PDA

View Full Version : Apparent Sharpness of 210mm Sironar N



William D. Lester
24-Jun-2004, 11:04
I commonly use a 150mm f5.6 Rodenstock Sironar N lens on my Technika V and I find it provides very high sharpness / acutance? Not long ago, I purchased a used 210mm f5.6 Sironar N which appears cosmetically flawless. I have not conducted any meaningful tests or side by side comparisons yet, but it seems that when I look at negatives made with this lens that they lack the apparent sharpness of the 150mm. Should I expect a 210mm to look as sharp as a 150mm? Is a Rodenstock 210mm f5.6 considered to be a good performer or is there a 'preferred' lens of this focal length?

Ernest Purdum
24-Jun-2004, 12:08
There certainly is no reason that you should be able to see any difference by looking at the negatives. The whole Sironar N line has an excellent reputation. Something is wrong, perhaps not necessarily with the lens itself. Try to think about any other factor which could be influencing the results.

Gem Singer
24-Jun-2004, 12:08
Hi William,

I do not own either of those lenses. But, if I did, I certainly would expect my Rodenstock 210 f5.6 Sironar N to be every bit as sharp as my Rodenstock 150 f5.6 Sironar N.

Both are very acceptable lenses, with good reputations. Of course there are the newer Apo models of the Sironars out there, as well as several other fine 210 lenses made by other manufacturers. However, it would take very extensive testing to determine which one is the sharpest, or, as you call it, the "preferred" lens.

Since you are able to detect a lack of sharpness just by looking at the negatives, you either have a defective lens, or, you are using a cammed rangefinder for focusing, and the rangefinder is not accurate.

Do some careful focusing tests, using a solid tripod. You should be able to pin point the problem.

Jorge Gasteazoro
24-Jun-2004, 13:48
I have a 300 Sironar N and it is very, very sharp. If you dont see the same sharpness with your 210 as with your 150, there must be something wrong.

Leonard Evens
24-Jun-2004, 14:02
I agree with the others. One random thought. For a subject at the same distance, you do get less depth of field with a 210 mm lens than you would with a 150 mm lens. It is remotely possible that you are interpreting that as a lack of sharpness. Also it may be that you have to adjust your focusing technique for the longer lens. The only way to be sure about any of this is to do some careful testing of the lens under controlled conditions. The first thing to try is to take a picture of a detailed flat surface, such as a newspaper taped to a wall. You have to make sure the standards are perfectly parallel and also parallel to the subject plane, and you have to focus very carefully. Do that with both lenses but at different distances from the subject so the images are roughly the same size. If there is anything seriously wrong with the lens, you should see an obvious difference in the two negatives.

In the past I've been misled about lens quality when trying out a new lens because I didn't take into account the fact that things work a bit differently for different focal lengths, but careful testing showed me the source of my problems, which was my technique, and not the lens.

Jim Rice
24-Jun-2004, 17:06
My 210 Sironar N is very sharp. It is my most used lens.

Steve Clark
24-Jun-2004, 20:12
Hi William I had the same 210 for a while and found it to be a good lens, but not a great lens. As I had other lenses that were much more pleasing, it was sent on it`s way with no regrets. It was replaced with a 180 Nikon that I am quite happy with...

Dan_1982
2-Jul-2004, 19:57
I don't have the web site url, but I think it is done by Chrisopher Perez - lens tests. When I was in the market awhile ago for a 210 I checked the tests, and the 210 Sironar N (and maybe even the S) didn't seem to do as well as the Schneider Apo Symmar. Schneider now has an improved version - the "L" version.

However even within the same model there are variations from sample to sample. I once had a Nikkor 210mm and I was not pleased with it's sharpness at anything other than close to infinity. I never tried a Rodenstock nor a Schneider. However as one other person said, depth of field could come into play in comparison to a 150. Also the longer a focal length is, the more correction is needed, generally - ie. it's easier, cheaper to make a sharp 150mm than a 210mm, and easier to make a sharp 210mm than a 300m etc. (esp. chromatic abberations). If you are really picky about getting the best results from table top to infinity, I would look into the Schneider Apo Symmar (or the newest version).

Lloyd Lim
3-Jul-2004, 01:47
I have a Caltar-IIN 240/5.6 which is the Sironar-N and when I first got it, it seemed to be very unsharp compared to another 135/5.6 Sironar-N.

It was only later that I found out that I did not screw the back element in correctly, and hence the element spacing was incorrect. Once I corrected that, the Caltar IIN 240/5.6 has become a very sharp lens!

Try checking on your lens mounting. It might be a "leetel" bit off :)

Øyvind Dahle
3-Jul-2004, 17:27
Eugene Singer wrote: "Of course there are the newer Apo models of the Sironars out there"

I believe Apo-Sironar and Sironar to be the same lens, so they found the formulae to be good enough to put the "apo"-name on it, so your lens should be a good type. The latest is a Apo-Sironar-N, wich is a different design.

