210mm f/5.6 - Rodenstock or Nikkor?

[Salmo22]

I'm looking to add a 210mm f/5.6 lens for my 4x5 work and trying to decide between the Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S, APO-Sironar-N, and the Nikon Nikkor W. Not sure it matters, but just in case, let me give you some background on what/how I photograph. I use black and white film exclusively. I primarily photograph "Man-Altered Landscapes", historic farming communities, and Carnegiea gigantea (saguaro cacti). I don't do any table-top photography. A review of my notes finds me making most images at f/22 or f/32, with the occasional deviation to f/45. I mention these things in case it might inform your comments recommendation(s) - maybe not.

For the sake of this discussion, let's not make money a factor. It is, but... I'm somewhat confident I can negotiate the necessary financial arrangements with The Boss :rolleyes:

What should I be considering in my decision making process? What would you recommend? What 210mm f/5.6 lens to you own/use and why?

Thanks in advance.

[Keith Pitman]

Lens you should have bought first, IMO. Nikkor.

[Dan Fromm]

They are both very bad.

[Mark Sampson]

There's no wrong answer here. Buy on availability/condition/price. Disclosure: I have extensively used a 210/5.6 Sinaron (Rodenstock) and own a 180/5.6 Nikkor-W. Both are superb optics.

[David Lindquist]

They are both very bad.

I'm trusting that the OP having been here since 2006 knows that you are speaking tongue-in-cheek.

David

[Pere Casals]

most images at f/22 or f/32, with the occasional deviation to f/45.


4x5 lenses are diffraction limited by f/22.

Diffraction limit at f/45 is 35 Lp/mm, so a pre WWII lens will be as sharp as an APO Sironar S, you'll find a difference in the contrast because of the MC coating.

At f/32 (extintion at 50Lp/mm) 1960s lenses will work equal, also coating apart.

At f/22 diffraction limit (contrast extintion) is 71 Lp/mm, but it also damages contrast at 35 Lp/mm, all those 3 lenses will perform the same.

At f/11 or f/16 you will notice the sample to sample variation in lab tests, if you notice that in real photography is another matter.



If you open aperture then diffraction won't be a problem but then you have lower DOF.

____


All those glasses are incredibly good, of the Nikkors I used the W 210 and 360, they are crazy good. The Sironar-N and the APO Sironar N are 99% the same, beyond lettering, but the APO stamping is more expensive. The Sironar S has expensive ED glass (in the front element IIRC) which makes it a bit larger and heavier, but it allows a larger circle allowing movements for 8x10".

I have a Sironar N 300 MC and it's extraordinary, never tried an S.


My guess is that both three glass are very good, all will have some sample to sample variation, but with those glasses what makes a difference (regarding resulting optical performance) is photographer.

____

I would be more worried about if the shutter that comes with glass is in shape !


Those lenses have 300 to 370mm circles, so perhaps 15% of the light goes to 4x5 film and the 85% bounces in the bellows, a compendium shade may be interesting.

[Salmo22]

I'm trusting that the OP having been here since 2006 knows that you are speaking tongue-in-cheek.

David

Yes I know ;)

[Salmo22]

4x5 lenses are diffraction limited by f/22.

Diffraction limit at f/45 is 35 Lp/mm, so a pre WWII lens will be as sharp as an APO Sironar S, you'll find a difference in the contrast because of the MC coating.

At f/32 (extintion at 50Lp/mm) 1960s lenses will work equal, also coating apart.

At f/22 diffraction limit (contrast extintion) is 71 Lp/mm, but it also damages contrast at 35 Lp/mm, all those 3 lenses will perform the same.

At f/11 or f/16 you will notice the sample to sample variation in lab tests, if you notice that in real photography is another matter.



If you open aperture then diffraction won't be a problem but then you have lower DOF.

____


All those glasses are incredibly good, of the Nikkors I used the W 210 and 360, they are crazy good. The Sironar-N and the APO Sironar N are 99% the same, beyond lettering, but the APO stamping is more expensive. The Sironar S has expensive ED glass (in the front element IIRC) which makes it a bit larger and heavier, but it allows a larger circle allowing movements for 8x10".

I have a Sironar N 300 MC and it's extraordinary, never tried an S.


My guess is that both three glass are very good, all will have some sample to sample variation, but with those glasses what makes a difference (regarding resulting optical performance) is photographer.

____

I would be more worried about if the shutter that comes with glass is in shape !


Those lenses have 300 to 370mm circles, so perhaps 15% of the light goes to 4x5 film and the 85% bounces in the bellows, a compendium shade may be interesting.

Thanks for all the information Pere. Other than slight differences in covering power and image circle, I've often wondered what the primary performance difference is between the APO-Sironar-S and APO-Sironar-N lenses from Rodenstock? Obviously, there is a significant cost difference.

[StuartR]

My own experience is that sample to sample difference is larger than manufacturer to manufacturer, at least among Schneider and Rodenstock. I would encourage you to pick up two or three 210mm lenses from a reliable source, test them, and keep the best one. Confirm with the seller they are ok with it first...it's a bit poor form to do it without asking them if it is ok.
In my own case, my 210mm APO Symmar L is slightly better than a 210mm APO Sironar S that I tried, but both were good.

[Pere Casals]

APO-Sironar-S and APO-Sironar-N lenses from Rodenstock?

This has been debated a lot !!!! :)

Technical information says no for the image center (this is the 150):


194195

The Rodenstock graph says that for 20Cycles/mm the 150mm S is slightly better in the center but slightly worse in the 4x5" corners (red bar), green bars say where the N is better, but the S can shift more...


...so as you shift-rise or as you want to cover a larger format then the S rules, for example the S 210 is a 8x10 lens and the N 210 not, the S 150 makes 5x7 with room, while the N 150 is in its limits.

The ED glass in the S front allows for a better correction of secondary chromatic aberration (green-magenta fringes) in the corners, which allows for a desing sporting a larger coverage.

Sorry, I had not the chance to test a S, probably I'll have the opportunity soon.

4x5" only takes 150mm of the 300/370mm circles of the 210 N/S, so my guess is that the N should perform perfectly.

Then we have to consider that S vs N is a product segmentation, and perhaps the top notch Pro product had a more refined manufacturing and QC. Many S owners are absolutely satisfied, citing less flare an "better color", me I'm impressed with my Sironar-N 300 MC, I don't find the way to reach its limits, it's very difficult to find a shot where such a lens is the limiting factor for the IQ.


Sadly there is no side by side around showing real IQ differences, or aesthetic differences in the OOF, many opinions but no technical explanation beyond coverage difference.

