355 G-Claron or 360 Rodenstock APO Sironar N

[Roger Richards]

Hi folks, I am looking for a lens for portraiture on my 8x10 and was wondering about which way was best to go. Of the lenses out there, which would you say is the best performer in the 355-360mm focal length? I am researching on the Schneider 355 G-Claron, the Rodenstock 360 APO Sironar-N and the Nikkor-W 360 6.5---any opinions would be very appreciated.

[Oren Grad]

For me it wouldn't even be a close call - of those three, I'd take the Rodenstock over the other two any time. The G-Claron and Nikkor-W are harsher and less refined both tonally and in rendering of background out-of-focus areas. This latter is especially important if you're going to make environmental portraits rather than studio portraits with a featureless background.

As it happens, the 360 Rodenstock can be found quite inexpensively these days if you watch eBay and have a bit of patience - in addition to being a nicer lens than the G-Claron IMO, it's also now less expensive too. You can save even more if you'll accept the Caltar II-N or Sironar-N labels on the lens rather than insisting on the latest Apo-Sironar-N.

[Christopher Perez]

Oren, might you have any examples of what you describe as harsher and less refined both tonally and in rendering of background out-of-focus areas? I'm very curious to see the effects you describe.

[Roger Richards]

Thanks, Jim and Oren. I have a Rodenstock 240mm APO Sironar-S and the 360 I am looking for would preferably also be an excellent performer at near large apertures. What about the Fuji 360mm performance-wise?

[Oren Grad]

Roger, if you like the 240 Apo-Sironar-S, you're unlikely to go wrong with the 360 N or S. If you want to be really picky about performance at wide apertures, the S will have a slight edge. But you'll pay dearly for it - the 360 S is very scarce used and costs close to $3000 new, while with a bit of patience you should be able to find a clean 360 Sironar-N MC or Caltar II-N for $400-500.

I've not used a Fujinon 360. My experience with other Fujinons is that they also are a bit harder-edged gradation-wise, can sometimes produce smooth bokeh so long as the OOF backgrounds are within a few feet as in a studio, but can become quite obnoxious for my taste as the backgrounds fall away beyond that.

Chris, I know you're skeptical about this. At some point I'll conjure up a side-by-side comparison between an Apo-Sironar type and a G-Claron or some comparably less-nice alternative that will show what I mean, and I'll send you a couple of work prints to look at. It may be a while before I can get to it because I've got lots of other things I need to worry about, but I won't forget. I do respect the "I'm from Missouri" approach, and when I'm able to get around to it I'm sure that comparing notes on our reactions to the same images will clarify things considerably for both of us.

[Scott Rosenberg]

how about a 355 Schneider Gold Dot Dagor? it's one of my absolute favorite lenses on 8x10.

[Roger Richards]

Oren, great detailed advice, I very much appreciate it.

Scott, is the 355 Gold Dot Dagor much different form the 355 G-Claron? Thanks.

[Frank Petronio]

Not to undercut my potential sale, but the 360 Fujinon that I am having a firesale on is really sharp and isn't a bokeh king. In fact, I doubt anything in a five-bladed Copal is a bokeh king, at least if you don't like little hexagons in the background. But it seems as nice as all the Rodenstocks I've had in other sizes.

I am quite happy with the rendering from my 300 Xenar (modern, Copal) used wide open or very slightly stopped. Of course it is better for full length or slightly wide pudgy portraits (like my old Rollei actually).

I would fear the 355/9 lenses would be a stop too slow for comfort.

[Oren Grad]

Roger, I'm sure Scott will respond based on his experience with the 355 Gold Dot. What I can say based on experience with the 355 G-Claron and with late-model Dagors in other focal lengths, is that their character is very different. The Dagors have a very old-fashioned, smooth and silky kind of look at the plane of focus, while the G-Claron is just very plain and a bit crude by comparison. I don't know whether the very late 355 Schneider/Kern Dagor retained that look; perhaps Scott or someone else here with experience can clarify.

I think you need to decide what sort of look you're after. I prefer the ultra-clean Apo-Sironar-N/S look to the schmaltzy Dagor look myself, but plenty of people feel exactly the opposite. Others would rather have a Heliar, or some other classic lens type. Still others don't care about these distinctions.

If someone says "my favorite lens is X", you should ask why - you may or may not be looking for the same thing.

[Roger Richards]

Frank, what are you asking for the Fujinon (hope this is not breaking forum rules)? I think you are right about the small aperture for portrait subjects.