Øyvind:D

Bob Salomon
3-Jul-2004, 18:36
"Apo-Sironar and Sironar"

The original Sironar was replaced by the Sironar-N which was replaced by the Sironar-N MC which was replaced by the Apo-Sironar-N, which is the current series.

The Apo Sironar had its' name changed to Apo Sironar-W. Both are no longer made

Also current are the Apo Sironar-S, Apo Macro Sironar, Apo Sironar Digital, Apo Macro Sironar Digital and the Apo Sironar Digital HR.

At no time was the Sironar and the Apo Sironar similar to each other.

Jon Middleton
23-Mar-2022, 18:23
Old thread, I know, but I'm a bit confused about my lens. I bought it new the early 90's, a 210/5.6 Sironar-N MC, Ser #1093XXXX. According to the lens tests on Hevanet, it's kind of a dog:

f/16- 42 42 38

f/22- 34 34 34

However, I have 20x24 prints that are very sharp edge to edge. I'm just getting back into LF and wondering if I should upgrade. If so, to what? Should I believe my lying eyes or the tests?

Bob Salomon
23-Mar-2022, 18:53
Old thread, I know, but I'm a bit confused about my lens. I bought it new the early 90's, a 210/5.6 Sironar-N MC, Ser #1093XXXX. According to the lens tests on Hevanet, it's kind of a dog:

f/16- 42 42 38

f/22- 34 34 34

However, I have 20x24 prints that are very sharp edge to edge. I'm just getting back into LF and wondering if I should upgrade. If so, to what? Should I believe my lying eyes or the tests?
Your eyes. Those tests are subject to so many variables that you can’t rely on them. Plus these lenses are not designed for photographing test charts at close range.

hiend61
24-Mar-2022, 07:32
For years I have used almost all Sironar-N lenses. The whole line of Sironar-N lenses is superb.

Chuck Pere
24-Mar-2022, 08:39
If you believe that more sharpness will improve your images you should definitely upgrade to the Apo Sironar S. I'm staying with my similar era 210 Sironar N but for me sharpness is the least of my image problems.

Bernice Loui
24-Mar-2022, 10:54
Those numbers for the Sironar N found on Havanet are the test results for your specific lens in your ownership since the early 90's ?
Unless your specific Sironar N was tested, those numbers found on Havanet are of far less value than they are perceived to be. Then we get into how these test numbers happened, the test methodology, camera used, film flatness, "test chart"used, film processing, interpretation of what was recorded on film and all related.

~Essentially take these numbers with with less than any nano grain of salt as they are NOT directly representative of YOUR specific Sironar N.

~Ponder why your Sironar N is a "Dog" _?_ Knowing your 20x24 print results have been more than acceptable?

Don't be fooled, higher contrast is not "sharper". What is fact, last generation multi-coated view camera lenses were specifically designed and produced to produce high contrast images driven by the commercial AD market needs. They ~might~ be perceived as sharper than the previous generation of view camera lenses, in actual print making, the difference is often Zilch as sharpness or contrast or other Foto obession will not produce a more expressive or "better" print on this technical aspect alone.

Ponder how this post came about, likely web surfing to scratch the itch of curosity, discover these on-web lens test, looks up the lens that has a proven more than acceptable record of print making, then based on the web-discovered numbers, comes a believe the Sironar N that has served and worked so well over all those years is now perceived to be inferior when in reality and actual print making there is Zero inferior with the Sironar N.

~It is much about perception and want to believe, not the reality of actual print making with your Sironar N over all these decades.

This is an example of how on-web stuff bends the minds of those who chose to believe what they find on the ... web.



Bernice






Old thread, I know, but I'm a bit confused about my lens. I bought it new the early 90's, a 210/5.6 Sironar-N MC, Ser #1093XXXX. According to the lens tests on Hevanet, it's kind of a dog:

f/16- 42 42 38

f/22- 34 34 34

However, I have 20x24 prints that are very sharp edge to edge. I'm just getting back into LF and wondering if I should upgrade. If so, to what? Should I believe my lying eyes or the tests?

Jon Middleton
24-Mar-2022, 11:20
Those numbers for the Sironar N found on Havanet are the test results for your specific lens in your ownership since the early 90's ?
Unless your specific Sironar N was tested, those numbers found on Havanet are of far less value than they are perceived to be. Then we get into how these test numbers happened, the test methodology, camera used, film flatness, "test chart"used, film processing, interpretation of what was recorded on film and all related.

~Essentially take these numbers with with less than any nano grain of salt as they are NOT directly representative of YOUR specific Sironar N.