Regarding contrast/flare, I insist, with those large circles what is important is a compendium shading and a not having bellows too compressed.

Want the very best ? Take the S.

...another thing is when it makes a difference or not. What is LOL is people not using a compendium shade, having 85% of light bouncing in the bellows... and saying that they see an amazing difference !

[Drew Wiley]

Don't forget Fujinon. Every bit as good. So, basically, any of the "big four" manufacturers will be adequate.

[Salmo22]

I did some more research on my end and found that John Sexton, who's work I admire, has primarily used Nikkor glass for many years. Mr. Sexton states that for a period of seven years he only had one lens and shot with it exclusively - a 210mm Schneider Symmar. He then switch to a nearly 100% Nikkor lens setup which include their 210mm offering. I'm currently a one lens guy with a fine little Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S 150mm f/5.6 mounted firmly on my 4x5. It has been a terrific lens; however, the 210mm focal length beckons - for reasons I can't readily explain. Since I've enjoyed my 150mm Rodenstock so much, it is would be easy to simply duplicate that brand in a 210mm. Unfortunately, the expense has me looking at less costly alternatives. No doubt that the W Nikkor and Rodenstock APO-Sironar-N have more than enough coverage to allow me plenty of movements with my 4x5. Sharpness, contrast, resolution for my black and white work is most important to me. I just need to make a decision...

Thanks for all your input and comments.

[Luis-F-S]

It doesn't matter what someone you admire uses, it only matters what YOU use. Too much research will only confuse you. There are good and bad lenses in every brand. Bernice has expounded on this point. I have the following 210 mm lenses G-Claron (2), Golden Dagors & Symmar, 2-3 Caltars and I hardly ever use them, usually use longer lenses in larger formats. Buy one or two and see what you like and then sell the one you don't. There is no other way! L

[Bernice Loui]

Lens alone will not result in an image style like John Sexton. There is a LOT more involved than lens alone as the lens is one small facet of what resulted in any print.

While there are variations within all production lenses, the modern Plasmat as a group by the big four Fujiono, Schneider, Nikon, Rodenstock are more similar than different. Know John's name fame can easily net him a promo & marketing deal with Nikon to use their lenses. There was a similar with Sally Mann and Toyo where the ad ran with Sally and her kids with a Toyo 810M (good camera regardless). Keep in mind lenses and such are really image making tools used as a means to achieve a print in mind.

So, as mentioned numerous time on LFF, find your own light testing lenses, film, developer and the entire print making process to find your own light.


:)
Bernice



I did some more research on my end and found that John Sexton, who's work I admire, has primarily used Nikkor glass for many years. Mr. Sexton states that for a period of seven years he only had one lens and shot with it exclusively - a 210mm Schneider Symmar. He then switch to a nearly 100% Nikkor lens setup which include their 210mm offering. I'm currently a one lens guy with a fine little Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S 150mm f/5.6 mounted firmly on my 4x5. It has been a terrific lens; however, the 210mm focal length beckons - for reasons I can't readily explain. Since I've enjoyed my 150mm Rodenstock so much, it is would be easy to simply duplicate that brand in a 210mm. Unfortunately, the expense has me looking at less costly alternatives. No doubt that the W Nikkor and Rodenstock APO-Sironar-N have more than enough coverage to allow me plenty of movements with my 4x5. Sharpness, contrast, resolution for my black and white work is most important to me. I just need to make a decision...

Thanks for all your input and comments.

[Salmo22]

Lens alone will not result in an image style like John Sexton. There is a LOT more involved than lens alone as the lens is one small facet of what resulted in any print.

While there are variations within all production lenses, the modern Plasmat as a group by the big four Fujiono, Schneider, Nikon, Rodenstock are more similar than different. Know John's name fame can easily net him a promo & marketing deal with Nikon to use their lenses. There was a similar with Sally Mann and Toyo where the ad ran with Sally and her kids with a Toyo 810M (good camera regardless). Keep in mind lenses and such are really image making tools used as a means to achieve a print in mind.

So, as mentioned numerous time on LFF, find your own light testing lenses, film, developer and the entire print making process to find your own light.


:)
Bernice

Thank you Bernice for your comments. I'm not suggesting that buying a Nikkor 210mm like John Sexton will help me make images like him. He has his style and I have mine. And I also don't care if Nikon gives Sexton his lenses for free or discount. John Sexton isn't going to use a lens brand that doesn't allow him to make his photographs to his standards. I also don't buy into the notion that lens production from the big four was so sloopy that you have to acquire numerous copies to weed out the stinkers, which I would then apparently sell to some unsuspecting soul, and keep the one gem I found. In my opinion, that is a ridiculous notion. I've never seen nor heard of a single fine art photographer extol this practice of lens acquisition. Why is that? I had hoped that my original question might illicit more responses like Pere and StuartR. Observations on different traits, if any existed.

[Salmo22]

Lens alone will not result in an image style like John Sexton. There is a LOT more involved than lens alone as the lens is one small facet of what resulted in any print.

While there are variations within all production lenses, the modern Plasmat as a group by the big four Fujiono, Schneider, Nikon, Rodenstock are more similar than different. Know John's name fame can easily net him a promo & marketing deal with Nikon to use their lenses. There was a similar with Sally Mann and Toyo where the ad ran with Sally and her kids with a Toyo 810M (good camera regardless). Keep in mind lenses and such are really image making tools used as a means to achieve a print in mind.

So, as mentioned numerous time on LFF, find your own light testing lenses, film, developer and the entire print making process to find your own light.


:)
Bernice

Thank you Bernice for your comments.

[Bernice Loui]

Sadly there are "stinkers".. back in the day if one were to purchase a given lens or had the intent to purchase a given lens new there was right of return or time for trial. One example lens being color balance, while the big four offered similar image results their color balance was different and within the same brand there were slight color balance variations. For those who were really into this, they would order up a new set of lenses from one brand as color matched. This way when the lenses were used for color transparency work, shifts in color rendition and such would not be as significant.

Today given the often unknown history of a used lens, it remains prudent to test before accepting. Brand or type alone is simply not enough.
Over the decades of doing view camera images, I've got an absurd collection of VC lenses and tried-used a pile more. The keepers have all been very carefully selected and tested to meet a very specific set of expectations which are highly likely different from other image makers.

Know this was the very common practice of discriminating and demanding still image makers back in the day. Stanley Kubrick began as a still image photographer then went on to film making, yet he kept his habits and ways with lenses cultivated back in his still image days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb7Meqaz7Aw

What I'll say, back in the days when VC was primarily the domain of demanding serious commercial image making every notable photographer sorted for lenses they used and were not going to simply accept anything they did not test extensively to decide if a specific lens will meet their needs and expectations.

