210mm Lens for 8x10: Spotters Guide

[ic-racer]

While searching for an 8x10 format 210mm lens to put on a field camera I collected a lot of info from the internet. Most important, I though, was having a picture of the correct lens because many times the descriptions are ambiguous.

I thought these were characteristic pictures, but if they are wrong, please point that out. Also, if you have pictures of some of the others please post them (like Sinaron WS).

Which one did I get?? I found an Angulon in a Copal shutter.

Image circle data comes from this website: http://brucebarrett.com/large_format/LF_Lens_Coverage.html

Synopsis:

Computar F9 = 325mm
Macro Sinaron = 350mm
Sinaron WS = 352mm
Fujinon W = 352mm
Super Symmar HM = 356mm
Schneider Angulon = 362mm
G-Claron WA = 391mm

[ic-racer]

Computar F9

Also Kowa Graphic??

[ic-racer]

Macro Sinaron 210mm f 5.6

No picture

[ic-racer]

Sinaron WS 210mm 5.6

No picture, but perhaps looks close to this 300mm WS lens.

[ic-racer]

Fujinon W 210mm f 5.6

Very important to look for the one with the writing around the lens like the picture. The later version has much less coverage and writing on the outside barrel. Both the older 8x10 lens and the newer 4x5 lens are called Fujinon W 210mm f5.6

The lens in the picture just sold on ebay Japan for a little over $110 US dollars and was mistakenly said to have a 300mm image circle in the description. Someone got a deal!

[ic-racer]

Super Symmar HM 210mm f5.6

Smaller than the current XL lens.

[ic-racer]

Schneider Angulon (not Super Angulon) 210mm f6.8

Pictures of the lens in different shutters.

[ic-racer]

G-Claron WA 210mm f6.3

From the specs, this one has a much bigger circle than the non-WA G-Claron 210mm

[Michael Jones]

G-Claron WA = 391mm
[/LIST]

Not at infinity. I had a 270mm version mounted in a shutter and that puppy could not cover 8x10 if you put a gun to my head.

That lens was designed for repro work and the ic on the charts is for magnifications, not "landscape" or infinity work.

http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/pdf/g_claron_wa.pdf


BTW, don't forget the 210mm Dagor. Its covers 8x10 nicely.


Mike

[Phil Hudson]

Here's my Schneider Super-Angulon 210/8 MC in Copal 3 (500mm plus coverage).....not for a "lightweight" field camera!

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

The 210/9 Computar has an IC closer to about 375mm at f22, and nearly 430mm at f45.

[Ginette]

The 210/9 Computar has an IC closer to about 375mm at f22, and nearly 430mm at f45.

Yes , that is what I think that OP underestimated the Computar.
Do you have the IC of the Kowa-Graphic 210mm at 22 and 45?

[ic-racer]

Not at infinity. I had a 270mm version mounted in a shutter and that puppy could not cover 8x10 if you put a gun to my head.

That lens was designed for repro work and the ic on the charts is for magnifications, not "landscape" or infinity work.

http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/pdf/g_claron_wa.pdf


BTW, don't forget the 210mm Dagor. Its covers 8x10 nicely.


Mike

Thanks for that Schneider link. That also shows an 86 degree coverage for the F11 version of the G-Claron WA 210mm. 86 degrees was used to calculate that 391mm image circle. That document also says 800mm at 1:1, so at infinity that would be about 400mm. Again, I'm just going by stuff posted on the net. I have not owned it, so thanks for sharing your experience!

Do you know the image circle for that nice Dagor for comparison? I did not include a Dagor in the OP because the only two on that link in the OP showed:
210mm f6.8 Goertz Gold Dot Dagor = 294mm
210mm f9 Goertz Red Dot Artar =153mm

[ic-racer]

The 210/9 Computar has an IC closer to about 375mm at f22, and nearly 430mm at f45.
Thanks. I'm was just going by data in that link in the OP.

That list is reproduced on a number of sites across the web. Maybe the 210mm section needs to be updated.