~Ponder why your Sironar N is a "Dog" _?_ Knowing your 20x24 print results have been more than acceptable?

Don't be fooled, higher contrast is not "sharper". What is fact, last generation multi-coated view camera lenses were specifically designed and produced to produce high contrast images driven by the commercial AD market needs. They ~might~ be perceived as sharper than the previous generation of view camera lenses, in actual print making, the difference is often Zilch as sharpness or contrast or other Foto obession will not produce a more expressive or "better" print on this technical aspect alone.

Ponder how this post came about, likely web surfing to scratch the itch of curosity, discover these on-web lens test, looks up the lens that has a proven more than acceptable record of print making, then based on the web-discovered numbers, comes a believe the Sironar N that has served and worked so well over all those years is now perceived to be inferior when in reality and actual print making there is Zero inferior with the Sironar N.

~It is much about perception and want to believe, not the reality of actual print making with your Sironar N over all these decades.

This is an example of how on-web stuff bends the minds of those who chose to believe what they find on the ... web.



Bernice

I was surprised, and as I said, confused trying to reconcile the test numbers I saw with my own results. The same people also tested my other LF lens, the Nikon 90mm f/8, and the numbers were much better. I trust their methodology was consistent, and I've read nothing but positive remarks about the Nikon, which led me to believe the tests are reliable. Hence my confusion about the Rodenstock test results. I just wondered if there's a significantly better 210mm landscape lens than the Sironar N.

Bernice Loui
24-Mar-2022, 11:28
There is NO test than your own that can decided if any given lens (the specific example being considered-tested) is proper for you and your image making goals.

IMO, discard and remove those test and ideas out of your mind, then ponder what needs to be improved if anything at all.

Fact is, ALL lenses are a set of trade-offs with no such lens as meeting each and every idealized need. That said, what specific aspect of lens performance does the image result want to be moved, trading off other aspects of lens performance? Know you're never going to "get it all".

If the print results have been more than acceptable with the Sironar N all these years, there is nothing to do or changed other than let this impulse go and move on the making more expressive images.

If there is a well understood aspect of the print making goal that is very well defined and understood what will be traded off, then lens shopping can be done with a very specific goal in mind.


Bernice




I was surprised, and as I said, confused trying to reconcile the test numbers I saw with my own results. The same people also tested my other LF lens, the Nikon 90mm f/8, and the numbers were much better. I trust their methodology was consistent, and I've read nothing but positive remarks about the Nikon, which led me to believe the tests are reliable. Hence my confusion about the Rodenstock test results. I just wondered if there's a significantly better 210mm landscape lens than the Sironar N.

Drew Wiley
24-Mar-2022, 11:38
Spending ten times as much for an Apo Sironar S is going to make very little difference in any real world application, if any. Are you planning on meticulously precise 40X60 inch optical prints? Any modern 210 from the big four manufacturers is likely to give nearly indistinguishable results in typical print or reproduction sizes. There will be minor differences in contrast level, maximum usable image circle, etc. If you're having sharpness issues, I'd look to something else as the cause, rather than the lens itself. I don't own that particular lens, but have over the years encountered a number of career landscape photographers who prized their 210 Sironar N's.

And as far as some of those web resolution comparisons go : take em with a grain of salt. There could be all kinds of flaws and inconsistencies in their methodology. Better to stick with Rodenstock's own published results. But if you simply don't like your lens for some reason or another, there are all kinds of superb more affordable 200-210 options out there from Fuji, Nikon, Schneider, and Rodenstock itself. If you have the budget for an "S", that's your prerogative too. But don't expect any dramatic difference in actual results from the others. You'll need 72mm filters if you take that route.

But you don't appear to have any real predicament on your hands. It sounds like you've needlessly been sucked into yet another half-baked lens rating site. I never trust those.

Jon Middleton
24-Mar-2022, 13:55
It's much more difficult to get information about LF lenses than 35mm. The site I mentioned seemed to be the most comprehensive, but in this case only confuses. I'll just keep shooting what I have until (or if) I see a problem. I just thought somebody here might point me in the direction of a clearly superior 210mm. I guess "Don't fix it if it ain't broke" applies.

Bernice Loui
24-Mar-2022, 14:17
This sheet film LF stuff is NOT like 35mm or Digital. Understand LF view camera lenses were never designed, produced, marketed to or for "hobbyist". These optics made by Fujinon, Schneider, Nikkor, Rodenstock are designed, produced and marketed to folks back in the day when sheet film was a premium image means, this was how working Foto folks kept a roof over their heads, food on their table and applied their skills, creativity, abilities and more to producing commercial images of monetary value. The commercial AD image market had specific demands and requirements were not met, the image maker did not survive. This imposed very specific needs on lens, camera, lighting, film, processing and that entire image making process. Essentially, these folks were not just demanding of lenses and much more that were used, they often understood what their needs are and sought stuff that fit this need. Lens test and all that was often done by the image maker to determine accept or reject.

