I also have a 210mm/6.8 Wollensak Graphic Raptor Wide Field lens. Small, coated, barrel. Covers 8x10 easily and I used it on 8x10 until I got the FujiW 250/6.7. Barrel lenses are a low-weight way to go, but a shutter is worth its weight.

 

[John Wiegerink]

For many years my field camera was an old Bausch Pressman model D and I had several sets of folding bed stops for different focal length lenses. Truth is that a Schneider Symmar-S 135mm f5.6 was on it 99% of the time and coupled to the rangefinder. The only other lens I used was a 100mm f6.3 Ektar and that was just a few times. I now have a Toyo 4X5 and a Chamonix 4X5 with several lenses. I would look very close at Doremus Scudders advice above since he talks from personal experience. Of the lenses he mentions I have the 210mm G-Claron, 203mm Ektar, Fuji 180mm A and the Fuji 210mm L. My "go everywhere" 4X5 Chamonix setup is 100mm f6.3 Wide-Field Ektar, 135mm Symmar-S and 203mm Ektar. Occasionally the 180mm A Fujinon goes along. I've had no problems focusing with the smallish apertures on the 203mm f7.7 and the 100mm f6.3 WF Ektar, but things start going a little dim with the Fujinon 180mm f9 A lens. This makes for a very compact outfit and I have zero complaints about any of the lenses performances. Oh, I have more than several other top notch lenses, but they are not made for "field" cameras and are far too big and heavy for that. I like the 203mm f7.7 lens so much that I just got another one in mint shape, but in a Synchro-Compur shutter instead of the Kodak Supermatic. Now I have a spare 203mm Ektar and it's mounted on the Toyo.

 

[abruzzi]

For many years my field camera was an old Bausch Pressman model D and I had several sets of folding bed stops for different focal length lenses. Truth is that a Schneider Symmar-S 135mm f5.6 was on it 99% of the time and coupled to the rangefinder. The only other lens I used was a 100mm f6.3 Ektar and that was just a few times. I now have a Toyo 4X5 and a Chamonix 4X5 with several lenses. I would look very close at Doremus Scudders advice above since he talks from personal experience. Of the lenses he mentions I have the 210mm G-Claron, 203mm Ektar, Fuji 180mm A and the Fuji 210mm L. My "go everywhere" 4X5 Chamonix setup is 100mm f6.3 Wide-Field Ektar, 135mm Symmar-S and 203mm Ektar. Occasionally the 180mm A Fujinon goes along. I've had no problems focusing with the smallish apertures on the 203mm f7.7 and the 100mm f6.3 WF Ektar, but things start going a little dim with the Fujinon 180mm f9 A lens. This makes for a very compact outfit and I have zero complaints about any of the lenses performances. Oh, I have more than several other top notch lenses, but they are not made for "field" cameras and are far too big and heavy for that. I like the 203mm f7.7 lens so much that I just got another one in mint shape, but in a Synchro-Compur shutter instead of the Kodak Supermatic. Now I have a spare 203mm Ektar and it's mounted on the Toyo.

Not really realizing, I got my 203mm Ektar from KEH "as-is" for $50 in a non-working Syncro Compur shutter. I didn't even realize at the time that there was a supermatic version. I swapped the elements into a newer Copal that I had with lens elements with significant separation (it was a 210, and I forget model.) I checked and the aperture markings were very close so I didn't change them. So now I have a 203mm Ektar in an all black copal 1 shutter. Supposedly there was a rare version that fits in a Copal 0 shutter, which I'd love to find for size reasons. Somehow it still maintains ƒ7.7.

When I'm going ultralight I usually match that with a 150mm ƒ5.6 Xenar and a Fujinon CM-W 105mm ƒ5.6, which has enough circle for a small amount of movements.

 

[loccdor]

What lightweight tripods and camera bodies are you using that the lens takes up a significant portion of the weight?

 

[Sharktooth]

It's not only a weight issue. With field cameras, you'll almost certainly want a lens that can remain on the camera while it's folded up. This will vary with the specific field camera, but the smaller the lens, the more likely it will be able to stay on the camera. It's nice to have something already on the camera ready to go.

 

[Vaughn]

Good point. And if one is going very lightweight, why more than one lens?