[ic-racer]

Here's my Schneider Super-Angulon 210/8 MC in Copal 3 (500mm plus coverage).....not for a "lightweight" field camera!

Thanks for your picture.

I once almost did a BIN on lens described 210mm Super Angulon on fleabay. Close inspection of the picture showed it to be a 90mm! It was priced like a 90mm also.

[Vick Vickery]

The Ilex (also Calumet) 215mm f/4.8 will also cover 8x10 at infinity.

[Armin Seeholzer]

My Kanica GR II 210 has around 360mm covering power!
Macro Sinaron = 350mm ths is not correct at 1:1 it has 525mm as stated in my brochure from Rodenstock.

Cheers Armin

[Michael Jones]

Thanks for that Schneider link. That also shows an 86 degree coverage for the F11 version of the G-Claron WA 210mm. 86 degrees was used to calculate that 391mm image circle. That document also says 800mm at 1:1, so at infinity that would be about 400mm. Again, I'm just going by stuff posted on the net. I have not owned it, so thanks for sharing your experience!

Do you know the image circle for that nice Dagor for comparison? I did not include a Dagor in the OP because the only two on that link in the OP showed:
210mm f6.8 Goertz Gold Dot Dagor = 294mm
210mm f9 Goertz Red Dot Artar =153mm

When you read the info a bit deeper you will see the 210 WA G Claron IC of 800mm is reached at a distance between the subject and film plane of 855mm and a 400 mm IC is found at approximately 1000 mm. Infinity would be an impossibly small IC, barely covering 4x5. The angle of view and image circle need to be correlated with the reproduction scale of this specialty lens.

I have no idea what the image circle of that Dagor lens is; it covers at f32. I know from use. Gold Dots usually have a smaller IC and covering power than "regular old" Dagors.

Good luck.

Mike

[ic-racer]

When you read the info a bit deeper you will see the 210 WA G Claron IC of 800mm is reached at a distance between the subject and film plane of 855mm and a 400 mm IC is found at approximately 1000 mm. Infinity would be an impossibly small IC, barely covering 4x5. The angle of view and image circle need to be correlated with the reproduction scale of this specialty lens.



I'd like to see the math on that.

If the angle of view is 89 degrees, that does not change with magnification. The image circle I calculated at infinity from that angle of view is 391mm. At 1:1 it would be near 800mm and that agrees with the chart.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

No matter what the math, I can tell you from personal experience that WA G-Claron lenses function very very poorly at infinity.

[Michael Jones]

No matter what the math, I can tell you from personal experience that WA G-Claron lenses function very very poorly at infinity.

That's absolutely correct.

Been there, paid the big bucks to get there, and ended with a stunning door stop. Specs are irrelevant to reality.

Mike

[Paul Ewins]

FWIW, in your photos of the 210/6.8 Angulons the second and third photos are of a lens I bought a couple of months back. Its a 1949 vintage set of cells mounted in a late model Copal 1 shutter and is definitely a custom mount job, right down to the engraved aperture scale. It almost looks like a blending of Copal and Compound, except that the barrels are matt black, not silver as is usual on Compounds.

[Andrew O'Neill]

What about Nikkor 210W? I use it on my 8x10. It has enough image circle to cover 8x10 but no movements. It's compact as I used to use it on tech V.

[ic-racer]

No matter what the math, I can tell you from personal experience that WA G-Claron lenses function very very poorly at infinity.

Ok thats fair. User experience is very important.

[ic-racer]

What about Nikkor 210W? I use it on my 8x10. It has enough image circle to cover 8x10 but no movements. It's compact as I used to use it on tech V.

I agree that just about any of the 210mm lenses for 4x5 cameras that have image circles in the 290 range will just cover. In fact I have two that I use regularly on 8x10 (Symmar-S MC and Topcor 210mm).

For a lens with some movement, I arbitrarily was looking for lenses with a manufacturer specification image circle larger than 350mm.

