Sironar or Symmar for field camera

[Vaughn]

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.

I learned to see photographically using a Rolleiflex, so the one-lens idea is second nature for me, but I slowly have branched out into other focal lengths over the past few decades with my larger LF cameras. Spending a month camping in Southern Chile with the 5x7 a few years back, I took two lenses just to have a back-up (180mm and 210mm). I have a Fuji 250/6.7 I’d take now instead of the 210mm.

On a recent 5 week visit to Japan, I took just the 150/5.6 lens for the 4x5, along with the Rollei.

When I began using 4x5 at college (1979) I realized that I had unknowingly been using the Rolleiflex like a view camera… landscapes, tripod, closed down, long exposures and so forth. I was even looking at an image projected onto a ground glass… only a backwards image instead of the upside-down image on the 4x5 ground glass.

So LF and I happen to be an excellent match… YMMD

 

[Patrick Robert James]

With plasmats there will be more difference between the single and multi coated ones than there will be among the different manufacturers.

I don't find the 210/5.6 too heavy but I don't go hiking with my 4x5 either. I have a Fuji and a Boyer Zircon for 210/5.6. I also have a 10 3/4 APO Artar and a 300mm APO Ronar which are both much smaller than the 210s. I think you can get a 210ish process lens like those. They are smaller of course, but they are also basically the same as the Ektar so that would be the small one I would choose if I wanted one.

 

[abruzzi]

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

I have:

Toho FC-45A = 1.1kg or
Toho FC-45mini - 800gr

the tripod is light, but is a no-name.

There are some other ultralight 4x5 cameras I've never used. The Gowland Pocket View is 1.2kg, the Galvin 4x5 is 1.4kg or so.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

John, Chamonix makes extension boards for their cameras except for the 45H1 and 45Hs1. I'm not sure if this product works with your issue. They also have lens supports. But I don't see it in 4x5, only larger.

Accessories — Chamonix View Camera

www.chamonixviewcamera.com

 

[Neil Grant]

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.

..the camera is a Chamonix 45 - but i’m not trying to flat-pack it with a lens fitted. What i found was that mounting a wide angle lens on it required the bellows to carefully persuaded around the rear very large rear cone. I would prefer not to do this and would hope to avoid doing so by careful choice of 210mm lens. I think the diameter should not exceed 75mm. The responses have got me thinking about the low mass option and maybe should consider the Rodenstock Geronar 210mm. THanks everyone for the help.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

..the camera is a Chamonix 45 - but i’m not trying to flat-pack it with a lens fitted. What i found was that mounting a wide angle lens on it required the bellows to carefully persuaded around the rear very large rear cone. I would prefer not to do this and would hope to avoid doing so by careful choice of 210mm lens. I think the diameter should not exceed 75mm. The responses have got me thinking about the low mass option and maybe should consider the Rodenstock Geronar 210mm. THanks everyone for the help.

Neil, Chamonix has bellows for larger lenses to give you more room for the back of the lens portion. Their bellows come in three sizes: standard, universal (a little wider) and wide angle, the widest, but with less draw. My 45H1 came with the universal when ordered. Which one do you have? Replacing the bellows might resolve your issue.

Bellows — Chamonix View Camera

These are pictures of the universal bellows and wide angle bellows for Chamonix 4X5 cameras. They are used in all our 45 camera models. The universal bellows is designed to be used for both wide angle and long lenses. Our 45 wide angle bellows has a max draw of 200mm and a min bellows draw of 50mm

www.chamonixviewcamera.com

 

[John Wiegerink]

John, Chamonix makes extension boards for their cameras except for the 45H1 and 45Hs1. I'm not sure if this product works with your issue. They also have lens supports. But I don't see it in 4x5, only larger.

Accessories — Chamonix View Camera

www.chamonixviewcamera.com

Alan,
A cone extension of sorts would help, but I'm really all set in the lens department for the Chamonix 45n-2. My concern was with any excessive weight hanging on the front standard. While the Chamonix 45N-2 or 1 is a very good solid camera I wouldn't really call it heavy duty so to speak. That's why I've chosen the lightest possible lenses that have very acceptable image quality. Acceptable to me at least and that's all that counts. I have heavier lenses, but they go on the Toyo or my monorail 4X5 view camera.

 

[Sharktooth]

..the camera is a Chamonix 45 - but i’m not trying to flat-pack it with a lens fitted. What i found was that mounting a wide angle lens on it required the bellows to carefully persuaded around the rear very large rear cone. I would prefer not to do this and would hope to avoid doing so by careful choice of 210mm lens. I think the diameter should not exceed 75mm. The responses have got me thinking about the low mass option and maybe should consider the Rodenstock Geronar 210mm. THanks everyone for the help.

It seems like you're trying to mount the lens with the front standard in an extreme rise position. That's the only way that a rear lens element could be interfering with the bellows.

If the front standard is at the zero rise/fall position, the bellows opening will always be larger than the opening in the front standard for the lens, otherwise you couldn't fit the lens through the opening in the front standard.

I suspect that you're trying to mount your lens while the bellows is in the collapsed position, and the front standard is at or near its top rise position. In that case, the bellows might interfere with the back of the lens, but there's no reason to mount the lens this way. Instead, pull the front standard out to the normal infinity position, make sure the front standard is at the zero rise position, and then mount the lens.

 

[reddesert]

The rear cell of many wide angle lenses like a 90mm Super Angulon, might be as wide or wider than the rear cell of an 210/5.6 plasmat. This is especially true if you compare the later, faster, wider coverage wide angle lenses, like a 90/5.6, to an older plasmat, like a 210mm/5.6 Symmar (not Super Symmar etc). It really should not be a problem putting a 210 Symmar or Sironar on a field camera, although the 210 Geronar could be a good choice if you don't want the weight and bulk.

One doesn't need the biggest largest coverage lenses for a 4x5 field camera, it is unlikely one would use the movements that a 90/5.6 or that a 210 Super-duper Symmar allows.

 

[John Wiegerink]

The rear cell of many wide angle lenses like a 90mm Super Angulon, might be as wide or wider than the rear cell of an 210/5.6 plasmat. This is especially true if you compare the later, faster, wider coverage wide angle lenses, like a 90/5.6, to an older plasmat, like a 210mm/5.6 Symmar (not Super Symmar etc). It really should not be a problem putting a 210 Symmar or Sironar on a field camera, although the 210 Geronar could be a good choice if you don't want the weight and bulk.

One doesn't need the biggest largest coverage lenses for a 4x5 field camera, it is unlikely one would use the movements that a 90/5.6 or that a 210 Super-duper Symmar allows.

Exactly! I very seldom make a contortionist out of my 45N-2. Rise and front tilt is used the most on my camera, but it's nice to be able to adjust for just about everything. If I want more movements I haul out the Monorail 4X5, but for most everything else I photograph the Toyo and 45N-2 work just perfect.