Keep mind modern VC lenses today are an absolute bargain compared to when they were new. Back then shelling out $1,000 or more for one good lens was very common. Today that same lens could be had for $200 or a lot less which is no more than a few boxes of film and processing.


Bernice





Thank you Bernice for your comments. I'm not suggesting that buying a Nikkor 210mm like John Sexton will help me make images like him. He has his style and I have mine. And I also don't care if Nikon gives Sexton his lenses for free or discount. John Sexton isn't going to use a lens brand that doesn't allow him to make his photographs to his standards. I also don't buy into the notion that lens production from the big four was so sloopy that you have to acquire numerous copies to weed out the stinkers, which I would then apparently sell to some unsuspecting soul, and keep the one gem I found. In my opinion, that is a ridiculous notion. I've never seen nor heard of a single fine art photographer extol this practice of lens acquisition. Why is that? I had hoped that my original question might illicit more responses like Pere and StuartR. Observations on different traits, if any existed.

[Oren Grad]

Jeff: plasmats from the Big Four render focus transitions, and foreground and background out-of-focus picture content, differently. I happen to prefer Rodenstock, especially Apo-Sironar-S but also (Apo-)Sironar-N (though not the earliest Sironar-without-letter generation, which has a different look entirely). But we're talking about subtleties that are obscured or entirely obliterated in the scans that we can show on the web, and for which we don't have an agreed set of terms that can convey unambiguously in words what the different "flavors" mean visually. And of course what you like or, on the other hand, what bothers you, is your subjective preference, which may be different from mine. So if you think this is something you might care about, I'm afraid there's no real alternative to comparing lenses from the different brands for yourself, with subjects and settings (focus distances, working apertures) that are typical of your pictures.

It's not that costly to do, though it would obviously require time and effort on your part as well as a bit of working capital up front. Apo-Sironar-S and Apo-Symmar L aside, modern 210mm plasmats are dirt cheap these days. With careful shopping you could probably assemble a complete set of (Apo-)Sironar-N, Apo-Symmar or Symmar-S, Fujinon W, and Nikkor W, for what a single Apo-Sironar-S or Apo-Symmar L would cost, and then keep the one you prefer and sell the rest. Or since you already have a 150 Apo-Sironar-S, you could get 150's from the other three brands so you can compare the different "house styles", then sell the extras when you've reached your conclusions and get a 210 in your preferred "flavor".

[Bob Salomon]

Sadly there are "stinkers".. back in the day if one were to purchase a given lens or had the intent to purchase a given lens new there was right of return or time for trial. One example lens being color balance, while the big four offered similar image results their color balance was different and within the same brand there were slight color balance variations. For those who were really into this, they would order up a new set of lenses from one brand as color matched. This way when the lenses were used for color transparency work, shifts in color rendition and such would not be as significant.

Today given the often unknown history of a used lens, it remains prudent to test before accepting. Brand or type alone is simply not enough.
Over the decades of doing view camera images, I've got an absurd collection of VC lenses and tried-used a pile more. The keepers have all been very carefully selected and tested to meet a very specific set of expectations which are highly likely different from other image makers.

Know this was the very common practice of discriminating and demanding still image makers back in the day. Stanley Kubrick began as a still image photographer then went on to film making, yet he kept his habits and ways with lenses cultivated back in his still image days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb7Meqaz7Aw

What I'll say, back in the days when VC was primarily the domain of demanding serious commercial image making every notable photographer sorted for lenses they used and were not going to simply accept anything they did not test extensively to decide if a specific lens will meet their needs and expectations.

Keep mind modern VC lenses today are an absolute bargain compared to when they were new. Back then shelling out $1,000 or more for one good lens was very common. Today that same lens could be had for $200 or a lot less which is no more than a few boxes of film and processing.


Bernice
We were the US distributor for Rodenstock from 1986 till early 2015. During that period we had exactly one request for multiple lenses to be factory matched. One!

During that same period we sold thousands of new lenses to studios, industry, government, military and had fewer then 10 lenses returned for one reason or another.

But when dealing with used lenses anything is possible!

[Salmo22]

We were the US distributor for Rodenstock from 1986 till early 2015. During that period we had exactly one request for multiple lenses to be factory matched. One!

During that same period we sold thousands of new lenses to studios, industry, government, military and had fewer then 10 lenses returned for one reason or another.

But when dealing with used lenses anything is possible!

Thank you Bob. That is the lens world I remember. My father purchased many LF lenses in the 70's and 80's and never returned one - not one.

[Salmo22]

Jeff: plasmats from the Big Four render focus transitions, and foreground and background out-of-focus picture content, differently. I happen to prefer Rodenstock, especially Apo-Sironar-S but also (Apo-)Sironar-N (though not the earliest Sironar-without-letter generation, which has a different look entirely). But we're talking about subtleties that are obscured or entirely obliterated in the scans that we can show on the web, and for which we don't have an agreed set of terms that can convey unambiguously in words what the different "flavors" mean visually. And of course what you like or, on the other hand, what bothers you, is your subjective preference, which may be different from mine. So if you think this is something you might care about, I'm afraid there's no real alternative to comparing lenses from the different brands for yourself, with subjects and settings (focus distances, working apertures) that are typical of your pictures.

It's not that costly to do, though it would obviously require time and effort on your part as well as a bit of working capital up front. Apo-Sironar-S and Apo-Symmar L aside, modern 210mm plasmats are dirt cheap these days. With careful shopping you could probably assemble a complete set of (Apo-)Sironar-N, Apo-Symmar or Symmar-S, Fujinon W, and Nikkor W, for what a single Apo-Sironar-S or Apo-Symmar L would cost, and then keep the one you prefer and sell the rest. Or since you already have a 150 Apo-Sironar-S, you could get 150's from the other three brands so you can compare the different "house styles", then sell the extras when you've reached your conclusions and get a 210 in your preferred "flavor".

Thank you Oren for your thoughtful comments. It is sincerely appreciated. I'm returning to LF after a long hiatus and late in life. Unfortunately, I'm not in a financial position to put together the set of 210mm lenses as you suggest. Don't get me wrong, it sounds like a good way to evaluate and I think it would be a ton of fun. For now, I'll have to continue my due diligence and make a single choice - hopefully well informed.