BTW I got my Angulon 210mm in the mail today. It is nice but no ring. I need to track down a 60mm ring for the older Copal 3 (per SK Grimes site). My other Copal #3 rings are 65mm.

[archer]

Isn't the G Claron WA f11 a four element lens, like the Repro Claron as opposed to the f9 G Claron, which is six elements. I've never heard any complaints about the coverage or sharpness of the six element f9 G Clarons, of which I have three and find them blazingly sharp at infinity.
Denise Libby

[Arne Croell]

Isn't the G Claron WA f11 a four element lens, like the Repro Claron as opposed to the f9 G Claron, which is six elements. I've never heard any complaints about the coverage or sharpness of the six element f9 G Clarons, of which I have three and find them blazingly sharp at infinity.
Denise Libby

Each is four elements, true, but they are completely different constructions. The Repro-Claron is a dialyte like the Apo-Artar, -Ronar etc, with two biconvex lenses on the outside and two biconcave ones next to the aperture. Dialytes are not very sensitive to magnification changes in their performance. The G-Claron WA is a double Gauss type consisting of 4 deeply curved meniscus lenses, similar to the Zeiss Topogon. In contrast to the original Topogon (an aerial lens), the G-Claron WA is corrected for unity magnification, or close to it. Apparently, this type performs poorly outside the magnification range it was designed for.

[Ken Lee]

Macro Sinaron 210mm f 5.6
No picture

I found this photo on eBay.

I purchased one of these (in Sinar DB mount (http://www.sinar.ch/en/products/lenses-large-format/168-sinaron-db-objektive)) recently, and can't stop using it for 5x7 work.

By the way, lenses like this are optimized for 1:1 to 1:3. On 8x10 the subject ranges from 8x10 to... 24x30 inches ! Because the lens will do very nicely at 1:5, one can probably use them for almost anything other than landscape or architecture.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/210MacroSironar.jpg

[ic-racer]

I found this photo on eBay.

I purchased one of these (in Sinar DB mount (http://www.sinar.ch/en/products/lenses-large-format/168-sinaron-db-objektive)) recently, and can't stop using it for 5x7 work.

By the way, lenses like this are optimized for 1:1 to 1:3. On 8x10 the subject ranges from 8x10 to... 24x30 inches ! Because the lens will do very nicely at 1:5, one can probably use them for almost anything other than landscape or architecture.




I actually initially posted that same picture from e-bay, but after reviewing the post I deleted the picture because I realized that one says SIRONAR rather than SINARON as specified in the chart link from the OP. I'm no expert on these names and have never owned a Rodenstock LF lens.


210 5.6 Sinar Macro Sinaron 350mmQuote from chart.

[ic-racer]

With respect to the G-Claron WA lenses. A picture of one that does NOT cover is just as important as a picture of one that DOES cover 8x10.

Jason Greenberg Motamedi, would you have a picture of your lens??

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

It was sold over 10 years ago, so doubt I have an image of the actual lens, but I will look through my archives this weekend.

[Mark Stahlke]

Here are some shots of my Sinaron WS 210/5.6. It's mounted on a 110mm Canham lens board. This lens takes 105mm filters. Just for amusement, I also shot it next to the diminutive Nikkor-M 200/8 on a Technica style lens board. The Nikkor-M doesn't come close to covering 8x10.

[ic-racer]

Here are some shots of my Sinaron WS 210/5.6.

Now we are talking! Fantastic lens. Thanks for posting.

[ic-racer]

I just printed my first images from the Angulon 210mm. Here it is mounted on my Shen Hao. The camera can't out move the lens. Actually the bellows is binding....hmm....how much for the bag bellows...?

[ic-racer]

Here is a picture of the 210mm Kowa Graphic f9. The same lens as the Computar f9, and listed as an image circle of 325mm

The picture is from the "For Sale" forum.