Oren, the info you have provided me tonight has put me on the right track. I prefer a clean-looking background, myself, so one of the modern 360 plasmats might be best to match my 240 Sironar-S.

[Henry Ambrose]

Roger, here are pictures from a Fujinon 300mm CMW. (http://www.henryambrose.com/810/first20.html" target="_blank)

This might give you an idea about how Fuji lenses look. I'm pleased with mine but I'm looking for a 300-360 lens that will fold up into my Kodak Master View. I just bought an Ilex Paragon 12" f6.3 in #4 shutter thats in very nice shape but its about 1/4 inch too long for the camera to close so I'll be moving it on to someone else. If you're interested let me know.

Does anyone here have experience with the KMV and what lenses will close up inside? Or should I just forget that idea?

[Frank Petronio]

Not to go too far OT, but the apertures of those old ACME shutters is a lot rounder than the silly five blade model Copals and Compurs. What a pity, because I really think the new shutters are so much more reliable and smaller.

[for-sale info deleted by moderator]

[medform-norm]

"In fact, I doubt anything in a five-bladed Copal is a bokeh king" - Frank, finally somebody who says something about five-blade irisses and bokeh that I can relate to. I too feel that five-bladed or even eight-bladed irises produce bad bokeh. Perhaps that's why I'm attracted to older lenses, since these seem to have rounder irisses and hence better bokeh - something I'm very particular about. Now what I don't get, is that if what you and I say is true, why it is that most modern lenses have such bokeh-unfriendly irisses? Every now and then a modern bit of glasses tempts me, but then I remember: Ah, the iris blades thing! And if there exists a list of modern lenses with nice irisses, where can I find it?

[Frank Petronio]

Ha, tell me too. I really think the assumption is that you'll use your $3000 Cooke with a Copal 3 wide open or only slightly stopped down. OR you go all the way to f/32 and aim for a larger depth of field that avoids the bokeh issues.

Obviously they understood this one hundred years ago... but I think in the 50-60-70s the emphasis was on total sharpness over any concerns about bokeh. And Copals and Compurs are all that are left for new.

[Roger Richards]

Frank, I have a line on a Caltar II-N 360 as well right now. I'll be in decision mode as soon as I have all the facts together.

Thanks for posting, Henry, nice starter 8x10 shots. The Fujinons are very snappy lenses, I actually have a CMW 210mm/5.6 that I was using for 4x5.

[Oren Grad]

Even though it affects the shape of out-of-focus highlights, the number of blades in the iris in fact has a relatively modest effect on the bokeh, otherwise there's no way modern lenses that all come in the same shutter could look as different as they do. Nor would lenses differ so much in their character wide-open, where the iris is entirely out of the picture, so to speak. The dominant influence on bokeh is the glass itself, especially the particular tradeoffs that the lens designer chooses to make among different aberrations.

For those who are not familiar with this, Harold Merklinger's article remains a terrific basic explanation of what's really going on:

www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf (http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf)

[Frank Petronio]

yeah, I understand. But those hexagons still appear, whether it is a new 135 Sironar-S or a Nikkor 50/1.4 AFD. It isn't the bokeh that is the problem - it is the diaphram.

[Oren Grad]

Mentioning the 135 Apo-Sironar-S and the 50/1.4 AF Nikkor in the same breath - 'tis like fingernails on a chalkboard. Talk about juxtaposing the sublime with the ridiculous...

BTW, late model Compurs, at least the smaller ones, have near-circular diaphragms. Someday I'd be curious to test exactly what effect, if any, the iris has by comparing the identical glass mounted in both Copal and Compur. While the Apo-Sironar-S seems to be extremely scarce in Compur, the N and W do turn up occasionally.

[Frank Petronio]

In a perfect world we'd all have 9-bladed black Compur Press Shutters with 1/250th top speeds... it could be (have been) done.