[Salmo22]

Sadly there are "stinkers".. back in the day if one were to purchase a given lens or had the intent to purchase a given lens new there was right of return or time for trial. One example lens being color balance, while the big four offered similar image results their color balance was different and within the same brand there were slight color balance variations. For those who were really into this, they would order up a new set of lenses from one brand as color matched. This way when the lenses were used for color transparency work, shifts in color rendition and such would not be as significant.

Today given the often unknown history of a used lens, it remains prudent to test before accepting. Brand or type alone is simply not enough.
Over the decades of doing view camera images, I've got an absurd collection of VC lenses and tried-used a pile more. The keepers have all been very carefully selected and tested to meet a very specific set of expectations which are highly likely different from other image makers.

Know this was the very common practice of discriminating and demanding still image makers back in the day. Stanley Kubrick began as a still image photographer then went on to film making, yet he kept his habits and ways with lenses cultivated back in his still image days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb7Meqaz7Aw

What I'll say, back in the days when VC was primarily the domain of demanding serious commercial image making every notable photographer sorted for lenses they used and were not going to simply accept anything they did not test extensively to decide if a specific lens will meet their needs and expectations.

Keep mind modern VC lenses today are an absolute bargain compared to when they were new. Back then shelling out $1,000 or more for one good lens was very common. Today that same lens could be had for $200 or a lot less which is no more than a few boxes of film and processing.


Bernice

Bernice - I apologize for my terse response. I am getting older and sometimes I don't patiently 'listen' and consider intent before responding. You took the time to provide a well thought out comment and I appreciate that. Much for me to consider. Thank you.

[Oren Grad]

Unfortunately, I'm not in a financial position to put together the set of 210mm lenses as you suggest. Don't get me wrong, it sounds like a good way to evaluate and I think it would be a ton of fun. For now, I'll have to continue my due diligence and make a single choice - hopefully well informed.

Absolutely understand, most of us are cash-crunched at various points in our lives.

When you do choose a 210 based on whatever information you can gather, there's nothing to stop you from comparing it to your 150. Sure, the focal length will be different, but modern plasmat product lines typically maintain a consistent rendering across focal lengths, so with some allowance for compositional differences, you'll be able to tell how you like the "flavor" of your new lens compared to your Apo-Sironar-S. If you like it or at least don't mind it, then all is well. If not, you can always sell and try another type, one at a time, within your budget and patience for testing.

[Bernice Loui]

No worries :)

Suggest, if you like the image rendition of your current lens, stay with that brand and lens series. This will go a significant ways to keep the image rendition much the same at a different focal length. Once the choice of brand and series has been made, take your time shopping for the specific lens of your choice. Be patient as good deals on lenses from the big four come up often, be ready to make the purchase once the opportunity appears.

Once the newly acquired lens has arrived, test-compare to your current lens. This becomes the real world test under the conditions and expectations for the newly acquired lens.


Bernice





Bernice - I apologize for my terse response. I am getting older and sometimes I don't patiently 'listen' and consider intent before responding. You took the time to provide a well thought out comment and I appreciate that. Much for me to consider. Thank you.

[Eric Leppanen]

Another option to reduce cost is to consider Caltar lenses, which were typically off-the-shelf Rodenstock and Schneider lenses rebadged by Calumet under the Caltar name. If I recall correctly the 210 Caltar-II N is a rebadged Rodenstock Sironar N, but tends to cost less on the used market due to the reduced name recognition. If you like the "Rodenstock rendering" of your Sironar S then this might be a route to consider.

At working apertures the central sharpness of the Sironar S and N is similar. The S will have a larger image circle and better edge sharpness, but on 4x5 all the 210 plasmats have such relatively large image circles that for most folks this won't be a factor.

[StuartR]

Bernice - I apologize for my terse response. I am getting older and sometimes I don't patiently 'listen' and consider intent before responding. You took the time to provide a well thought out comment and I appreciate that. Much for me to consider. Thank you.

I should say that my original suggestion was not to just return junk lenses to unsuspecting buyer, only to try out lenses and see which work best for you. I have only had one junker, and that turned out to be a scam lens made of components from different companies. I have not resold that, because as you say, I am not going to turn around and scam someone else just because I got scammed. I was mainly thinking that sample variation is real, and some lenses will work better in different cameras or systems. I have found that the variation between single lenses from the same manufacturer is larger than that which I have found between companies. I would not say this for 35mm or medium format, but unfortunately I have found it to be the case in LF. I think it is because they were all making professional lenses to a high standard. I think variations are high because so much time and handling has passed, as well as the lenses being forced to interact with a third party shutter system. In general, I have found the look between my 210mm APO Symmar L and 210mm APO Sironar S to be quite similar. I tested them side to side...I will see if I can find the test to show you what I mean.

[Pere Casals]

financial

194236

(It says Scheneider :):), but it's a 100% positive seller with thousands of sells)

Right now there is a 210 N MC in ebay for crazy $135+shipping, if substracting the shutter value then glass comes nearly for free. It is as good as APO Sironar N. I'd take just that one, and if this 1980 glass it's not as terrific as your 150 S for the way you shot (f/22 and up) then sell it, with your S you have a benchmark to compare.


IIRC Sexton purchased/sold a number of nikons until he gathered the right samples. Not many may feel the difference in real photography between different samples without making lppmm tests, but I guess that I understand why Sexton did that. There is no perfect LF lens, a lens is always more or less a dog... collimation accuracy of elements has a dipersion.


With used Rodenstocks one has to check shimming if performance is not superb, sometimes lenses are shimmed and sometimes shims are lost or are incorrect.

[Salmo22]

Another option to reduce cost is to consider Caltar lenses, which were typically off-the-shelf Rodenstock and Schneider lenses rebadged by Calumet under the Caltar name. If I recall correctly the 210 Caltar-II N is a rebadged Rodenstock Sironar N, but tends to cost less on the used market due to the reduced name recognition. If you like the "Rodenstock rendering" of your Sironar S then this might be a route to consider.

At working apertures the central sharpness of the Sironar S and N is similar. The S will have a larger image circle and better edge sharpness, but on 4x5 all the 210 plasmats have such relatively large image circles that for most folks this won't be a factor.

Thank you for the Caltar suggestion, I'll see what's out there. I was talking with a long time LF photographer on Saturday and he mentioned the same thing about image circle and edge sharpness relative to a 4x5 and 210 plasmats. Great info - thanks.