[ic-racer]

Staeble Ultragon, Eskofot Ultragon, and Repromaster, I believe are all the same lens. I saw some internet posts that indicate the 210mm f8 will cover 8x10, but it is not listed in the link to LF lenses in the first post.
(Picture from the "For Sale" forum)

[Fotoguy20d]

Staeble Ultragon, Eskofot Ultragon, and Repromaster, I believe are all the same lens. I saw some internet posts that indicate the 210mm f8 will cover 8x10, but it is not listed in the link to LF lenses in the first post.
(Picture from the "For Sale" forum)

Also supposedly the same as the Agfa Super Intergon 210mm f9. I have one in barrel that I have yet to try (and a 305mm version of the same on the way from fleabay). but should get to this weekend (just picked up a nice piece of baltic birch plywood to cut some lensboards for my 2-D).

Dan

[Oren Grad]

Here are some shots of my Sinaron WS 210/5.6. It's mounted on a 110mm Canham lens board. This lens takes 105mm filters. Just for amusement, I also shot it next to the diminutive Nikkor-M 200/8 on a Technica style lens board. The Nikkor-M doesn't come close to covering 8x10.

Just for the record, since it hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread, the Sinaron WS is essentially the same lens as the Rodenstock Apo-Sironar and Apo-Sironar-W. I say "essentially the same", because there was at least a change in filter mount from 105mm in earlier production to 100mm in later production:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=44725

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi

Now you can see the 210mm Konica GrII ( around 360mm covering power ) on the Sinar board and at the left the 260mm Konica GRII. The last would cover 11x14 I think!
The only drawback is it has not any filtertread!

[Rui Morais de Sousa]

If you look at the photograph on the left side of this post, I am shooting with my Gandolfi Precision and a Rodenstock Apo-Sironar W 5.6 / 210mm (the one with a yellow ring). In that case, I was doing some 13x18 (5x7") on my 8x10 camera with a reducing back, but that lens easily covers 8x10 with movements. Not a lightweight, but great!
If you take a look at my blog, you can see some examples of images shot with it in 8x10". As a matter of fact, it is my widest lens, in the moment, for 8x10 with satisfactory movements. Anyway, I start to believe that my Rodenstock Grandagon 6.8 / 115mm (!)(wich I use as a wide angle for 5x7 with plenty of movements) will be able to (barely) cover 8x10 without any decentration, and closed to f.32 or f.45... I haven't tried it yet, but I want to do it in the next couple of days, as my looking through the four holes in the ground-glass indicate that it could be possible... (remains the IQ question on the borders...).
Nevertheless, the Apo-Sironar W 210mm from Rodenstock remains one of that little talked about GREAT lenses! Absolutely 8x10 capable with very good quality!
Cheers,
Rui
AL-MOST-LY PHOTOGRAPHY (http://ruimoraisdesousa.blogspot.com/)

[ic-racer]

Anyway, I start to believe that my Rodenstock Grandagon 6.8 / 115mm (!)(wich I use as a wide angle for 5x7 with plenty of movements) will be able to (barely) cover 8x10 without any decentration,

I think it will. I recently got a cheap Fuji 125/8 just to play with on the 8x10 (it won't even fit my 4x5 camera) and someone posted that the Grandagon 115mm has an even bigger circle than that Fuji.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=63370

[Photomagica]

Here are a couple of images of the Super Intergon that I mounted in an Ilex #3 Shutter.

The Super Integons, Ultragons etc. as well as the G- Clarons and the Apo-Gerogons were all designed for wide angle process cameras. While they are optimized to work at close to 1:1 they are fine at infinity at small f-stops like f22.

[ic-racer]

Here are a couple of images of the Super Intergon that I mounted in an Ilex #3 Shutter.

The Super Integons, Ultragons etc. as well as the G- Clarons and the Apo-Gerogons were all designed for wide angle process cameras. While they are optimized to work at close to 1:1 they are fine at infinity at small f-stops like f22.

How would you estimate the image circle in use?

300 to 330mm or bigger than 330mm?