[Oren Grad]

> sigh <

[Scott Rosenberg]

rodger,

all i can speak from is my own experience. amoung several others, i also own a 210 and 150-Sironar-S which i love. i also have a 305-G-Claron and a 355 Schneider Gold Dot Dagor.

my impressions are thus...
of these four, which have been mentioned in this thread, i like the G-Claron least of all, which is to say that i like it a lot and consider it a fine lens, i just prefer the others to it. i really like the sironar-s glass, as it has a unique look to it. it's sharp where it's sharp and smooth where it isn't. wonderful glass. as much as i like the sironar-s, i prefer the Schneider Gold Dot Dagor most of all. in fact, of all of the lenses i have, my absolute favorite is the Schneider Dagor. tough, for me at least, to verbalize the qualities. i wouldn't call it 'schmaltzie' or overly 'creamy' like my heliar, but it is VERY smooth, subtle, and SHARP. i especially love it for black and white work and portraiture. it is one fantastic lens - it's got the smoothness of a dagor and the sharpness a sironar.

hope this helps!
scott

[John Kasaian]

Richard,

I'll second Jim Galli's thoughts on the 14" Commercial Ektar. While not a "bokeh babe" they are super for portraits.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I agree with the general gist here that a G-Claron is not an appropriate lens for portraiture; its just way too harsh. While I agree with Oren that the Rodenstock is probably the best of the batch, I don't really like any plasmats for portraiture. They are excellent for many things, but for head and shoulders portaiture, I would follow the Galli train; a 14" Commerical Ektar is a fine portrait lens. Nice and sharp but not cutting, good tonality. However, if it were me I would look for a 360mm Heliar. This lens can't be topped for skin, however it is a massive lens and can't be put into a normal shutter.

[Ken Lee]

If an out-of-focus area contains specular highlights against a dark background, it's fairly easy to tell the difference between lenses. We prefer them rendered as even disks, not with rings around the edges or bright spots in the center. I have taken the liberty of extracting some illustrations from the article cited by Oren.



http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/personal/goodbokeh.jpg
Good Bokeh

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/personal/badbokeh.jpg
Bad Bokeh




It gets harder to see the difference between lenses when we encounter less blatant conditions: complex areas that are 3-dimensional, and which contain few or no specular highlights.

[Phong]

As I progress in my appreciation of bokeh, I find that the number of iris blades actually plays a very small role in the bokeh rendition, if any. In fact, it does not play any role at all in the situation where it is most important to me: shooting with the lens wide open. It is where you can really see the bokeh characteristics of a lens, and often is the optimal condition to enjoy the bokeh, though this of course also depends on many factors such as the subject and the background, in particular distance, backlight, specular highlights, and background colors.

Secondly, bokeh is largely a matter of taste. There are situations where I prefer one kind over another, just like there are situations where I might prefer film development with more or less grain, to use a crude analogy.

To me, bokeh is not so much about hexagonal or other polygonal rendition, bothersome though that might be. There is so much more about characteristics of background rendition than that.

[John O'Connell]

When I was buying my 14" lens for 8x10, the modern plasmats were too expensive so I bought a G-Claron. I wanted to make bitingly sharp portraits. If I could have afforded a modern Sironar, I would have purchased one.

Now, the situation is reversed, and all of the 360 taking plasmats are going for a song on the used market. If I was buying today, I'd probably just buy the first one from the big 4 that came along cheap.

I will also step into the bokeh debate for a moment. I've generally moved away from lenses with good bokeh because I find them to be lacking performance in the plane of sharp focus (old Leica Summicrons, a Xenar). The Sironars, however, strike a good compromise for bokeh BEHIND the focal plane.

[Ken Lee]

Is this bokeh good or bad ? It was taken quite close, at 1:1 or closer.

See http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/gallery/daylily.htm (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/gallery/daylily.htm" target="_blank)

[Jim Galli]

This was taken with a 14 1/2" 1930's Bausch & Lomb Projector lens of triplet design that I paid a whopping $14.99 for, and I love the bokeh. Others who know more than me may hate it. It's all pretty subjective. No need to worry about aperture blades though. They ain't any.

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/DelicatoS.jpgDelicato

[Roger Richards]

Man, the knowledge you guys are throwing at me requires some time to digest :-) I really appreciate your responses, as I am such a relative newcomer to LF.

Scott, that is really interesting info on the Gold Dot Dagor. My film choice for 8x10 is color negative, so that is a factor. Also, it must be similar in rendering to my 240 APO Sironar-S and this 355-360 focal length lens I am hunting will be for head and torso portraiture, nothing close up.

I should also mention that the camera I am using is a Phillips Explorer, and it is one of Dick's latest that uses Technika-style boards. Interestingly, the monster 240 Sironar-S fits fine, the camera is incredibly rigid. The rear element is 80mm in diameter, and the large Sironar and other plasmats are all the same, so they will fit. Dick Phillips, a really fine gentleman, spent some time checking his manuals for a selection of 360mm lenses that would fit the Explorer for me.