Essentially opposite to the 35mm still film or Digital market that is a mix of hobbyist to hard working "pros"..

Personally, there is a rather dim view of all those 35mm film & Digital lens test as they do not account for a vast amount of other lens personality traits and the tester IS imposing their opinion upon the Lens Under Test.. with that opinion and value system not being the same as any potential image maker. There have been a number if 35mm film and Digital lenses recently acquired that were "review tested" as poor to unacceptable, yet images made were excellent in every way. Again, it is much about how any given lens is used and what specifics the image maker's needs are.

Do keep in mind these widely published lens reviews or test are designed and done as marketing_PR promotion tools to .... sell more lenses.


Bernice





It's much more difficult to get information about LF lenses than 35mm. The site I mentioned seemed to be the most comprehensive, but in this case only confuses. I'll just keep shooting what I have until (or if) I see a problem. I just thought somebody here might point me in the direction of a clearly superior 210mm. I guess "Don't fix it if it ain't broke" applies.

Bob Salomon
24-Mar-2022, 14:21
It's much more difficult to get information about LF lenses than 35mm. The site I mentioned seemed to be the most comprehensive, but in this case only confuses. I'll just keep shooting what I have until (or if) I see a problem. I just thought somebody here might point me in the direction of a clearly superior 210mm. I guess "Don't fix it if it ain't broke" applies.

The Sironar N was replaced with the Sironar N MC. That was replaced by the Apo Sironar N, if you have the MC version of the N then it is basically as good as the Apo Sironar N.
Both the Apo Sironar S and the Apo Sironar/Apo Sironar W will perform better out to the edges. The W, while much larger and heavier, covers a much larger circle.
If all else is equal, the S is the best lens. Less fall off, less distortion, better color performance and better contrast.

Jon Middleton
24-Mar-2022, 15:01
The Sironar N was replaced with the Sironar N MC. That was replaced by the Apo Sironar N, if you have the MC version of the N then it is basically as good as the Apo Sironar N.
Both the Apo Sironar S and the Apo Sironar/Apo Sironar W will perform better out to the edges. The W, while much larger and heavier, covers a much larger circle.
If all else is equal, the S is the best lens. Less fall off, less distortion, better color performance and better contrast.

Thanks, Bob. And, yes, as mentioned before mine is the MC version. I think it was ~$600 new. I'll admit the test results bugged me as they weren't consistent with what I'm seeing. My uncropped 20x24 prints are very sharp and grain free corner-to-corner. I have a Nikon D850 with a Zeiss 25/1.4 Milvus that I can shoot and compare it to the Nikon 90mm f/8, also the Nikon 70-200/2.8FL I can shoot and compare it to the 210mm Sironar at the same output sizes. Should be a fun exercise. I enjoy the more contemplative approach of the LF but also appreciate the ease of digital.

ic-racer
24-Mar-2022, 17:14
I have never regretted a tripod upgrade. Keep the lens.

Jon Middleton
24-Mar-2022, 17:54
I have never regretted a tripod upgrade. Keep the lens.

I have good tripods, that's not an issue. In fact, I once hiked up to Delicate Arch with my camera and other gear in a backpack and a Zone VI wooden tripod (12# with the Bogen 3047 head) over my shoulder. I also have the Jobu Design Algonquin, not very well known but great quality.

John Layton
24-Mar-2022, 18:44
Have absolutely loved my 210 Sironar-N MC - and have pulled some nice 40x60 wet prints from it. And while I did "upgrade" to a 210 Sironar-S about a year ago (and yes, its a great performer), I also managed to keep the older lens...and will likely never let it go. In fact, as much as I like the S, I think that the N would likely be the last lens that I would ever let go. Difficult to explain...maybe something about having purchased it new (part of a Rodenstock "dealer's special" along with a 90 6.8, and 135 5.6, back around 1984 when I was in the photo-retail biz), and have had such a long history with it.

Jon Middleton
24-Mar-2022, 18:49
Have absolutely loved my 210 Sironar-N MC - and have pulled some nice 40x60 wet prints from it. And while I did "upgrade" to a 210 Sironar-S about a year ago (and yes, its a great performer), I also managed to keep the older lens...and will likely never let it go. In fact, as much as I like the S, I think that the N would likely be the last lens that I would ever let go. Difficult to explain...maybe something about having purchased it new (part of a Rodenstock "dealer's special" along with a 90 6.8, and 135 5.6, back around 1984 when I was in the photo-retail biz), and have had such a long history with it.

Good to hear!