[Salmo22]

I should say that my original suggestion was not to just return junk lenses to unsuspecting buyer, only to try out lenses and see which work best for you. I have only had one junker, and that turned out to be a scam lens made of components from different companies. I have not resold that, because as you say, I am not going to turn around and scam someone else just because I got scammed. I was mainly thinking that sample variation is real, and some lenses will work better in different cameras or systems. I have found that the variation between single lenses from the same manufacturer is larger than that which I have found between companies. I would not say this for 35mm or medium format, but unfortunately I have found it to be the case in LF. I think it is because they were all making professional lenses to a high standard. I think variations are high because so much time and handling has passed, as well as the lenses being forced to interact with a third party shutter system. In general, I have found the look between my 210mm APO Symmar L and 210mm APO Sironar S to be quite similar. I tested them side to side...I will see if I can find the test to show you what I mean.

Thanks for clarifying Stuart. I'd appreciate seeing your test examples between your 210mm APO Symmar L and 210mm APO Sironar S. It would be most interesting.

[Salmo22]

194236

(It says Scheneider :):), but it's a 100% positive seller with thousands of sells)

Right now there is a 210 N MC in ebay for crazy $135+shipping, if substracting the shutter value then glass comes nearly for free. It is as good as APO Sironar N. I'd take just that one, and if this 1980 glass it's not as terrific as your 150 S for the way you shot (f/22 and up) then sell it, with your S you have a benchmark to compare.


IIRC Sexton purchased/sold a number of nikons until he gathered the right samples. Not many may feel the difference in real photography between different samples without making lppmm tests, but I guess that I understand why Sexton did that. There is no perfect LF lens, a lens is always more or less a dog... collimation accuracy of elements has a dipersion.


With used Rodenstocks one has to check shimming if performance is not superb, sometimes lenses are shimmed and sometimes shims are lost or are incorrect.

Thanks for the reference to the 210 N MC, a terrific bargain. I must admit I know nothing about lppmm tests? Frankly, I don't even know what lppmm stands for? I appreciate your reminding me about shimming, something I need to keep in mind. I like the idea of using my Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S 150mm as the comparison standard for other lenses I may acquire in the future. Regards.

[StuartR]

So basically, this is a bit nonsensical as the images look nearly identical. That is partially the point. The differences might show more with color film or with areas of lots of bokeh. But basically, in one test the Rodenstock was sharper, in the other, the Schneider. I think the variations are highly dependent on your focusing on the day, film sag, and any number of other factors. This is not to say that it is impossible to say which is better, only to say that a single test is generally not enough...better to spend time with it and see which you prefer. I am still in that process with the 210mm APO Symmar and Sironar S. I mostly shoot with the APO Symmar L as I have had it for 15 years and know that I consistently get good results out of it.
Regarding these tests, you have to take my word for it...the Schneider is sharper with the rocks, and the Rodenstock is slightly better with the cityscape. I think it is as likely as anything that it was the slight different in focus than the lenses themselves. I might say the Rodenstock has slightly higher inherent contrast. The Schneider seems to have a larger image circle (it works on 8x10 for me).

194237194238194239194240

[Pere Casals]

about lppmm tests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_USAF_resolution_test_chart

USAF 1951 test is a easy way to numerically rate resolving power of a lens in the center or in the corners. It says how many black-white line pairs per mm (Lppmm or Lp/mm) a lens can place on film in the way those lines can be discerned in practice. It is not a perfect test by far but it's very simple, in fact it has a militar origin, to know how well aerial cameras were performing:

194241


LF has an insane amount of image quality, but if still wanting to compare lenses those tests provide a simplified way to compare.

[Salmo22]

So basically, this is a bit nonsensical as the images look nearly identical. That is partially the point. The differences might show more with color film or with areas of lots of bokeh. But basically, in one test the Rodenstock was sharper, in the other, the Schneider. I think the variations are highly dependent on your focusing on the day, film sag, and any number of other factors. This is not to say that it is impossible to say which is better, only to say that a single test is generally not enough...better to spend time with it and see which you prefer. I am still in that process with the 210mm APO Symmar and Sironar S. I mostly shoot with the APO Symmar L as I have had it for 15 years and know that I consistently get good results out of it.
Regarding these tests, you have to take my word for it...the Schneider is sharper with the rocks, and the Rodenstock is slightly better with the cityscape. I think it is as likely as anything that it was the slight different in focus than the lenses themselves. I might say the Rodenstock has slightly higher inherent contrast. The Schneider seems to have a larger image circle (it works on 8x10 for me).

194237194238194239194240

For all practical purposes, those examples look identical to me. I certainly take your word for it on which lens was slightly sharper on a particular image, but they are darn close. I also agree that there are other factors to consider or that could have an impact upon the results. When it comes to making photographs with my 4x5, bokeh is not something that I don't seek in my images and I rarely shoot color. As I noted earlier, I shoot primarily at f/22, f/32, and occasionally at f/45. I also use my swings and tilts to increase my DoF. So, shooting with a wide aperture is counter to what I'm trying to achieve. I like having an f/5.6 lens to help my old eyes compose and focus, but that is all. More than anything, I wholeheartedly concur with your comment that I'll need to "spend time with it and see which you prefer". Thank you.

[Salmo22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_USAF_resolution_test_chart

USAF 1951 test is a easy way to numerically rate resolving power of a lens in the center or in the corners. It says how many black-white line pairs per mm (Lppmm or Lp/mm) a lens can place on film in the way those lines can be discerned in practice. It is not a perfect test by far but it's very simple, in fact it has a militar origin, to know how well aerial cameras were performing:

194241


LF has an insane amount of image quality, but if still wanting to compare lenses those tests provide a simplified way to compare.

I appreciate your helping me better understand lppmm. As a side note, I've been to that exact satellite calibration target at Edwards AFB. Not to calibrate any camera gear, but to photograph that B-58 and the B-52's that languish a few hundred yards to the east. The have a similar target in the desert near Fort Huachuca in Arizona. I suspect they don't use them much anymore as they have let them deteriorate over time.

[Bob Salomon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_USAF_resolution_test_chart

USAF 1951 test is a easy way to numerically rate resolving power of a lens in the center or in the corners. It says how many black-white line pairs per mm (Lppmm or Lp/mm) a lens can place on film in the way those lines can be discerned in practice. It is not a perfect test by far but it's very simple, in fact it has a militar origin, to know how well aerial cameras were performing:

194241


LF has an insane amount of image quality, but if still wanting to compare lenses those tests provide a simplified way to compare.

Except the best it can test is flat copy objects, not 3 dimensional scenes. For all practical use aerial photographs are taken from altitude and are flat field compared to what you will shoot on the ground,

And shooting the test chart never gives consistent results. Pete could loan you his lens and test result and you could not duplicate his results!