[Oren Grad]

the monster 240 Sironar-S

Roger, you will recalibrate your understanding of "monster" once you have one of the 360 plasmats in hand. As for me, having wrestled with the 480 N, the 240 S seems downright petite now...

Ken, if you want to see an OOF effect I don't like, look at Henry's puppy snap, taken with a Fujinon, at the link above. The OOF pebbles covering the ground turn to puppy litter as you move up the frame. Situationally appropriate, I guess, but not terribly pleasing visually.

Jim's projector-lens snap is great. But a whole series taken in this style would scream "look at all this luscious OOF stuff!" The effect is so overwhelming that it calls attention to itself, and the pictures end up being about the lens and not about the subject. That's OK if it's what you want - I'd sure have a lot of fun playing with it - but it wouldn't be my choice if the point is to make portraits where the focus of attention is the person.

[Jim Galli]

Oren's point is well taken. There are portraits and there are portraits. And there are a gamut of lens possibilities way beyond Commercial Ektar's. I'm enjoying Chris Nisperos / Roger Hicks book of Hollywood glamour portraiture. I could duplicate about 90% of those with a $75 Wollensak Velostigmat. But then there's Robb Kendrick's Texas tintypes, and Quinn Jacobson's look he gets with antique daguerrotype lenses and collodion. There's just a whole world of different looks you can go for beyond an ordinary plasmat. Portrait opportunities are sadly few and far between for me in my workaday world but I'm anxious to get someone in front of the old projector lens to see what it will render. I think it might be a contender with some good lights.

[Christopher Perez]

Having spent decades as a working pro (in my early days) and later as an avid hobbiest I have to say, my eyes fail to see any differences between lenses that couldn't be controlled by processing, film type, or the shape of the aperture.

Given a choice between a Rodenstock 360 Sironar-N and a Schneider GClaron 355, I'd choose the smaller lens. I have used both and can say that weight and size are more important to me than things I may or may not be able to detect.

I've been thinking long and hard about this topic. I'm intrigued that people can get so far into it. Being neurotic myself, I understand and feel the affliction. Completely.

I took a look at two plasmats, a 150mm Germinar-W f/9 process lens and a 150mm Fujinon W/EBC f/5.6 lens. My initial findings were posted at http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/GermFuj.html I went back and looked at the 8x10 prints and the 16x20 sectional enlargements last night. I have to say, both lenses look smooth, sharp, and completely wonderful. I fail to see any "harshness" in Fuji's rendition. I fail to see any on print optically related advantage of one lens over the other.

However, I feel the need to look further at out of focus areas with regards to varying lens designs. People have made claims. I want to follow up to see what might be verifiable. To this end, I have a Nikkor 200 M (APO at infinity, according to the marketing fluff), a 210 Schneider Xenar f/6.1 (modern), 210 Docter Tessar f/4.5 (brand new), 210 Schneider Symmar Convertable f/5.6 (old but what the heck), a 210 Rodenstock Geronar f/6.? (modern triplet), and a 240 Germinar-W f/9 (brand new process lens mounted in a round aperture Prontor shutter). If the gods are willing (we've had more rain this month than any time in the past 36 years, so things are drippy and damp just now) I'll haul all of these out, shoot a common subject, maybe even remount a lens or two into the Prontor round aperture shutter, look for sharpness and out of focus area rendition, and post my results. I've got to know for myself once and for all. Though it may take some time to process and print everything.

Still, this is driving me nuts. People see things that I'm not sure I can. Neurosis. Terrible, I know.

[John Kasaian]

JimGalli,

I used to work about 1/2 mile from Delicato Winery! Nice wine, but have you tried Cribari Claret? Its kind of like cheap wine with bokeh----the longer I drink it the better it tastes! ;-)

[Frank Petronio]

It's there Chris, made by German elves...

FWIW, Avedon was reported to have used 360 Fujion Ws and Symmars for his 8x10 full length portriats (the West) but there are no out of focus backgrounds in his pictures...

[Ken Lee]

Oren -



I see the pebbles, and wonder if it is the subject, rather than their rendering, that you don't like.



In some of Henry's other photos, there are also out-of-focus areas, but do they trouble you less ? There are distant trees, mechanical parts, etc., and their rendering looks fairly even to me, with none of the classic "bad bokeh" artifacts shown above. Same lens, different subject, OK bokeh ?



