210mm lens comparison requested.

[Keith Tapscott.]

Does anyone know how the Sironar-N lens (non-APO) version compares with the Symmar-S of the same focal length? Coverage, filter sizes etc.

[Dugan]

The first post in the 'sticky' section of this subforum is a wealth of information provided by Dan Fromm.
There are links to manufacturers' catalogs and tech info.
It is a rabbit-hole well worth investigating.

[MartyNL]

Hi Keith, try here;
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/

[Mark J]

As a lens designer, over the years I have spend a barely sensible amount of time looking at performance curves on all the Schneider and Rodenstock lenses from the 1960's onwards.
From when the Symmar-S and Sironar-N lenses were introduced in the 1960's to the present day, there is barely any difference between all variants.
They already used anomalous-dispersion glass in the negative elements from the point of the Symmar-S, so they were already semi-apo in terms of both longitudinal and lateral colour from that point , and I'm not convinced that the 'Apo' designation, when it came in, indicated any meaningful change in the colour correction or MTF.

For this reason I'd been happy to point anyone to a Symmar-S or Sironar-N if it had a good shutter. The coatings have improved a bit, but the Symmar-S is already a very flare-resistant design.

There are differences in the filter sizes, that's worth checking. The colour balance is different between Schneider and Rodenstock, so this matters if you are shooting colour.

[paulbarden]

I'm with Mark on this; there's barely any meaningful difference between the majority of "quality" lenses of the 60's and 70's, etc. I have the 210mm Symmar (not S) and it's fantastic. I have a couple of the older (Pre-Ektar branded) Kodak Anastigmat lenses and those are excellent also. So many excellent lenses were made for decades, and you can get great results using just about any one of them.

[John Layton]

I still have my 210mm Sironar-N MC which I'd purchased (along with a 90mm 6.8 Grandagon-N and 135mm Sironar-N) as a "dealer's special" during my five year retail stint back in the early 1980's. More recently, I acquired a "bucket list" 210mm Apo-Sironar S. While I have not yet done any "scientific" comparisons between these two lenses, my take from what I've been seeing in real-world results is that they are very close to each other in performance.

My motivation for acquiring the Apo Sironar S sprung from the fact that I occasionally print very large (40x60 inch) - and figured that any "improvements" in performance over the older lens might actually be appreciable for such prints...but to be honest, I have, thus far, not seen such a difference. But...as they say - the jury is still out!

[Joseph Kashi]

It's perhaps also worth looking at the somewhat less expensive Fujinon NW 210mm multicoated version (outside, lens-barrel writing) It's bitingly sharp as well. I would put the 210 Fujinon NW on a quite equivalent level with my 180mm MC Sironar N, an excellent lens as well.

[Drew Wiley]

Rodenstock and Fuji updated their manufacture before Schneider did. The Sironar N therefore had improved sharpness and closer to apo performance than the contemporaneous Symmar S line. Neither is truly apo. But let me explain what the real-world difference consists of. It's more subtle. The Symmar S was slightly less contrasty than the hard-sharp new kids on the block, and to my eye, had better background blur or bokeh. That doesn't mean it wasn't sharp. I've got 30X40 Cobachrome prints on my walls done with a 210 Symmar S and even old style 4X5 Ektachrome 64. Nose right up to the glass, sure, later films and later lenses rendered a more clinical sharpness, not to mention my switch to 8X10 film. But nobody walking into a gallery would notice the distinctions I do. For portraiture, I preferred the Symmar S. I eventually replaced it with a Fuji 250/6.7, and then after that, a 250 G Claron and 240 Fuji A - all of them distinctly sharper and better corrected than the Symmar S, lighter too. But if it weren't for the mismatch 77mm filters, having since standardized on either 67 or 52 mm ones, I'd look for another ole Symmar S for those times I covet its particular look again. Overall, no big deal. All of them are excellent lenses.

John, if you're contemplating 40X60 prints, the weak link in the chain is going to be inkjet printing itself. But if they're going to be more laser printed onto RA4 medium, that is really a high expectatioh for 4X5 format regardless of the lens. I'd save your shekels and buy a 240 Fuji A or 250GC as opposed to a 210 Sironar S. Or even a 200 Nikkor M, as long as you aren't using extreme movements. The only serious advantage the Sironar S would have is brighter viewing and optimal performance a bit wider open. Variability in film plane flatness itself, in a typical holder, makes wide stop shooting counterproductive anyway, if optimal detail is needed.

[Mark Sampson]

in the early 1990s, my employer purchased a Schneider Apo-Symmar 135/5.6 as well as a (Rodenstock) Sinar Sinaron 210/5.6. When we put them into action, I was surprised by both lenses' high contrast and color saturation. A noticeable difference from the Symmar-S lenses we already had (and my own Nikkor-W). It wasn't feasible to shoot A-B comparisons, but it was apparent that newer coatings had made a big change in contrast and color saturation.
That of course was/is most important when shooting transparency film for offset reproduction (as was the market for these lenses). Those of us working in black-and-white or color negative (where digital post-processing is the norm now) might find these small but noticeable differences less important.

A side note- we used color negative film on that job, and the most noticeable improvement was when the company introduced the Portra films in 1996. The change from the Vericolor films was obvious to people who knew nothing about photography. Several times, upon delivery of some prints, the reaction went from "thank you" to "Wow! These look great!" We were happy to take the compliments.

[John Layton]

Drew I've been doing 40x60 wet prints (not inkjet) for a number of years now - and yes, I typically use my 210 lenses at around f/32, as a decent compromise - but will also occasionally make a second series at f/22 or even f/16...which is where, if the focussing and film flatness planets happen to align - the Sironar-S really begins to show its stuff.