Apparent Sharpness of 210mm Sironar N

[Bernice Loui]

This sheet film LF stuff is NOT like 35mm or Digital. Understand LF view camera lenses were never designed, produced, marketed to or for "hobbyist". These optics made by Fujinon, Schneider, Nikkor, Rodenstock are designed, produced and marketed to folks back in the day when sheet film was a premium image means, this was how working Foto folks kept a roof over their heads, food on their table and applied their skills, creativity, abilities and more to producing commercial images of monetary value. The commercial AD image market had specific demands and requirements were not met, the image maker did not survive. This imposed very specific needs on lens, camera, lighting, film, processing and that entire image making process. Essentially, these folks were not just demanding of lenses and much more that were used, they often understood what their needs are and sought stuff that fit this need. Lens test and all that was often done by the image maker to determine accept or reject.

Essentially opposite to the 35mm still film or Digital market that is a mix of hobbyist to hard working "pros"..

Personally, there is a rather dim view of all those 35mm film & Digital lens test as they do not account for a vast amount of other lens personality traits and the tester IS imposing their opinion upon the Lens Under Test.. with that opinion and value system not being the same as any potential image maker. There have been a number if 35mm film and Digital lenses recently acquired that were "review tested" as poor to unacceptable, yet images made were excellent in every way. Again, it is much about how any given lens is used and what specifics the image maker's needs are.

Do keep in mind these widely published lens reviews or test are designed and done as marketing_PR promotion tools to .... sell more lenses.


Bernice

It's much more difficult to get information about LF lenses than 35mm. The site I mentioned seemed to be the most comprehensive, but in this case only confuses. I'll just keep shooting what I have until (or if) I see a problem. I just thought somebody here might point me in the direction of a clearly superior 210mm. I guess "Don't fix it if it ain't broke" applies.

[Bob Salomon]

It's much more difficult to get information about LF lenses than 35mm. The site I mentioned seemed to be the most comprehensive, but in this case only confuses. I'll just keep shooting what I have until (or if) I see a problem. I just thought somebody here might point me in the direction of a clearly superior 210mm. I guess "Don't fix it if it ain't broke" applies.

The Sironar N was replaced with the Sironar N MC. That was replaced by the Apo Sironar N, if you have the MC version of the N then it is basically as good as the Apo Sironar N.
Both the Apo Sironar S and the Apo Sironar/Apo Sironar W will perform better out to the edges. The W, while much larger and heavier, covers a much larger circle.
If all else is equal, the S is the best lens. Less fall off, less distortion, better color performance and better contrast.

[Jon Middleton]

The Sironar N was replaced with the Sironar N MC. That was replaced by the Apo Sironar N, if you have the MC version of the N then it is basically as good as the Apo Sironar N.
Both the Apo Sironar S and the Apo Sironar/Apo Sironar W will perform better out to the edges. The W, while much larger and heavier, covers a much larger circle.
If all else is equal, the S is the best lens. Less fall off, less distortion, better color performance and better contrast.

Thanks, Bob. And, yes, as mentioned before mine is the MC version. I think it was ~$600 new. I'll admit the test results bugged me as they weren't consistent with what I'm seeing. My uncropped 20x24 prints are very sharp and grain free corner-to-corner. I have a Nikon D850 with a Zeiss 25/1.4 Milvus that I can shoot and compare it to the Nikon 90mm f/8, also the Nikon 70-200/2.8FL I can shoot and compare it to the 210mm Sironar at the same output sizes. Should be a fun exercise. I enjoy the more contemplative approach of the LF but also appreciate the ease of digital.

[ic-racer]

I have never regretted a tripod upgrade. Keep the lens.

[Jon Middleton]

I have never regretted a tripod upgrade. Keep the lens.

I have good tripods, that's not an issue. In fact, I once hiked up to Delicate Arch with my camera and other gear in a backpack and a Zone VI wooden tripod (12# with the Bogen 3047 head) over my shoulder. I also have the Jobu Design Algonquin, not very well known but great quality.

[John Layton]

Have absolutely loved my 210 Sironar-N MC - and have pulled some nice 40x60 wet prints from it. And while I did "upgrade" to a 210 Sironar-S about a year ago (and yes, its a great performer), I also managed to keep the older lens...and will likely never let it go. In fact, as much as I like the S, I think that the N would likely be the last lens that I would ever let go. Difficult to explain...maybe something about having purchased it new (part of a Rodenstock "dealer's special" along with a 90 6.8, and 135 5.6, back around 1984 when I was in the photo-retail biz), and have had such a long history with it.

[Jon Middleton]

Have absolutely loved my 210 Sironar-N MC - and have pulled some nice 40x60 wet prints from it. And while I did "upgrade" to a 210 Sironar-S about a year ago (and yes, its a great performer), I also managed to keep the older lens...and will likely never let it go. In fact, as much as I like the S, I think that the N would likely be the last lens that I would ever let go. Difficult to explain...maybe something about having purchased it new (part of a Rodenstock "dealer's special" along with a 90 6.8, and 135 5.6, back around 1984 when I was in the photo-retail biz), and have had such a long history with it.

Good to hear!