355 G-Claron or 360 Rodenstock APO Sironar N

[Roger Richards]

Hi folks, I am looking for a lens for portraiture on my 8x10 and was wondering about which way was best to go. Of the lenses out there, which would you say is the best performer in the 355-360mm focal length? I am researching on the Schneider 355 G-Claron, the Rodenstock 360 APO Sironar-N and the Nikkor-W 360 6.5---any opinions would be very appreciated.

[Oren Grad]

For me it wouldn't even be a close call - of those three, I'd take the Rodenstock over the other two any time. The G-Claron and Nikkor-W are harsher and less refined both tonally and in rendering of background out-of-focus areas. This latter is especially important if you're going to make environmental portraits rather than studio portraits with a featureless background.

As it happens, the 360 Rodenstock can be found quite inexpensively these days if you watch eBay and have a bit of patience - in addition to being a nicer lens than the G-Claron IMO, it's also now less expensive too. You can save even more if you'll accept the Caltar II-N or Sironar-N labels on the lens rather than insisting on the latest Apo-Sironar-N.

[Christopher Perez]

Oren, might you have any examples of what you describe as harsher and less refined both tonally and in rendering of background out-of-focus areas? I'm very curious to see the effects you describe.

[Roger Richards]

Thanks, Jim and Oren. I have a Rodenstock 240mm APO Sironar-S and the 360 I am looking for would preferably also be an excellent performer at near large apertures. What about the Fuji 360mm performance-wise?

[Oren Grad]

Roger, if you like the 240 Apo-Sironar-S, you're unlikely to go wrong with the 360 N or S. If you want to be really picky about performance at wide apertures, the S will have a slight edge. But you'll pay dearly for it - the 360 S is very scarce used and costs close to $3000 new, while with a bit of patience you should be able to find a clean 360 Sironar-N MC or Caltar II-N for $400-500.

I've not used a Fujinon 360. My experience with other Fujinons is that they also are a bit harder-edged gradation-wise, can sometimes produce smooth bokeh so long as the OOF backgrounds are within a few feet as in a studio, but can become quite obnoxious for my taste as the backgrounds fall away beyond that.

Chris, I know you're skeptical about this. At some point I'll conjure up a side-by-side comparison between an Apo-Sironar type and a G-Claron or some comparably less-nice alternative that will show what I mean, and I'll send you a couple of work prints to look at. It may be a while before I can get to it because I've got lots of other things I need to worry about, but I won't forget. I do respect the "I'm from Missouri" approach, and when I'm able to get around to it I'm sure that comparing notes on our reactions to the same images will clarify things considerably for both of us.

[Scott Rosenberg]

how about a 355 Schneider Gold Dot Dagor? it's one of my absolute favorite lenses on 8x10.

[Roger Richards]

Oren, great detailed advice, I very much appreciate it.

Scott, is the 355 Gold Dot Dagor much different form the 355 G-Claron? Thanks.

[Frank Petronio]

Not to undercut my potential sale, but the 360 Fujinon that I am having a firesale on is really sharp and isn't a bokeh king. In fact, I doubt anything in a five-bladed Copal is a bokeh king, at least if you don't like little hexagons in the background. But it seems as nice as all the Rodenstocks I've had in other sizes.

I am quite happy with the rendering from my 300 Xenar (modern, Copal) used wide open or very slightly stopped. Of course it is better for full length or slightly wide pudgy portraits (like my old Rollei actually).

I would fear the 355/9 lenses would be a stop too slow for comfort.

[Oren Grad]

Roger, I'm sure Scott will respond based on his experience with the 355 Gold Dot. What I can say based on experience with the 355 G-Claron and with late-model Dagors in other focal lengths, is that their character is very different. The Dagors have a very old-fashioned, smooth and silky kind of look at the plane of focus, while the G-Claron is just very plain and a bit crude by comparison. I don't know whether the very late 355 Schneider/Kern Dagor retained that look; perhaps Scott or someone else here with experience can clarify.

I think you need to decide what sort of look you're after. I prefer the ultra-clean Apo-Sironar-N/S look to the schmaltzy Dagor look myself, but plenty of people feel exactly the opposite. Others would rather have a Heliar, or some other classic lens type. Still others don't care about these distinctions.

If someone says "my favorite lens is X", you should ask why - you may or may not be looking for the same thing.

[Roger Richards]

Frank, what are you asking for the Fujinon (hope this is not breaking forum rules)? I think you are right about the small aperture for portrait subjects.

Oren, the info you have provided me tonight has put me on the right track. I prefer a clean-looking background, myself, so one of the modern 360 plasmats might be best to match my 240 Sironar-S.