[brianam]

Rui -- like you, I also have and use a Grandagon 115 which I picked up for wide angle on 5x7". Its stated image circle is 291mm, so unless that's very conservative I suspect there would be noticeable light fall-off on 8x10 (IC 312mm).

But the Grandagon does have more than ample coverage on 5x7, and recently I've noticed it's also fine as a rather wide angle on whole plate (IC 263mm).
By my math the 115 is about 24mm equivalent on 5x7, and would be 18mm equiv on WP.

[Photomagica]

ic-racer,
I didn't formally measure the coverage of the Super Intergon, however on my 8x10 there was some movement possible according to the ground glass, so the cover age at infinity is more than 300mm.

[ic-racer]

Here is some additional info on the Kowa 210mm f9 from Jim Galli:

"These will cover an honest 410mm"

Here is a picture of his lens in a copal shutter (Jim has this listed now in the For Sale area).

[myoptic]

I just purchased a used 210 6.3 Commercial Astragon (Yamasaki Optical) which allegedly covers 8x10 w/o movements.

[myoptic]

Okay, I took the 210mm Commercial Astragon to a fellow forum member's house today and we were both pleasantly surprised to see that it did cover 8x10 on his Kodak 2D. Some noticeable light falloff, but I also read that this totally disappears around the f16-f22 range. So the lens is a bit obscure but seems to do what it is rumoured to do; be a small coated 210 lens that will cover 8x10 without movements. Double checked it against a 210 5.6 Symmar S, owned by the other forum member, to confirm focal length and focus.

[ic-racer]

Can you post a picture of the lens?

[Jon Wilson]

Okay, I took the 210mm Commercial Astragon to a fellow forum member's house today and we were both pleasantly surprised to see that it did cover 8x10 on his Kodak 2D. Some noticeable light falloff, but I also read that this totally disappears around the f16-f22 range. So the lens is a bit obscure but seems to do what it is rumoured to do; be a small coated 210 lens that will cover 8x10 without movements. Double checked it against a 210 5.6 Symmar S, owned by the other forum member, to confirm focal length and focus.

That is cool to know. I have one of these and have not used it much and definitely have not tried it on my 8x10. I will have to compare it to my 210mm Kowa.

Jon

[rich caramadre]

I have a Komura Commercial 210mm f6.3 lens. I wonder if it's the same the Yamasaki. It came with a kodak 2D 8x10 I got years ago. It was the only lens I used for a long time. It covers 8x10 pretty well. I even used a little bit of front rise and never had any issues. I now use it on my 5x7/4x5 camera. It is way sharp and has plenty of contrast. The best thing is it's size. Copal 1 and I think the filter size it only 49mm. It's actually the smallest lens I own. There is one on ebay right now.

[myoptic]

I have a Komura Commercial 210mm f6.3 lens. I wonder if it's the same the Yamasaki. It came with a kodak 2D 8x10 I got years ago. It was the only lens I used for a long time. It covers 8x10 pretty well. I even used a little bit of front rise and never had any issues. I now use it on my 5x7/4x5 camera. It is way sharp and has plenty of contrast. The best thing is it's size. Copal 1 and I think the filter size it only 49mm. It's actually the smallest lens I own. There is one on ebay right now.

I may be wrong, but I think that the 210/6.3 Commercial Astragon, the 210/6.3 Congo, 210/6.3 Caltar, and the 210/6.3 Komura Commercial may have all been the same lens, especially with Copal No.1 Check this older thread (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-25255.html) and one on APUG (http://www.apug.org/forums/forum44/26776-caltar-210mm-f6-3-info-please.html).

