Rodenstock Sironar 210mm f5.6 macro

[jesse1996]

with a new 8x10 on the way courtesy of Gibellini, I'm looking at lenses to buy for it. I already have a nikkor 300mm and now i'm looking into slightly wider and slightly longer. I've been eying a great deal on a Rodenstock Sironar N 120mm macro and wanted to see if anyone has opinions or ideally sample photos of this lens on 4x5 or 8x10 film. Even better if you have what you feel are better suggestions than this lens. according to catlabs the Sironar N has ample coverage on an 8x10

[Oren Grad]

The 210 Macro-Sironar is designed for work at very close range and won't cover 8x10 at infinity. In this respect, large format macro lenses are different from lenses labeled "macro" that you may be used to from experience with smaller formats; those are generally designed to be usable all the way to infinity.

There are many discussions here about wide-angle lenses for 8x10, including this current one about 210mm lenses:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?144247-210mm-for-8x10-quot

[jesse1996]

I've wondered if the description on the site doesnt mean its great coverage when using macro, or if the Sironar N has tons of coverage on 8x10 normally.

[Oren Grad]

The image circle of the 210mm Macro-Sironar-N is specified as 525mm at 1:1, not at infinity. That is standard practice for macro lenses intended for large format use.

The 210mm Sironar-N is a different (non-macro) lens entirely, but it too falls short of 8x10 at infinity, though just barely.

[Oren Grad]

OK, I see you edited your text to say 120mm instead of 210mm. Please don't do that if people have already responded to your message based on the original wording - you will end up confusing everybody. Add a new post explaining what has changed, and why, instead.

But the 120 Apo-Macro-Sironar is also specified for close range, and also doesn't come anywhere near covering 8x10 at infinity.

[Bob Salomon]

The image circle of the 210mm Macro-Sironar-N is specified as 525mm at 1:1, not at infinity. That is standard practice for macro lenses intended for large format use.

The 210mm Sironar-N is a different (non-macro) lens entirely, but it too falls short of 8x10 at infinity, though just barely.

But the 210 Apo Sironar S does cover, but not much more. The 210 Apo Sironar/Apo Sironar W more then covers 810.

[Bob Salomon]

The 210 Macro-Sironar is designed for work at very close range and won't cover 8x10 at infinity. In this respect, large format macro lenses are different from lenses labeled "macro" that you may be used to from experience with smaller formats; those are generally designed to be usable all the way to infinity.

There are many discussions here about wide-angle lenses for 8x10, including this current one about 210mm lenses:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?144247-210mm-for-8x10-quot

Those small format lenses that reach infinity aren’t really a macro lens. They just focus close, some don’t even reach 1:1.

[Pere Casals]

coverage

IIRC coverage is 2x for 1:1 than for infinite, so when reading specs you should check in what conditions coverage is specified. Also it depends on aperture, often the coverage is stated at f/22, but you have to know that as you open the aperture the size of the circle with a sharp image is lower, and if you had a narrow coverage you may get blurred corners as you open the diafragm from specified f/.

[Oslolens]

Wider lens in shutter: 210mm Nikkor-W with 77mm filter (I got one, most have 67mm) 210mm G-claron, or most 240mm plasmat: Caltar, Nikkor-W, Fujinon-W, Sironar-N or Symmar(-S). Longer lens: 450-480mm: Nikkor-M (I got one, sharp wide open, as well as the Apo-Artar)Apo-Ronar or Apo-Artar. Budget without shutter: Apo-Gerogon in 210 or 240mm (I got both, need to be used at f16 1/2-22 before they are sharp) or a long Klimsch Apo-Ronar. Super wides are 120mm Nikkor-SW (sold mine, seen little use) or 120mm Super-Angulon

Sent fra min D6503 via Tapatalk

[jesse1996]

I didn't realize I typed 120! I meant to type 210mm. I'm looking into the 210mm Rodenstock Sironar N Macro lens. I saw on Catlabs that it covers 8x10 with plenty at infinity with Macro being even more so. Apologies for the confusion.

[Bob Salomon]

I didn't realize I typed 120! I meant to type 210mm. I'm looking into the 210mm Rodenstock Sironar N Macro lens. I saw on Catlabs that it covers 8x10 with plenty at infinity with Macro being even more so. Apologies for the confusion.

Assuming it does cover at infinity, it is a poor performer at other then macro ranges.

[Oren Grad]

I didn't realize I typed 120! I meant to type 210mm. I'm looking into the 210mm Rodenstock Sironar N Macro lens. I saw on Catlabs that it covers 8x10 with plenty at infinity with Macro being even more so. Apologies for the confusion.

No worries! But please slow down and read carefully. The listing at CatLabs says "(covers close to 8X10 at infinity)". The wording before that, about "standard, non-macro lens, with very large coverage", refers to smaller formats only. 210mm is the "standard" or "normal" focal length for 5x7.

[Dan Fromm]

This https://www.catlabs.info/product/rodenstock-macro-sironar-n-mc-210mm-f5-6-lens-in-compur-3-shutter-4x5-5x7-8x10 one? Vendors sometimes exaggerate coverage.

For a contrasting, perhaps more correct, view, see http://www.graflex.org/lenses/lens-spec.html and https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/rodenstock-210mm-macro-sironar.37076/