210mm lens comparison requested.

[Drew Wiley]

4X5 is not much of a problem per flatness at typical f/16 to f/32 (smaller than that, diffraction starts setting in). But 8x10 film is bigger, and flatness in the holder more an issue, so I always use adhesive holders for color 8x10 film, since I might indeed enlarge a color image up to 30X40. But I never enlarge black and white bigger than 20X24, at least not yet, so just use ordinary holders in that case.

The Sinonar S graphs depict its superior tangential performance at larger apertures, maybe f/16 or larger. But I seriously doubt that it will outperform a number of other lenses at more typical apertures like f/22 or f/32. And it's intended to compete in the brighter f/5.6 max aperture arena, whereas it's easier to highly correct lenses limited to f/9 or so maximum.

Gosh, I enlarged some 8X10 work the past few weeks (both CN originals and contact color internegs from masked 8X10 chromes) which rival contact print quality, despite being enlarged. Things like Fuji A taking lenses, Apo Nikkor graphics lenses for enlargement, Fujiflex Supergloss as the print medium - it all adds up.

But there are other times I don't want that extreme edginess; and that's why I also still keep on hand more conventional enlarging lenses as well, along with certain less clinical taking lenses. In fact, a couple days ago, besides the 8X10, I took along my Nikon too, notably with an old single-coated Ai'd lens for sake of a little less contrast. But anything 35mm gets enlarged onto little 8X10 or 10X12 cutoffs, or basically, test strip leftovers, from my big 30-inch Fujiflex roll. The color itself comes out amazing. But certainly not every image is suitable for a high gloss representation. Those that are - wow!

[Keith Tapscott.]

Thanks for all your replies.
I have just bought my first 5x7 camera, a Gundlach Korona with Fidelity Elite sheet film holders and two lenses.
One is a Dallmeyer Perfac f6.3 12 inch lens and the other one is a 210mm Sironar-N MC lens.
I will try it with some Ilford positive paper first to see how I get on with it before committing to film.

[Mark J]

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.

Drew, this reminds me that you hinted elsewhere that there was a point at which Schneider improved their manufacturing quality, was there a rough date on this ?

[John Layton]

Keith, my guess is that, as long as the optics are clean and clear, and the shutter seems smooth and accurate...you'll be more than happy with that 210mm Sironar-N MC lens. About the only possibility that I can think of otherwise is that there might be a spacer (installed at the factory to account for any possible deviations in performance specifications) which has gotten lost somewhere during the lens' history. Such a spacer (both of my 210's have these) would be located behind the front element group - and seeing as there is no need to unscrew this front group for any reason other than to service the shutter, a spacer (assuming it was there from the beginning) will generally be present.

[Drew Bedo]

Re Filter sizes:

yerasrs ago, I was faced with several different filter sizes and several wallet folders in my bag. /Then tok the plunge and bought a set of 72mm filters new and scrounged for used rings to step-up my three most used lenses to that thread size.

Everyone got a new UV/haze filter for routine protection too.

There may be a reason to not do this, but like Bart Simpson, " . . .I'm sticking to it . . .".