I luckily own a couple 210/6.3 Astragons for portraits on 9x12/4x5. Copal No.1 means it is small enough to mount on a typical 9x12 German LF folder.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_V_XSy7owF9I/TTTvO8src3I/AAAAAAAAISE/AM3z1lYdC1o/Astragon1.jpg

[myoptic]

That is cool to know. I have one of these and have not used it much and definitely have not tried it on my 8x10. I will have to compare it to my 210mm Kowa.
Jon
From what I have read so far, I would expect the Kowa to be of superior sharpness and probably colour fidelity too, but it would be very interesting to have a comparison of the same image/scene taken with both lenses. (hopefully you have one of the higher quality Astragons)

[Dan Fromm]

Well, there's little doubt that the 210/6.3 Astragon was made by Yamasaki Optical who sold the same lens as the 210/6.3 Commercial Congo. After I got a 210/6.3 Astragon I asked Yamasaki about this and they told me that they'd made my lens.

Komura brand lenses were made by Sankyo Optical, not by Yamasaki. Two different companies.

Myoptic, Ilex made a 210/6.3 Commercial Ektar clone that was sold by Calumet. Ilex is a Rochester, NY, company, with no connection to any Japanese manufacturer.

The 210/6.3 Commercial Congo, 210/6.3 Komura, and 210/6.3 Ilex (Calumet) are all tessars, might cover at most (depending on whom you believe) 70 degrees. 294 mm, almost 8x10. But and however, Kodak recommended their 8.5"/6.3 Commercial Ektar for 5x7(see http://www.bnphoto.org/bnphoto/KodakEktarsDB2.htm).

I have trouble believing that clones cover more than the original. It comes down to whether covers means illuminates or puts good image in the corners.

[myoptic]

Thanks for the info and update. I stand corrected.
David

[cyberjunkie]

Another nice Dagor copy:
Boyer Beryl 210mm f/6.8
Fitted on Synchro-Compur No.1 by the manufacturer.

Other lenses with the same design should cover as well.

have fun

CJ

[ic-racer]

Well, someone was giving away a mint 80 degree Fujinon 210mm so I had to buy it (or at least that what I told my wife :) ).

Anyway I want to compare it to the Angouon 210mm. My feeling is that even though the Angulon covers more, the area outside 350 on the Angulon is probably the 'soft' area. So in the long run they may be essentially the same in actual use.

[John NYC]

I am having an impossible time finding a 210 sironar W. So I am wondering about the performance of the symmar HM. Anyone used on of these with slide film? Is a center filter needed?

[Bob Salomon]

210mm Apo Sironar S covers 810 with a bit of movement left over. 316mm circle at f22 @ infinity.

[Bob Salomon]

I am having an impossible time finding a 210 sironar W. So I am wondering about the performance of the symmar HM. Anyone used on of these with slide film? Is a center filter needed?

Perhaps that is because Rodenstock never made a Sironar W.
They made the Apo Sironar in 150, 210 and 300mm and then changed its name to the Apo Sironar W when they introduced the Apo Sironar S line. At the same time they changed the name of the Sironar N MC to the Apo Sironar N.

[Adamphotoman]

Bob does this mean that there are no changes between the Sironar N MC and the Apo Sironar N except for a stripe and the name change?

[Bob Salomon]

Bob does this mean that there are no changes between the Sironar N MC and the Apo Sironar N except for a stripe and the name change?

Absolutely no. Lenses evolve over time. The last production of the Apo Sironar N, before they were discontinued, are different then the first production of the Sironar-N MC and they evolved continuously during that time. Changes were not in formula but in centering, polishing, coating technology, etc.

[John NYC]

Perhaps that is because Rodenstock never made a Sironar W.
They made the Apo Sironar in 150, 210 and 300mm and then changed its name to the Apo Sironar W when they introduced the Apo Sironar S line. At the same time they changed the name of the Sironar N MC to the Apo Sironar N.

I am looking for the APO Sironar W 210mm with the yellow stripe and the 352mm illumination circle. Does that clear it up for you, Bob?

[Bob Salomon]

I am looking for the APO Sironar W 210mm with the yellow stripe and the 352mm illumination circle. Does that clear it up for you, Bob?

Was never in question. Except for the name. The Apo Sironar was the same lens but did not have any stripe. Have you asked Foto Care?

[John NYC]

Was never in question. Except for the name. The Apo Sironar was the same lens but did not have any stripe. Have you asked Foto Care?

