240mm lens for 8x10"

[Tim V]

Thanks all for your replies, I've got a lot to think about. The thing that confuses me is that there are often many versions of a lens, with different specs, markings, etc. I read one thing and think, "Awesome, I'll look into that lens," then discover some small difference between models mentioned somewhere that makes me wonder what the hell I'm looking at...

So, do I take it from this thread that there's no love for the APO-Symmar or APO-Sironar N 72º?

[Drew Wiley]

There never was a 240 G-Claron either. It's actually 238.1, Mr. Nitpicky. I've only taken a thousand or so shots with the damn thing, so what do I know? Of course, I made sure to use a special matching Schneider loupe adjusted exactly 10.8 mm off, so that it focuses perfectly whenever I call it a 250 lens.��

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, you'll snag me on a minor math error, but that's to allow for the shim material on the base of the loupe.

[Tim V]

Is there a version of the G-Claron to look out for, with better IC etc?

[Drew Wiley]

Tim, I doubt anyone is looking down on either a Symmar or Sironar dubiously labeled Apo for marketing reasons. But they are big heavy studio plasmats in no.3 shutters, so don't appeal to outdoor shooters. And you need serious front standard support for heavy lenses. Even older 250 Symmar S lenses will work nicely on 8X10. True apo is another question and likely overkill; but the Fuji A would come closest. And somebody is probably willing to spend a ton of money on a late Sironar S. But will anyone ever notice the difference in a print? Actually, there isn't a Sironar N in 250 either - it's actually 231 mm, so everyone who owns one should be refunded for 19mm !

[Oren Grad]

So, do I take it from this thread that there's no love for the APO-Symmar or APO-Sironar N 72º?

Tim, over the years I've used many of the lens series that have been mentioned in this thread, several in 240 or 250 focal length while others in different FLs. G-Claron, Apo-Sironar-N/S/W, Apo-Symmar, Dagor, Docter Germinar W, Computar, Wide Field Ektar, Fujinon W - been there, done all of those.

My favorites of the lot are the Apo-Sironar-S and, secondarily, the Apo-Sironar-N; I just prefer the way they draw compared to the others. But I hasten to add that taste in drawing style is purely a subjective thing; you'll develop your own preferences as you gain experience with different lenses. The 240 Apo-Sironar-N is a fine lens and if I were on a tight budget I'd be happy with it, but when I was buying ~20 years ago I spent the extra for the Apo-Sironar-S - for my taste and my purposes the extra coverage makes a meaningful difference on 8x10 in the field. Yes, unfortunately it tends to be pretty pricey these days compared to what the 70-degree and 72-degree plasmats are going for.

I do still occasionally use some lenses other than the Rodenstocks - G-Claron, Computar, Docter Germinar W, Apo-Symmar - for specific purposes.

I'm not sure the long list of personal preferences that have been shared in this thread does you much good in narrowing down your choice. These are all optically competent lenses that can be used to make excellent pictures. My strongest advice would be just to buy something you can afford and are willing to carry, and have at it.

[Tim V]

Great, thanks Oren, I appreciate the sage advise.

I guess what confused me is Rodenstock's own spec sheet which says they recommend the APO-Sironar N lens for 5x7", not 8x10". I guess that's because the IC is well suited for big movements with 5x7", and more limited on 8x10". I suppose also I'm used to what would be considered in the world of 8x10" to be pretty extreme movements.

It's good to know that others use these lenses and are happy.

Is the APO-Symmar a little more clinical than the APO Sironar N?

THanks again,

Tim

[Drew Wiley]

The Germans tend to be hyper-conservative about product performance claims, even with woodworking equipment. The G-Claron spec sheet is so ridiculously conservative that probably nobody here who actually uses those lenses would take those IC specs seriously. "Rendering" is a more fluid concept. Right now I'm sitting beside several 30x40 framed Ciba prints on the wall taken with a Symmar S. My newer lenses are indeed sharper and more contrast, but I do love the gentler rendering of the ole Symmar.

[Oren Grad]

I guess what confused me is Rodenstock's own spec sheet which says they recommend the APO-Sironar N lens for 5x7", not 8x10". I guess that's because the IC is well suited for big movements with 5x7", and more limited on 8x10".

Yes, they're being conservative. The Apo-Sironar-N is definitely usable on 8x10, but if you're committed to a working style that routinely needs lots of movement on a lens with that wide a field of view on 8x10, the 72-degree plasmats like the Apo-Sironar-N or the Apo-Symmar will pinch a bit. But they're affordable, and a reasonable place to start. You may find that 8x10 is so different from what you're used to that you end up using it differently and developing different requirements than you would have expected from your smaller format experience.

Is the APO-Symmar a little more clinical than the APO Sironar N?

No, to my eye they're both thoroughly modern lenses, crisp and clean looking in the plane of focus. But they render focus transitions and OOF areas somewhat differently.

[Bernice Loui]

Selection of lenses for 8x10 does not really improve until 300mm or 12" focal length. Once at 12" - 300mm focal length the choices for lenses is better, once 19" or 480mm is reached, the choices again become limited by size, bulk, weight, cost.

As previously mentioned, there is a tendency to push specified image circles of a give lens to be used on a format size that is larger than designed or intended. Yes, the lens will illuminate out to the corners, but the image degradation be acceptable? Pushing a lens beyond it's designed image circle of definition could be OK, but not always.

For 8x10 contact prints, pushing the illumination circle of a lens might make zero difference, if the image is enlarged say 10x, then the image degradation might be much more important.

As for lens choices, it is much a matter of individual preference. For some nothing other than a modern lens with it's harder edge look will be acceptable, other gravitate towards a "groovy" personality and look of something like a Dagor or Kodak Ektar or Xenar.

IMO, best way to figure this out is to used the lenses for a long time for images in mind to decide the lens personality that fits best. There is no really correct or non-correct in these choices.

One reality of 8x10 is cost, there is no escaping the cost per sheet for 8x10. Lens choices is just one of the many cost of working with 8x10.


Bernice