210mm Macro and 240mm Caltar

[jetcode]

I have these lens in my kit and am wondering if the Caltar is even necessary. The macro is optimized for 1:3 while the Caltar is likely optimized for 1:20. Can the macro effectively replace the Caltar in landscape work at infinity? The macro appears to be quite sharp at infinity.

[Greg Lockrey]

Yeah, sell the Caltar.

[jetcode]

Yeah, sell the Caltar.

Thanks Greg. By the way I like your watercolors. I collect original art in the $250 range and you have a piece on your website that caught my eye and was in this price range. Unfortunately I'm not collecting at the moment and probably won't be for several years.

[Greg Lockrey]

Thanks Greg. By the way I like your watercolors. I collect original art in the $250 range and you have a piece on your website that caught my eye and was in this price range. Unfortunately I'm not collecting at the moment and probably won't be for several years.

Well thank you for looking. I do sell prints :) And everytime I sell a print, the original goes up that much more. Some of them I need to update.;)

[jetcode]

Well thank you for looking. I do sell prints :) And everytime I sell a print, the original goes up that much more. Some of them I need to update.;)

I prefer originals to prints. I have made a lot of investments lately.

[Greg Lockrey]

I prefer originals to prints. I have made a lot of investments lately.

As I tell my clients as the come to my studio..."everything is for sale". :)

The wife and I watch "Antique Road Show" and one time there was a lady who had "original mechanicals" for poster art made during the 30's. They guy told her that the posters were worth more. Just a thought.

[Brian K]

I have these lens in my kit and am wondering if the Caltar is even necessary. The macro is optimized for 1:3 while the Caltar is likely optimized for 1:20. Can the macro effectively replace the Caltar in landscape work at infinity? The macro appears to be quite sharp at infinity.

Well the best way to determine this is to shoot test film at a smaller repro ratio or infinity with both lenses side by side and examine the neg under high mag or make carefully focused enlargements. I have tested my 180 macro sironar versus my 180 sironar-s, my 300 macro sironar versus my 300 APO Ronar and have found that the macro lenses do not do as well.

[Greg Lockrey]

Well the best way to determine this is to shoot test film at a smaller repro ratio or infinity with both lenses side by side and examine the neg under high mag or make carefully focused enlargements. I have tested my 180 macro sironar versus my 180 sironar-s, my 300 macro sironar versus my 300 APO Ronar and have found that the macro lenses do not do as well.

I always thought that it was more of an issue of field flattening. Where the macros are designed for flat field focus and "normal" lenses focus on a curvature. I just recently purchased a 180 Macro Rodenstock that really snaps at infinity.

[Bob Salomon]

No. The macro will not be as good at infinity and the 240 will not be as good at macro.

[jetcode]

Time to test and see for myself. If the difference is marginal bye bye Caltar.

[Bob Salomon]

Time to test and see for myself. If the difference is marginal bye bye Caltar.

Watch the edges and make sure you have detail at the edges.

[jetcode]

Watch the edges and make sure you have detail at the edges.

Thanks Bob. There has been previous debate about the Ronar's ability to capture infinity. I typically use a 480mm (1:20) when shooting infinity and a 240mm for more intimate quarters however I will heed your advice when testing.

[Brian K]

I always thought that it was more of an issue of field flattening. Where the macros are designed for flat field focus and "normal" lenses focus on a curvature. I just recently purchased a 180 Macro Rodenstock that really snaps at infinity.

Greg I own and tested the 180 Macro Sironar (Sinaron version) side by side with the 180 Sironar-S and at distance focus there was no comparison. The sironar-S was very obviously better. Did you test it side by side with a non-macro 180mm? Also how are you judging the sharpness? By loupe? Print? I use a stereo microscope, view it at the maximum print size I would do, which about 10-12x and then also at 20x and 30x. Negs that look tack sharp with a 4x or 6x loupe can often be soft when viewed under higher magnification. Also when you have lens tests shot at the same time, at the same subject with different lenses you can also more easily see what degree of sharpness is possible.

Regarding the APO Ronar's I use the 240mm, 300mm, 360mm and 480mm APO Ronars (not the barrel versions but the ones made with shutters) and for distance work they are great once you stop down to 16 1/2 to 22. Not a lot of coverage though.

[Greg Lockrey]

Greg I own and tested the 180 Macro Sironar (Sinaron version) side by side with the 180 Sironar-S and at distance focus there was no comparison. The sironar-S was very obviously better. Did you test it side by side with a non-macro 180mm? Also how are you judging the sharpness? By loupe? Print? I use a stereo microscope, view it at the maximum print size I would do, which about 10-12x and then also at 20x and 30x. Negs that look tack sharp with a 4x or 6x loupe can often be soft when viewed under higher magnification. Also when you have lens tests shot at the same time, at the same subject with different lenses you can also more easily see what degree of sharpness is possible.

Regarding the APO Ronar's I use the 240mm, 300mm, 360mm and 480mm APO Ronars (not the barrel versions but the ones made with shutters) and for distance work they are great once you stop down to 16 1/2 to 22. Not a lot of coverage though.

I just recently purchased this lens and haven't done any real scientific testing. I shot a couple of Polaroids and compared (to my 60 year old eyes anyway) with a 210/370mm Schneider Convertable I have it really looked more "snappy". I guess it was more of a "first" impression of looking through the ground glass at my backyard with it. :) Although I didn't put a loop on it to check at the edges on the print. I did do some shots at 5 feet that definitly looked better than the 210mm . Maybe Joe should keep both lenses after all. At least now he has a good excuse. ;)


....I am still looking at the two Polaroids here and I must say that the 180mm does look good at infinity. I'll have to try a negative and enlarge it some. Maybe get a stereo microscope. ;) Been wanting one of those anyway.......