Perhaps I can take this one step further: same lens, same photo. I recall your impressions of the uppler-left-hand corner of one of my images (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/portraits/sgn2.htm" target="_blank), an 8x10 shot made with a Fujinon 450C. The subject area contains distant leaves. Out of focus, it contains a pattern not wholly unlike the gravel in Henry's dog portrait. Does the flag (equally out of focus) exhibit bad bokeh too, or does it show smooth transitions ?

[Craig Wactor]

Christopher,
thank you for the link to your research. I always enjoy a really scientific comparison between lenses. I actually thought the germinar looked sharper in the detail from 16x20's though!

[Christopher Perez]

Craig, thank you for the kind feedback. Indeed, the Germinar does look a little sharper. But I think it has to do with the way the image was scanned. On photographic paper, there's no difference between the two lenses.

[Kevin Crisp]

I'm struggling here to imagine what I would see that corresponds to these subjective descriptions of lens performance. If a lens is "too harsh," what does that really mean? Too contrasty? Too sharp? Something else? Not being critical, I'm just trying to understand. (Kind of like a hi fi speaker being "really musical" -- I want to know what that means.)

[Roger Richards]

Jim, what about the 14" Commercial Ektar you mentioned? What kind of shutter is it mounted in, and would it fit on a Technika board? Also, I am intrigued by the Schneider Gold Dot Dagor that Scott described.

[Scott Rosenberg]

roger, if memory serves, the Schneider Gold Dot Dagors were made in three batches by the swiss company Kern. i think that only the third run were multi-coated with front filter threads, though someone may chime in here and correct me if i'm mistaken. mine happens to be multi-coated, in a modern compur 3 shutter, and threaded (60mm), which places it in the third run.

if you're looking, i thought this little history might help.

the lens is great for color work, too, but i REALLY love it for black and white.

shoot me an email if you have some specific questions.

scott

[Henry Ambrose]

I would characterize the Fuji 300mm I have as having very neutral out of focus areas. No big "effects" just slipping in and out of focus to greater and lesser degrees. I'd term it "a modern, sharp, contrasty, very well corrected lens".

In 4x5 normal lenses I own a Schneider 150 APO, a Rodenstock 150 Sironar W and a 180 Sironar S. I like all of them. The Rodenstocks and Schneider do look different. The Schneider seems to have a more dramatic fall of sharpness but his could be that it is frighteningly sharp in the middle of the field from f8 on up. It also seems to have more "effects" in the OOF areas. More smear and mess. Both Rodenstocks have a kind of neutrality to them and -loads- of resolution that resembles the Fuji - or perhaps the other way around as I have held the Rodenstocks as the gold standard. But lately I've been looking for Fujinons to buy - they are quite impressive. Anyway I think I like the "real real sharp and smooth at the same time" look of these lenses.

I've been shooting the normal 4x5 glass a bit lately to keep a reference against 8x10. In mid and full length portraits printed 16x20 4x5 just gets creamed when put up against 8x10 - 8x10 is just a whole 'nother world.

Thats how I see these lenses. I find it interesting that others see the results so differently. I have either owned or still own and use bokeh kings in smaller formats - Leica, Hasselbald and Rollei. They seem to have different flavors but as far as I can tell, they're all tasty. I'm not saying anyone here is wrong on this subject but I also don't see some of the things y'all are talking about.

Roger, if you want a 360 that looks like your 240 then I'd say keep to Rodenstock.

Jim Galli's wine bottle picture looks mighty fine!

Oh yeah - I sure wish someone would put me out of my misery and tell me what normalish lens to buy that will fold up in my Kodak Master View.

[e]

I just bought a bunch of Deardorff accessories and 2 lenses from an architectual/studio photog whose 8x10 equip was not being used for the past ten years and he just wanted to move it on. I got the stuff for a song and the lenses are mint... a 300mm Sironar N and 360mm f6.3 Fuji W. I haven't tested them yet but I have to say that they are astonishingly sharp wide open on the GG. I did not expect this for these lenses. I would really like to have the Sironar S but I can't imagine that it would be much better than the N except for extra coverage. These really seem fantastic lenses albeit for their heft. Emile

[Roger Richards]

Henry, I'm hearing you....at this point I am considering just staying with Rodenstock/Caltar lenses for uniformity. I did see a lens for sale on the bay that has caught my interest due to Scott's description: the Schneider Gold Dot Dagor. At this point I am one muddled puppy, but in a good way :-)

As for bokeh, actually, that is not one of my priorities in a 360. I get plenty of bokeh when I shoot my Leica 35 Summicron, the version just before the 35 Summicron ASPH. That lens is so smooth.