I am looking to buy privately, but thanks. If I don't find one, I don't find one.

[Steve Hamley]

John,

You'll find one, but it may take a while. Many of the high end lenses were expensive and not produced in large numbers like the "staples". But one will come along.

Cheers, Steve

[John NYC]

John,

You'll find one, but it may take a while. Many of the high end lenses were expensive and not produced in large numbers like the "staples". But one will come along.

Cheers, Steve

Thanks Steve. That brings up another point, which is what do these go for since none of them are around? I think Kerry Thalmann's went for $1,200 recently. And I am assuming that one was pristine. But one data point is not a very good way to judge market value.

[Steve Hamley]

John,

I think the price will be bounded by its "competition" or rather, similar or somewhat similar lenses. Described pristine 210mm Apo Sironar-S lenses have gone from $650 and routinely sell for around $800, and Jeff Wheeler has one in box on the Quality Camera site for $1,300 that's been there a while. The upper boundary might be considerably less than a used 210mm Super Symmar XL.

I'd hesitate to pay any more than $1,500 for one and I'd have to really want one for that. You'd have to weigh putting this much money into it versus a bit more into the used 210mm SS XL.

Cheers, Steve

[Steve Barber]

I hesitate to post this, for a couple of reasons. nevertheless, I think you should know that the reason I was willing to pay the asking price for Kerry Thalman's 210mm f5.6 APO Sironar was because of who was selling it and the fact that my camera, using a Wisner 51/4 inch lens board is not capable of taking a Schneider 210mm Super-Angulon without having to remove the rear element and then, remove the back of the camera to get access to the back of the front standard through the bellows from the rear . After removing the rear element and mounting the lens board on the front standard, it is then possible to replace the rear element by threading it back on the shutter, reaching up, through the bellows. This is a serious PITA and I tried two ways to avoid having to do it. The first was to acquire a 240mm APO-Sironar-S and, then, due to the difference in focal length, to try using a 210mm APO-Sironar-S. The 210mm APO-Sironar-S barely covers an 8x10 and, so, I began looking for a 210mm f5.6 Sironar or a 210mm f5.6 APO-Sironar-W to replace both the 210mm and 240mm f5.6 APO-Sironar-S lenses.

I looked for a long time until I saw the listing here for the 210mm APO-Sironar and the relative scarcity and the fact that it was replacing two other lenses were the only reasons I was willing to buy the lens at the price at which it was offered. For these reasons and the fact that the lens is in like new condition, I consider the price I paid to be at the very top of the range that ought to be considered in pricing the 210mm f5.6 APO-Sironar or the later AP0-Sironar-W.

[Steve Hamley]

Steve B.,

Your reasoning IMO is impeccable, thanks for posting. To solve a specific problem or eliminate 2 for 1 is exactly why you should pay top dollar for a piece of equipment. You're not buying a "silver bullet" or a lens/camera because someone else liked it.

Cheers, Steve

[John NYC]

I hesitate to post this, for a couple of reasons. nevertheless, I think you should know that the reason I was willing to pay the asking price for Kerry Thalman's 210mm f5.6 APO Sironar was .......

Steve, I really appreciate your sharing that info!

[bwlf]

Image circle data comes from this website: http://brucebarrett.com/large_format/LF_Lens_Coverage.html

Synopsis:

Computar F9 = 325mm


I sent an email to Bruce today and got feedback from him (note that "This table was originally compiled by Michael Gudzinowicz (ab366@osfn.rhilinet.gov)." -- email address no longer valid), please note that I found many references to the 210mm f9 Computar having an image circle (at f/22) of around 460mm instead of 325mm. This website was the only reference to the 325mm measurement I could find, and the source publication was not listed for this entry, however Bruce noted it was the "#2 is a list published in Petersen's in 1984 (list prices)."