[Brian K]

I just recently purchased this lens and haven't done any real scientific testing. I shot a couple of Polaroids and compared (to my 60 year old eyes anyway) with a 210/370mm Schneider Convertable I have it really looked more "snappy". I guess it was more of a "first" impression of looking through the ground glass at my backyard with it. :) Although I didn't put a loop on it to check at the edges on the print. I did do some shots at 5 feet that definitly looked better than the 210mm . Maybe Joe should keep both lenses after all. At least now he has a good excuse. ;)


....I am still looking at the two Polaroids here and I must say that the 180mm does look good at infinity. I'll have to try a negative and enlarge it some. Maybe get a stereo microscope. ;) Been wanting one of those anyway.......

Greg, judging the sharpness of a lens by looking at a polaroid is not a good method. Even a great lens may look poor on a polaroid because polaroids are not held accurately on the film plane. And even if the polaroid was in the film plane. You need to make an enlarged print from a negative or view a negative under a microscope or at least a high powered loupe.

I have to say though, I wish people would actually back up their comments or recommendations with accurate and knowledgeable information instead of conjecture. People often spend time and money based on comments in these forums and we owe it to them and eachother to be very clear in our statements and to know that those statrements are facts supported by actual experience or testing of the items in question.

[Greg Lockrey]

Greg, judging the sharpness of a lens by looking at a polaroid is not a good method. Even a great lens may look poor on a polaroid because polaroids are not held accurately on the film plane. And even if the polaroid was in the film plane. You need to make an enlarged print from a negative or view a negative under a microscope or at least a high powered loupe.

I have to say though, I wish people would actually back up their comments or recommendations with accurate and knowledgeable information instead of conjecture. People often spend time and money based on comments in these forums and we owe it to them and eachother to be very clear in our statements and to know that those statrements are facts supported by actual experience or testing of the items in question.

You're right of course and I appologize for any misconception. I know that a Polaroid is not a good indicator. But my "first" impression looking at the ground glass when I first looked through this lens at infinity was "impressive". Since he owns both lenses, he can test himself. I would never give up a lens that I already owned, but not everybody is like me. It was just an opinion not intended to do any harm. I took his question as more as a choice between the two lenses and if the macro would be good enough at infinity, I would chose the macro, but then my needs could be different since 90% of what I shoot is in a studio setting and about 10 ft max.

[jetcode]

Greg I own and tested the 180 Macro Sironar (Sinaron version) side by side with the 180 Sironar-S and at distance focus there was no comparison. The sironar-S was very obviously better. Did you test it side by side with a non-macro 180mm? Also how are you judging the sharpness? By loupe? Print? I use a stereo microscope, view it at the maximum print size I would do, which about 10-12x and then also at 20x and 30x. Negs that look tack sharp with a 4x or 6x loupe can often be soft when viewed under higher magnification. Also when you have lens tests shot at the same time, at the same subject with different lenses you can also more easily see what degree of sharpness is possible.

Regarding the APO Ronar's I use the 240mm, 300mm, 360mm and 480mm APO Ronars (not the barrel versions but the ones made with shutters) and for distance work they are great once you stop down to 16 1/2 to 22. Not a lot of coverage though.

Brian,

For what it's worth I am shooting 4x10 and seriously doubt I will print anything larger then 4x-6x period. Most certainly an image 10x (40" x 100") can be a tad soft. To take in an image at this size one must stand back, and at that distance the eye compensates for soft detail viewed up close. A good example is 35mm prints on mall walls. Printed at 72 dpi they are dismal up close but far away can be quite convincing. I can also employ some sharpening if necessary. If tests prove that the sharpness is seriously degraded then I have some criteria to make my decision with.

Joe

[jetcode]

An 8x loupe on the GG tells the story well. These are two lens are very different sets of optics.

[Brian K]

An 8x loupe on the GG tells the story well. These are two lens are very different sets of optics.

No, an 8x loupe on the GG is not how to judge a lens unless the lens appears blatantly soft. First off you are looking through the grain of the acid etching of the GG, or a fresnel. Second you are looking at the lens wide open and not at the typical shooting apertures which are 2-4 stops down. There are no effective short cuts for judging the quality of a lens, besides maybe MTF equipment, than shooting real film, at normal working apertures and making either large prints or viewing the neg under a microscope.

[jetcode]

Brian,

I fully agree with your assessment.

I don't have the 240mm mounted yet and I tried last night but am missing the retainer ring. So I tested the 210mm against the 480mm ronar (1:20). The difference was night and day difference in maginification noted. I focused on a sheet of music from across the room. The 210mm could not focus clearly, the 480mm focused clearly, both wide open.

[Dan Fromm]

Then your 210 has a bad problem.

[Bob Salomon]

Do you have the 210 Rodenstock Macro Sironar? If so are you switching the elements as shown on the rims of the front and rear groups? At 1:1 either group can be in front. But from 1:3 or from 3:1 the groups must be switched as indicated on the rim of the lens groups. Otherwise you will not be happy with the results.

The newer Apo Macro Sironar and the Apo Macro Sironar Digital do not need the groups switched to optimize them for different ratios.

[jetcode]

Do you have the 210 Rodenstock Macro Sironar? If so are you switching the elements as shown on the rims of the front and rear groups? At 1:1 either group can be in front. But from 1:3 or from 3:1 the groups must be switched as indicated on the rim of the lens groups. Otherwise you will not be happy with the results.

The newer Apo Macro Sironar and the Apo Macro Sironar Digital do not need the groups switched to optimize them for different ratios.

Bob I have that lens although it is labeled Sinar. I was using 1:3. The lens is great. I have some image samples in the thread on high end flatbed scanners.