[Pere Casals]

Except the best it can test is flat copy objects, not 3 dimensional scenes. For all practical use aerial photographs are taken from altitude and are flat field compared to what you will shoot on the ground,

And shooting the test chart never gives consistent results. Pete could loan you his lens and test result and you could not duplicate his results!


Yes, of course... tests usually describe performance in the plane of focus, this also decribes how the lens will perform with distant objects, say a mountain in a landscape focused in the "infinity".


For near subjects the thing is quite more complex, sadly through focus MTF graphs are not usually provided.

194253
http://cinematechnic.com/optics/super-baltar

Amazingly it looks that only cinematographers and focus pullers (1st AC, first assistant camera) are concerned about that.

[Dan Fromm]

Reading this discussion made my head spin, so I went back to the first post in it.


A review of my notes finds me making most images at f/22 or f/32, with the occasional deviation to f/45.
<big snip>
What 210mm f/5.6 lens to you own/use and why?

Jeff, all of the lenses mentioned here perform so nearly equivalently at the apertures you use that there's no rational basis for choosing among them except weight, price and condition.

FWIW, I have and have used 210/6.8 Boyer Beryl (Dagor clone), 210/7.7 Beryl S (normal Beryl with aperture limited to f/7.7), Fuji 210/5.6 W and 210/9 Konica Hexanon GR-II. The Fuji is quite good but too heavy for me. The Konica is very sharp but a bit flary, also could be lighter. The two Boyers are sharp enough and have very good contrast. Since the f/6.8's cells go in a #1 and the f/7.7's don't go in any shutter known, I've standardized on the f/6.8. At f/16 and f/22, the apertures I use most, flare aside all of these lenses equally good.

I understand your desire to have the very best, think it is misguided. Good enough is good enough, and all of the lenses mentioned in this discussion, including mine, are at least good enough.

Many people on this forum obsess about having the best. I was guilty of this but have given it up. I was nuts, think my fellow obsessives are too. Please read: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html

[Bernice Loui]

Dan's advice is excellent.. seriously consider it.

Images made at f22 to f45 using nearly any good example from the big four are going to be far more similar than different. Pick any of the big four with a good-reliable shutter and move on.

As for the obsession with the "best" lens, the "best" lens will not make a given image "better" at those taking apertures (f22 to f45) as there are a pile of many, many other factors that will have far more impact on the finished print.

At taking apertures of f4.5 to no more than f11, then the differences can be quite variable from lens type to specific lens sample.



Bernice




Reading this discussion made my head spin, so I went back to the first post in it.



Jeff, all of the lenses mentioned here perform so nearly equivalently at the apertures you use that there's no rational basis for choosing among them except weight, price and condition.

FWIW, I have and have used 210/6.8 Boyer Beryl (Dagor clone), 210/7.7 Beryl S (normal Beryl with aperture limited to f/7.7), Fuji 210/5.6 W and 210/9 Konica Hexanon GR-II. The Fuji is quite good but too heavy for me. The Konica is very sharp but a bit flary, also could be lighter. The two Boyers are sharp enough and have very good contrast. Since the f/6.8's cells go in a #1 and the f/7.7's don't go in any shutter known, I've standardized on the f/6.8. At f/16 and f/22, the apertures I use most, flare aside all of these lenses equally good.

I understand your desire to have the very best, think it is misguided. Good enough is good enough, and all of the lenses mentioned in this discussion, including mine, are at least good enough.

Many people on this forum obsess about having the best. I'm was guilty of this but have given it up. I was nuts, think my fellow obsessives are too. Please read: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html

[Peter De Smidt]

Perfection is the enemy of the good.

[Salmo22]

Reading this discussion made my head spin, so I went back to the first post in it.



Jeff, all of the lenses mentioned here perform so nearly equivalently at the apertures you use that there's no rational basis for choosing among them except weight, price and condition.

FWIW, I have and have used 210/6.8 Boyer Beryl (Dagor clone), 210/7.7 Beryl S (normal Beryl with aperture limited to f/7.7), Fuji 210/5.6 W and 210/9 Konica Hexanon GR-II. The Fuji is quite good but too heavy for me. The Konica is very sharp but a bit flary, also could be lighter. The two Boyers are sharp enough and have very good contrast. Since the f/6.8's cells go in a #1 and the f/7.7's don't go in any shutter known, I've standardized on the f/6.8. At f/16 and f/22, the apertures I use most, flare aside all of these lenses equally good.

I understand your desire to have the very best, think it is misguided. Good enough is good enough, and all of the lenses mentioned in this discussion, including mine, are at least good enough.

Many people on this forum obsess about having the best. I was guilty of this but have given it up. I was nuts, think my fellow obsessives are too. Please read: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html

Dan, you are a holy man. That is just what I needed to hear and read. In a past life I shot competitive benchrest rifle competitions all over the western USA. Instead of calling it the 'magic bullet', although that would have been appropo, we called it 'follow the leader'. Whomever won the match was overwhelmed with questions as to what scope, action, bullet, primer, powder, etc that he/she used to win. If I could obtain the same equipment, I would win just like him/her. After several years of frustration, I learned that I needed to improve my shooting technique to win, which I did. My equipment was not the answer I thought it would be. Thank you.

[Salmo22]

Dan's advice is excellent.. seriously consider it.

Images made at f22 to f45 using nearly any good example from the big four are going to be far more similar than different. Pick any of the big four with a good-reliable shutter and move on.

As for the obsession with the "best" lens, the "best" lens will not make a given image "better" at those taking apertures (f22 to f45) as there are a pile of many, many other factors that will have far more impact on the finished print.

At taking apertures of f4.5 to no more than f11, then the differences can be quite variable from lens type to specific lens sample.



Bernice

Thank you again Bernice.

[Salmo22]

Perfection is the enemy of the good.

Well said Peter.

[Bob Salomon]

Dan, you are a holy man. That is just what I needed to hear and read. In a past life I shot competitive benchrest rifle competitions all over the western USA. Instead of calling it the 'magic bullet', although that would have been appropo, we called it 'follow the leader'. Whomever won the match was overwhelmed with questions as to what scope, action, bullet, primer, powder, etc that he/she used to win. If I could obtain the same equipment, I would win just like him/her. After several years of frustration, I learned that I needed to improve my shooting technique to win, which I did. My equipment was not the answer I thought it would be. Thank you.

I used to work a lot of Monte Zucker seminars, as many as 23 one year. His speciality was one light portraits using one main strobe and a reflector he made Rembrandt lighting easy.