My 4x5 camera weighs slightly less than a kilo…1.1 kg with the 150/5.6 plasmat on it. Being tall , my pod is the heaviest item, then the 5 or 6 film holders.

 

[blee1996]

Just reading OP's question, is OP worried about bigger rear elements that might foul up the bellows when the camera is fully folded? Can OP specify which 4x5 camera he has so we might be able to assess? As an example, I can mount a 150/4.5 Xenar on the Linhof Tech V folded, but not some of the modern larger 210/5.6 plasmats.

 

[John Wiegerink]

The weight factor for me isn't an issue as far as carrying goes. It's more of an issue of how much weight I hang on the end of the camera. While I really like my Chamonix 4X5 it's not the most heavy duty camera made. If you take a lens of 210mm or longer, which require more bellows draw to get to infinity and stick it on the end of the Chamonix camera it shouldn't be overly heavy in my opinion. My Toyo can handle more, but I still rather go on the lighter smaller side myself.
I guess we have wandered from the OP's question some. So, back to Sironar or Symmar? Either one is topnotch, but my preference between the two is the Symmar-S and it's because I've had more experience with Schneider glass than Rodenstock glass. So, take my opinion with a grain of salt.

 

[xkaes]

Yikes! To each his own, but I can't remember ever using a 4x5" without having at least three lenses to choose from. Usually more than that -- even if I know what the subject is.

 

[thomasossi]

What about an older Symmar 210mm f5.6 convertable lens? Since it's convertable, a shorter one might work for you.

Ive got this setup and absolutely love it. I got mine for FREE with a "bad shutter" which just turned out to need some lubrication in the low speed escapement. I like it so much I sold my 90MM since I only carry 2 lenses at a time and found that the 90 was just sitting on the shelf. It's plenty sharp as a 210 and the convertible is a great long lens. If you're worried about bellows length, both work great on my intrepid 4x5, which is fairly short in terms of bellows reach.

 

[reddesert]

Typically, the newer versions of the plasmat lines got wider coverage and bigger and heavier. So a Symmar is smaller than a Symmar-S, which is smaller than a Super-Symmar. A Sironar is smaller than a Sironar-N. The filter thread size usually gives a good idea of the relative bulk of the lens.

Sometimes there are issues with a rear element that doesn't fit through the front standard hole behind the lensboard, but I wouldn't expect that for an older 210/5.6 plasmat and a typical 4x5 camera. (More likely with newer bigger lenses, and smaller cameras.)

Generally, I don't think a field camera will fold up with a 210/5.6 plasmat attached. However, if you are taking more than one lens, you could fold it up with the smaller lens.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

What lightweight tripods and camera bodies are you using that the lens takes up a significant portion of the weight?

My field/hiking kit consists of a Wista DX (3.3 lbs) and three-four lightweight lenses. If I'm really going light, it's the 100mm f/6.3 WF Ektar, a 135mm Nikkor W (Plasmat design), the 203mm f/7.7 Ektar and maybe a Nikkor M 300mm. All of these are adapted to take 52mm filters, of which I carry six in a filter wallet. That, meter, Gore-Tex darkcloth, six film holders and notebook weigh in just over 10 lbs. My tripod is a Manfrotto 3205 with a 3025 3D head. The head is kind of a cross between a ball head and a regular pan/tilt head. It has knobs instead of handles. I can loosen all three knobs and move the camera in any axis. Or I can loosen one knob at a time and use it like a pan/tilt head. The tripod weighs in at 3.8 lbs, the 3D head at 1 lb. So the entire kit plus a water bottle is ~15 lbs.

Keep in mind that it's not all about weight. Size is important too, small lenses, a camera body that folds up compactly with a lens mounted, small accessories, etc. all make for a kit that's easy to carry.

Distributed between a waist pack and fly-fishing vest, the weight is evenly distributed allowing me to hike and scramble as needed. My waist pack has a hip belt and shoulder strap. I can release the hip belt and swing the pack to my side on the shoulder strap and work out of it easily. Nothing ever has to touch the ground except the tripod legs

Best,

Doremus

 

[loccdor]

@Doremus Scudder Thanks for the details. I could certainly see how it adds up when you carry that many lenses.

 

[blee1996]

Until the OP @Neil Grant comes back, we might not want to waste too much energy on this thread.