Thanks to all of you guys for your help.

[Ken Lee]

...in mid and full length portraits printed 16x20 4x5 just gets creamed when put up against 8x10 - 8x10 is just a whole 'nother world."



Are you comparing a 16x20 enlargement from 4x5, against an 8x10 contact print - or against an 8x10 enlarged to 16x20 ?

[Jim Galli]

Roger, sorry I had to drop out of the discussion some hours ago. Work called! Such a trial, this working for a living when there's so much neat stuff to play with. Anyways, the 14" Commercial Ektar is a giant lens. I don't know if it would fit on a Techinca board. Perhaps not. Now as to the GD Dagor. I am a huge fan. It is just a gorgeous all purpose lens and will give beautiful contrast in almost any situation. Mine is the earliest of the 3 Kern run's. It is single coated and has no front filter thread. It is on my list of lenses that isn't for sale at any price. I'll incur Oren's wrath perhaps but I've had a dozen Plasmats come and go, including the 360 Sironar N, but the GD Dagor is a keeper. It just has a special way with contrast that I love. Out where I work we have tracking telescopes with 60" lenses. Built by Kern of Switzerland.

[Scott Rosenberg]

"It is on my list of lenses that isn't for sale at any price."


nicely stated, jim. that's exactly how i feel. they are special lenses to be sure!

[Henry Ambrose]

Ken,

I refer to 4x5 and 8x10 at 16x20 print size - the 8x10 looks better at half the linear enlargement - no real surprise huh? I think some of it comes from the longer lenses, some from the 4x larger film area. I'm not seeing any grain in the 8x10 prints, they're sorta like "being there".

I've added two more scans on my "first twenty page". (http://www.henryambrose.com/810/first20.html" target="_blank) The last one (the eye) might be a good example of bokeh from the Fujinon at f11 and up close.

[Frank Petronio]

"It is on my list of lenses that isn't for sale at any price."

Now, now Jim, that could be construed as simply raising the price and that would violate forum policy... ;-)

[Oren Grad]

I'll incur Oren's wrath perhaps but I've had a dozen Plasmats come and go, including the 360 Sironar N, but the GD Dagor is a keeper. It just has a special way with contrast that I love. Out where I work we have tracking telescopes with 60" lenses. Built by Kern of Switzerland.

No wrath from here - based on what I've heard of it, and on the limited exposure I've had to it as a viewer of prints, rather than as a user myself, I understand why Dagor fans might adore the Kern Dagor. It can produce effects that can be quite lovely for some kinds of pictures under some circumstances. It's just not a lens that would suit my own taste in a general-purpose tool, and I can't justify the cost for a special purpose lens in a focal length that I rarely use in 8x10; nor, unlike earlier 14-inch Dagors, does the Kern cover 11x14. To each his own.

My Fujinon-allergy aside, I enjoy following Henry's tinkerings. I think I know what he means about "being there" and "more real than real". For me, one of the most compelling things about working with a big negative, and with contact prints especially, is the sense of presence and transparency they give. I still can't get enough of it. I've lost count of how many runs I've done on my Jobo over quite a few years, but even just pulling each batch of big negatives out of the Jobo drum and eyeballing them for the first time is still a thrill.

[Ken Lee]

Henry -

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, once we reach around 4x enlargement, the differences start to show.

I have read this elsewhere, so it's not my idea - but it seems to hold true, as a rule of thumb, when moving up to the next larger format, be it MF to 4x5, or what-have-you.

[Noah Addis]

I also use the 240mm Sironar-S as my main lens for 8x10. I have found that a good companion is the 360 Apo-Symmar. Despite being a different brand, it is a good compliment to the Rodenstock 240mm. I've heard it's comprable to the 360 Sironar-S, but it might be easier to find used. It's super sharp and simply a beautiful lens. I've used it for suburban landscape as well as portrait work, a few times even wide open (or close to it) and it's always been a great performer. I got a great deal on mine on ebay, and I've never regretted the purchase. It is a huge and heavy lens though, but I wouldn't part with it. Now if only I can find a nice minty 155mm grandagon....