At one seminar there were at least 500 attendees in the hall. Monte pointed out that the groom that he was shooting was too short for the shot he wanted with the bride. So he told the group that he had the groom sit on a telephone book (remember those?) as soon as he said that an attendee stood up, waving his hand and wanted to know “what city”?

Later on Monte mentioned that he carried a step ladder with him to get high to do group shots. Again a guy stood up to ask “which brand ladder”?

The worst thing with these seminars was that Monte, or Clay, or Al Gilbert or Tibor would pose and light the subject and then step back and say that’s what it should look like! Then a few hundred photographers would stand up and shoot. But none were ever at camera position!

[hiend61]

As it´s said many times here, you will no go wrong with any 210 mentioned here. I have tried lots of different 210mm lenses. All of them are very good lenses. The only differences I could find are about contrast, so I kept the
ones that fit better my personal taste, and in my case are Rodenstock Apo Sironar S and N. I shot architecture and landscape with color transparency film.
If you can try and compare, buy the one that writes what you like to read.

https://jjpascuallargeformatphoto.com/

[neil poulsen]

I did some more research on my end and found that John Sexton, who's work I admire, has primarily used Nikkor glass for many years. . . .

I took both of the John Sexton Expressive Black and White Print workshops. Both were great.

During one of them, John mentioned that Ansel Adams had requested a test be conducted that compared lenses among the various manufacturers. In their comparisons, Nikkors emerged as the optics with the best contrast. So, he decided to use Nikkor lenses.

He also mentioned that, of all the tele's that they tested, the Nikkors were by far and away the best. That's what he uses on his Linhof Master Technika.

[Pere Casals]

John mentioned that Ansel Adams had requested a test be conducted that compared lenses among the various manufacturers. In their comparisons, Nikkors emerged as the optics with the best contrast.

if Ansel was alive and testing glass (died in 1984) this could be in the 1970s when a fraction of the lenses were multi-coated and versions of multi-coatings were improving.






He also mentioned that, of all the tele's that they tested, the Nikkors were by far and away the best. That's what he uses on his Linhof Master Technika.


Yes, the Nikon Ts shine in their segment, they have an ED element (I guess that in the front) that makes them superb, but we also see Christopher Burkett with the APO Tele-Xenar mounted in the C1, recording for the ilfochromes...

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?15330-Schneider-APO-Tele-Xenar-600-800mm-Convertible&p=131987&viewfull=1#post131987

[hiend61]

if Ansel was alive and testing glass (died in 1984) this could be in the 1970s when a fraction of the lenses were multi-coated and versions of multi-coatings were improving.


I have used All the Nikkor T ED lenses and Apo Tele Xenar 600/800.
My conclussions:

Nikkor T ED 270 and 360 are simply superb with perfect contrast. 500 and 600 very good just need a bit more contrast to be perfect. 720 and 800 good, images are good but need more contast. a bit of purple CA. 1200 good if you can have your camera steady. Purple CA.

Apo Tele Xenar 600/800 Are superb. Perfect contrast. Just two problems, 1,-they need long distance objects to perform at their best and 2,-They are very expensive.









Yes, the Nikon Ts shine in their segment, they have an ED element (I guess that in the front) that makes them superb, but we also see Christopher Burkett with the APO Tele-Xenar mounted in the C1, recording for the ilfochromes...

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?15330-Schneider-APO-Tele-Xenar-600-800mm-Convertible&p=131987&viewfull=1#post131987

[Drew Wiley]

As I recall, Sexton had a preference for Nikkor M lenses because they are small as well as contrasty. The 200M, being a multi-coated tessar, is naturally going to give higher contrast than 210 plasmats with more elements; but it has a smaller image circle. But if we're comparing apples to apples, the differences between later MC 210 plasmats of any of the "big four" manufacturers is going to be barely noticeable in a print. How they perform nearly wide open might differ; but in such a case your lack of precise film flatness will probably render such nitpickiness into an unrealistic expectation. You need to stop down further due to that problem as well as subject depth of field. Telephoto lenses are a whole different topic and don't pertain to focal lengths as short as 210 in LF work anyway. What do I presently use in that focal length category? The 200M.

[Drew Wiley]

If I were to choose a 210 plasmat per se, it would be the 210 G-Claron. Even though it's single coated, it's probably better corrected than any f/5.6 general-purpose plasmat, especially at close range. At f/9, it's tiny, but with a huge image circle. I don't have one because I prefer the 240/250 range as my 4x5 "normal" lens.

[Arne Croell]

If I were to choose a 210 plasmat per se, it would be the 210 G-Claron. Even though it's single coated, it's probably better corrected than any f/5.6 general-purpose plasmat, especially at close range. At f/9, it's tiny, but with a huge image circle. I don't have one because I prefer the 240/250 range as my 4x5 "normal" lens.

I used the 210mm G-Claron for a while in the 1990’s for bulk and weight reasons. I was never 100% happy with it on 4x5, compared to an APO-Sironar S 210 mm, and later switched to a 210mm f/6.1 Xenar, which I preferred for its rendering. I later settled on the 210mm Germinar W, which was the best of both worlds for me.

[Drew Wiley]

Germinars were rather rare in this country, Arne. But it's easier to produce a high degree of correction at f/9 max aperture than in f/5.6 equivalents, whether your Germinar, or G-Clarons, or Fuji A's, or Nikkor M's, or various process lenses. Rendering or "look" is a more subjective topic. The 210 Fuji L was appreciated by portrait photographers, and I preferred my old 210 Symmar S for that kind of work, though it was not as crisp or contrasty as any of my current lenses, which I mainly use for landscapes.

[Pere Casals]

As I recall, Sexton had a preference for Nikkor M lenses because they are small as well as contrasty. The 200M, being a multi-coated tessar, is naturally going to give higher contrast than 210 plasmats with more elements;

Flare depends way more on the number of groups than on the number of elements, a group more or less has no impact with MC lenses, what has an impact is the size of the image circle.

The Nikon M has an smaller circle, and if no compendium shade is used then Nikon W throws more light to the belows inside. If bellows are too compressed or too extended then a lot of light can bounce from the bellows to the sheet.


I don't think that M design is more contrasty than the W, but a large circle may require the shade.




I have used All the Nikkor T ED lenses and Apo Tele Xenar 600/800.
My conclussions:

Nikkor T ED 270 and 360 are simply superb with perfect contrast. 500 and 600 very good just need a bit more contrast to be perfect. 720 and 800 good, images are good but need more contast. a bit of purple CA. 1200 good if you can have your camera steady. Purple CA.

