How to choose a lens?

[MIke Sherck]

In researching specifications and comments about modern 210mm lenses for 4x5, I'll be darned if I can see much of a difference between them. They all seem like they would be fine lenses. I live too far from retail stores carrying LF gear to be able to rent them and try them out, and I'm not wealthy enough to buy one of each. They are all available from highly rated vendors offering return privileges, and generally cost about the same. How do I chose between them? Cost alone? Pick one at random?

Note that I'm specifically referring to newish modern lenses such as the Rodenstock Sironar-N, Nikon-W, Fuji, and (of course) Schneider, to use as a "normal" lens on my 4x5 for landscapes and such-like general photography. I shoot a lot of B&W, perhaps 10% color negative, and enlarge moderately (to 16x20, tops.)

In general, once you find several competing lenses meeting your criteria, how do you chose which one to buy?

Thanks!

Mike

[James Phillips]

I do not believe that there is an answer to this question... only opinions. I own all of the name brands that you mentioned (not the 210mm format though) and have been very happy with each lens.

If I was going new, my opinion would be a Schneider. No specific reason except that I like mine best for sharpness, contrast and color rendition (color rendition is strictly my opinion and quite subjective in nature). Second on my list (without much difference) is my Rodenstock. Nikkor and Fujinon picking up the last two spots. If I was buying used, I would let the condition of the individual lens and the price dictate my choice.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Kind Regards,

[John Cook]

We all have our personal favorites, but I really don’t think there is a meaningful difference in quality among the brands you mention.

When I was running around the studios of Hollywood in the 1960's, everyone had Schneider lenses and a Spectra Combi 500 meter. So of course that’s what I got too. I also rubbed dirt on my gadget bag so I wouldn’t look like such a newbie.

Absolutely nothing wrong with Rodenstock other than their weaker marketing which made them less popular. Fuji hadn’t come on the scene yet.

Over the years, I discovered Nikkor lenses which are of absolutely superb quality. Other secondary benefits: the M lenses are cheaper, smaller, lighter, but just as sharp as the W lenses. Wonderful choices for field work. Several M lenses and shorter W lenses share the same 52mm front filter size. Wide lenses are notoriously difficult to focus, and the SW 90mm f4.5 is the brightest thing around.

Check out the directly-imported Nikkor lenses on the B&H website for an even better deal.

[Mike Troxell]

I used to only use Schneider lens on my cameras. I still have a Schneider 210 that I love to use. But earlier this year I was talked into buying a Fuji C 300 lens when I was looking for something which was longer for 4x5 but would also cover 8x10. The Fuji is just as good as the Schneider as far as I can tell. Plus its about half the weight. There may be differences in bench test but I can't tell a difference between a good Schneider, Fuji or Nikkor when taking pictures.

[Ernest Purdum]

If you do work requiring much use of movements, coverage would be a major factor. If you are a backpacker, weight may be very important to you. Some people have more difficulty focusing small aperture lenses than others. These are personalk matters and are important, but the nice thing is that you can't really go too far wrong with any modern lens from the brands you mention.

[John Kasaian]

All things being equal, such as lightness, compactness, coverage, and price, IMHO they're all great examples of modern optics. If I were going to stress over which one to buy, theres no substitute for just taking one out and seeing how you like it. Since you've specifically mentioned late model lenses that are probably available used, why not contact someplace like Midwest Photo Exchange that has a large inventory and a liberal exchange policy, try them out and come to your own conclusions. Spec sheets are useful, but only up to a point. Let your own preferences guide you.----------Good Luck!

[Ted Harris]

I'll stay out of the which brand to buy discussion <smile> but chime in with comments on where and what to buy.



If you feekl an absolute need to buy new then check with Badger, they are easy to dal with and sane about returns and exchanges. If used but like new will work for you then check with Midwest as recommended earlier. Talk with Jim, he is their LF expert. They will give you a reasonable length of time to try out the lens and will not hassle you about returning or exchanging it of you are not satisfied (I once dithered over a lens for 90 days before I decided ti keep it).



One small comment on the four major brands. I have run a side-by-side very unscientific real life shooting comparison of the Apo Symmar, Apo Sironar-N and Nikkor W lenses. Abolutely no descernible difference in the Shcneider and Rodenstock offerings from a Polaroid T54. The Nikkor was the equal in sharponess but was jsut a tad less contrasty, had to stop it half to one stop to get the same contrast.

[Ken Lee]

"...once you find several competing lenses meeting your criteria, how do you chose which one to buy?"

Price, availability, lens size, shutter size, filter size, condition, weight, circle of coverage, coating type

[Frank Petronio]

I keep buying lenses and haven't disappointed by any modern, mainstream ones. I really only see problems with a few of the older ones I've gotten, and mostly they are either blurry at the edges or not as contrasty as modern lens.

That said, I developed a loyalty to Rodenstock, for no particular reason. I never liked Schneiders after seeing the "Schneideritis" (flaking paint inside the lens) from their earlier lenses.

[David Karp]

Mike,

If you are only considering the standard 210mm f/5.6 choices, and plan on doing mostly landscape work, you might want to consider the Rodenstock APO-Sironar-N, because (based on the specs) it is the lightest of the bunch, and uses the smallest filters (58mm). You might also consider the Caltar II-N from Calumet, which is manufactured by Rodenstock and is identical to the APO-Sironar-N.

Other choices in the 210mm range that might be appropriate for landscape work are lighter, and even smaller than the APO-Sironar-N. The Nikkor M 200mm f/8 is a Tessar type design in a Copal NO. 0 shutter, reputedly very sharp and a great lens for landscape photographers. It weighs less than 1/2 pound and uses 52mm filters. The 210mm f/9 Schneider G-Claron and 210mm f/6.1 Schneider Xenar (another Tessar type design) are also potential candidates. The Rodenstock 210mm f/6.8 Geronar and Caltar II-E (a triplet design) is also quite lightweight. All of these lenses have a smaller maximum aperture, and smaller image circles than the lenses you listed in your post.

I have a Caltar II-E. The results with it are surprisingly good for such a simple design. However, if I was buying something in this focal length today for landscape photography I would seriously consider a 200mm Nikkor M, especially if I could find one used (probably a tough task), even though I believe it has the smalles image circle of the 200-210mm lenses. I have the 300mm version and like it very much.

Lens choice is a very individual decision. From everything I have heard and read, you are right, the performance difference between the standard 210s from the big four manufacturers is negligible.

I also recommend buying used and second Jim at Midwest Photo Exchange as a great source. I owned used lenses purchased from him at reasonable prices that look like they were never touched.