mm AP Brand Model Coverage E/G Flange Price Yr
210 9 Computar F9 325 6/4 192 456

Alternative proponents of the ~460mm image circle:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?10255-The-Computar-lens-and-ULF-coverage
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-10255.html
"measurements were made on the ground glass of my 7X17 and 12X20 cameras with the lenses focused at 50 feet and could be off by a few mm"
210mm Computar, 456mm

Kerry L. Thalmann @ 4-Jun-2004, 16:02
The... 460mm for the 210mm focal length are from an article ("Test Report: Semi Wide Lenses for View Cameras") Gordon Hutchings did many years ago for View Camera. I believe that article is also the source of your quote above about Burleigh-Brooks and the lineage of the Computar/Kowa/Kyvytar lenses.
I believe it was in the 1992 - 1994 time frame, possibly Nov/Dec 1993.
sanking @ 4-Jun-2004, 17:32
My god, you were right. The article is in the Nov/Dec 1993 issue.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?113976-Computar-lens-quality
My 210/9 Computar is a great 8x10 lens. I will just cover 11x14 if you remove the hood and the spacer ring
(comment: 11 x14 needs about 450 mm of coverage.)

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?44442-210-for-8x10
Computar f/9 (Copal 1, single-coated, reportedly around 460mm IC)

.... Unless the coverage really is 325mm and everyone was reading this "price = $456" and assuming it was 456mm???
.... The first article had actual manual measurements taken though, "could be off by a few mm." -- hopefully not off by 130mm though!?

[Dan Fromm]

bwlf, the first two links you posted are to the same discussion. It repays reading all the way to the end. Short version, there's a lot of blather and confusion about what coverage means. It ends by concluding that coverages claimed in the first few posts aren't real.

There is a little hard data in it. Post #97 contains four .pdfs of Burleigh Brooks' brochure for f/9 Apo-Computars. This link http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?10255-The-Computar-lens-and-ULF-coverage/page10 goes to the page with post #97. The lenses are plasmat types, claimed coverage is 76 degrees.

[John Kasaian]

While it doesn't look like it using Schneider's specs, a plain Jane 210 G Claron will cover 8x10 with a wee amount of wiggle room. IIRC quite awhile ago Mr. Jim Galli posted some 8x10s taken with the plucky little 210 G Claron, both here and on his website

[Chauncey Walden]

Yes, my 210 G-Claron clears the corners on 8x10 beginning at f/22 but wee is correct.

[Greg]

I settled on an 8 inch f/6.5 TAYLOR-HOBSON WIDE ANGLE ANASTIGMAT Series VIIB. It is listed as covering the 12x10 format at f/16, so at f/16 there is even some room for movement with it on the 8x10 format. When I was looking for a 200-210mm lens for my 8x10, I also wanted top use it on my 11x14. A Grandson-N or a Super Angulon were beyond my wallet and physically just too large. I had considered an Angulon but read in multiple places that some did indeed cover 11x14 and some didn't..."Test before you purchase". After almost 2 years of looking for one, had yet to find one at a reasonable price and one that I could also test before purchasing. I had kept on coming across references to the 8 inch TAYLOR-HOBSON so also pursued finding one. Found one (I believe on the FORUM) a year ago that the seller said that it did indeed cover 11x14 stopped down and it was at a reasonable price so took the plunge. Took an 11x14 test negative and indeed it did actually cover 11x14 on center when stopped down. So had S K Grimes mount it in a Copal No. 3 shutter that I had found at a bargain price years ago. In practice in the field, the optic performs outstanding on my 8x10 allowing a good deal of movement. Again, in practice in the field, the optic (on center) gives me a wonderfully sharp image at f/64 (I contact print, so diffraction not a problem with stoping down this much) on my 11x14. I actually think it's coverage might allow for some movement on my 11x14. One time I mistakenly introduced about 10mm of movement, yet the negative was totally sharp, even in 2 the corners of the negative that record an image (my mistaken 10mm of movement would have affected coverage in those 2 corners). I had considered going the Kowa, Computer, etc. route but kept on finding conflicting coverage measurements posted.