Apo Tele Xenar 600/800 Are superb. Perfect contrast. Just two problems, 1,-they need long distance objects to perform at their best and 2,-They are very expensive.


This is a first hand review confirming the Apo Tele Xenar excellence, interesting because not many Apo Tele Xenars 600/800 were at work, and I guess that even less samples were used for slides.

[hiend61]

Flare depends way more on the number of groups than on the number of elements, a group more or less has no impact with MC lenses, what has an impact is the size of the image circle.

The Nikon M has an smaller circle, and if no compendium shade is used then Nikon W throws more light to the belows inside. If bellows are too compressed or too extended then a lot of light can bounce from the bellows to the sheet.


I don't think that M design is more contrasty than the W, but a large circle may require the shade.






This is a first hand review confirming the Apo Tele Xenar excellence, interesting because not many Apo Tele Xenars 600/800 were at work, and I guess that even less samples were used for slides.

Yes Pere, I use color slide film. Mostly Velvia 50 and Provia 100. When Kodachrome 64 in 120 format was available in Spain I used this wonderful film with a Sinar Zoom film holder, in 6x9 and 6x12 formats.

https://jjpascuallargeformatphoto.com/

[Drew Wiley]

Pere - it's not just the size of the image circle that affects contrast. Flare is easy to control with proper shading. Lens construction is also a factor. Let's take an apples to apples comparison referencing all late multi-coated elements. A Dagor design has only 4 air/glass interfaces. My Kern MC dagors actually had too much contrast for some color chrome work. Tessars are a close second with 6 interfaces, with Nikkor M's being late MC versions of these. Plasmats are a little less contrasty or hue pure due to considerably more interfaces, no matter who made them. This is simply fact. Few photographers are good enough color printers to take advantage of this distinction, but it exits, and is plainly stated in Nikon's own literature concerning their M lenses. These distinctions are minor but real. I mostly use plasmats myself due to their versatility and large image circles; but in certain instances I need something especially color precise. In terms of black and white work, everyone with experience with top end dagors or late tessars recognizes their superiority rendering subtle micotonality.

[Bob Salomon]

[QUOTE=Drew Wiley;1515044]Germinars were rather rare in this country, Arne. But it's easier to produce a high degree of correction at f/9 max aperture than in f/5.6 equivalents, whether your Germinar, or G-Clarons, or Fuji A's, or Nikkor M's, or various process lenses. Rendering or "look" is a more subjective topic. The 210 Fuji L was appreciated by portrait photographers, and I preferred my old 210 Symmar S for that kind of work, though it was not as crisp or contrasty as any of my current lenses, which I mainly use for landscapes.[/QUOTE

Germinars were not rare, they were on lots of vertical process cameras as they were a wide angle process lens. But they did not fit directly into shutters as many Apo Ronars would.

That is why they were not sold in the US photo market. After making adapters to fit into shutters we just could not have a competitive price vs other manufacturers. Besides, we sold a lot of shutter mounted Apo Ronars!

[Pere Casals]

Plasmats are a little less contrasty and hue pure due to considerably more interfaces, no matter who made them. This is simply fact. These distinctions are minor but real.

Drew, this is true in single coated lenses, but in the late 1970s Fuji EBC multicoatings were yet able to transmit 99.8% of the light.

To generate flare a ray needs two reflections, of the 0.2% that is bounced back in a surface only 0.2% will be bounced forward again in the first surface the ray finds, probability is 0.002*0.002 = 4/1,000,000 If you want I make the operations for the full assembly, but MC virtually eliminates flare.

Today a Pro DSLR zoom (Nikon 70-200 VR) has 21 elements in 15 groups, and no problem !!! Even with 15 gropus a MC lens has flare under control.

But then many times 70% of the light in the circle illuminates the glowing bellows, and even with a compendium shade a remarkable fraction of light reaching the film is bounced back, making bellows glow again. Nor the film or the bellows are optic grade surfaces.


Let's make the calculations for a plasmat:

The worst case for flare is the one generated by the last #8 surface. A ray reflected back there can be reflected forward in 7 surfaces before it reaches the exterior, so probability is 0.002 * 0.002 * 7, this is 28/1,000,000.

So total optic flare for an MC plasmat is:

4/1,000,000 * 7 +
4/1,000,000 * 6 +
4/1,000,000 * 5 +
4/1,000,000 * 4 +
4/1,000,000 * 3 +
4/1,000,000 * 2 +
4/1,000,000 * 1

this is:

4/1,000,000 * 28 = 112 /1,000,000


Total 0,011%

Drew... this is nothing in photogtraphy

Any problem with those calculations ?

[Drew Wiley]

I specifically mentioned late MC lenses as a basis for comparison class, Pere. I'm not guessing whatsoever. This is the kind of work I do. I use these various lenses and understand their actual rendering differences when printing, especially in color. Merely crunching percents doesn't tell you anywhere near the whole story. It's not just about flare. But unfortunately, the basis by which people are most likely to judge such things today is via the relatively poor standard of inkjet printing, which might be highly convenient, but still is an adolescent class of media with a lot of serious inherent color repro problems. I simply don't have time to even begin to explain to you the details; but maybe over time, as you get more experience fine-tuning color printing, you'll begin to appreciate such distinctions for yourself and not be so obsessed with mere math familiar to just about everyone. And it's not pertinent to this particular thread anyway. And in that respect, I will say that I've never acquired a substandard LF lens in my life from any of the big four manufacturers. Every single one of them has been superb, though certain ones excel at certain tasks more than others.

[Pere Casals]

Drew, let's simplify, we were (off-topic) talking about flare in MC 3 groups vs 4 groups.

What I say is that modern (since 1980) MC LF lenses don't have flare generated from internal lens reflections in the optic surfaces. Flare we may notice comes from bellows

[Drew Wiley]

You sound like a stuck record, Pere. Read Nikon's own LF lens brochures if you don't believe me. M lenses were designed for particularly high color accuracy, and the modernized, optimized tessar construction was their logical path to doing that. Their engineers knew what they were doing. There was some trade-off in overall image circle. The even contrastier dagor design infamously required a lot of hand-tuning, matching the elements. That's why, at the end, Kern offered only one multi-coated focal length of Dagor. And by contrast, I'm NOT referring just to flare control, either overall or internal. It pertains to both the rendering of microtonality and the ability to resolve certain subtle hues from one another. And the Kern 14 inch MC Dagor had the most accurate color rendering of any lens I've ever seen, in ANY format. Nikkor M's are a close second.

[Dingosean]

I have a rodenstock (caltar ii-n) and I'm pretty happy with it... mega sharp!