450 mm Nikkor-M vs. Symmar-S 480 mm

[MCohn]

Hey all,

I know that this has been touched on in earlier threads, but I'm in a slightly different situation than previous posters, so I wanted to see what current prevailing opinion is. I'm looking for a longer lens for my 8x10, and the 450mm Nikkor-M and the 480 mm Symmar-S seem like two strong candidates. I have the 210mm (for 4x5) and 300mm Symmar-S, and have been quite happy with them, but I know that the Nikkor-M is highly regarded. However, I have no plans whatsoever to take this lens out of the studio, and will mostly be shooting still life and portraits. Furthermore, my camera can definitely handle the weight of the Symmar-S. As I understand it, they both have a ton of coverage.

The Symmar seems to be a touch more expensive, but if it's the superior lens, that's not a problem. Then again, if they're virtually indistinguishable, I might as well save a couple hundred dollars. I'll be contact printing exclusively, by the way.

So, which lens do people prefer, if size and weight are taken out of the equation? Any advice is absolutely welcome! Thanks!

Best,

M

[Drew Wiley]

Symmar S is actually an older design. It's not going to be quite as sharp, but nobody will begin to notice that minor distinction on any kind of enlargement from 8x10 format. What will be recognizable is the very high contrast of the Nikkor M due to its multicoated tessar design with only 6 air-glass interfaces, versus the gentler plasmat Symmar S. There is also a gentler overall look to the Symmar a bit hard to describe, which I found appealing for color portraits in the equivalent 4X5 option - very sharp when needed, but not busy or harsh in out-of-focus areas like many general-purpose plasmats. Tough choice unless the sheer weight and bulk of a draft horse versus and ordinary horse is important. For tabletop work, I'd far rather use a close-range corrected 355 G-Claron or 360 Fujinon A. For portraiture, I'd pick the Nikkor 450 M over the Symmar S, but with no regrets qualitatively about the latter if I went that direction instead. Remember, overall cost must be factored, taking into account the much more expensive huge 105mm filters needed by the Symmar, unless you're using gel filters over your studio lights instead.

You might also want to consider the older thick-element single-coated Fujinon L 420 in Copal 3S. It was very highly regarded by portrait studios.

[neil poulsen]

These lenses are optimized for infinity focus. How about an Apo-Ronar, a Red-Dot-Artar, or something like that? They're optimized for studio use.

[lenicolas]

I second Neil’s suggestion. A 480 apo ronar in Sinar DB mount would be cheaper than either of the lenses you consider.
I have one (in a compur shutter) and am very happy with it.

[Oslolens]

Go for the brightest you can find, an Ilex or Calumet 20" -508mm f7 in shutter #5. I bought mine mostly to use the shutter with diopter lenses, Pentax 820mm, Nikon 667mm, Canon 500mm and 333mm Marumi achromatic close-up lenses, used single or double to half the focal length. Even added a mm-scale at skgrimes.com

[MCohn]

These lenses are optimized for infinity focus. How about an Apo-Ronar, a Red-Dot-Artar, or something like that? They're optimized for studio use.

Well they do seem to be somewhat less expensive! (And B and H seems to have a used 480mm APO-Ronar for sale in good condition.) How does the character compare to the Nikkor-M or Symmar-S, in your estimation? I've yet to use a process lens.

[Bernice Loui]

Prevailing 8x10 lens opinions commonly found on the web will likely be biased towards small lenses like the Nikkor M, Fujinon A, G-claron, and etc.. This bias appears to be driven by the volume of field folder camera users that want compact-small-lightweight lens with the largest possible image circle optimally designed / built for essentially infinity focus.

Once in studio or indoors doing table top images, the optical needs are different. This is where an APO process lens like APO artar, APO ronar, APO nikkor and similar absolutely outperforms any of the designed for infinity compact field folder back-packer lenses. The larger image circle of any lens grows larger as the image reproduction ratio approaches 1:1 or life size. The increased image circle within the camera bellows produces flare light that bounces of sides of the bellows reducing image contrast.

8x10 has specific camera and image making needs for table top work. Does the camera to be used have enough bellows and camera draw? Focal length is always a trade-off of what the table subjects are -vs- what the camera is capable of and what size the table top subjects wanna be on film. Typical focal length will be 360mm to 480mm, keep in mind once at 1:1 or life size, bellows and camera will be out to 720mm to 960mm, will the camera set up be stable and all needed to produce a vibration-shake free exposure on film? Lens focal length affects how the table top subjects can be lighted.. Always use a GOOD bellows lens shade, preferably an adjustable four sided curtain shade. These go a very long ways to reducing lens flare and flare light due to excessive lens image circle size relative to film image size.


Then there is taking aperture-vs-camera movement-vs-table top subject placement-vs- what can be in apparent focus-vs- lighting. These and more are all trade offs for table top images.

Applying camera movements coupled with stopping down the lens to achieve apparent focus if the table top subjects becomes a balance of stopping down more shaves off resolution due to diffraction and puts more demands on lighting and there are absolute limits on what can be put into apparent focus using camera movements.

Given all these other factors involved with table top images, lens choice is really a modest consideration to the overall needs of table top image making. Oh, field folder cameras are often not a lot of joy to use for complex table top images.



Bernice

[MCohn]

Prevailing 8x10 lens opinions commonly found on the web will likely be biased towards small lenses like the Nikkor M, Fujinon A, G-claron, and etc.. This bias appears to be driven by the volume of field folder camera users that want compact-small-lightweight lens with the largest possible image circle optimally designed / built for essentially infinity focus.

Once in studio or indoors doing table top images, the optical needs are different. This is where an APO process lens like APO artar, APO ronar, APO nikkor and similar absolutely outperforms any of the designed for infinity compact field folder back-packer lenses. The larger image circle of any lens grows larger as the image reproduction ratio approaches 1:1 or life size. The increased image circle within the camera bellows produces flare light that bounces of sides of the bellows reducing image contrast.

8x10 has specific camera and image making needs for table top work. Does the camera to be used have enough bellows and camera draw? Focal length is always a trade-off of what the table subjects are -vs- what the camera is capable of and what size the table top subjects wanna be on film. Typical focal length will be 360mm to 480mm, keep in mind once at 1:1 or life size, bellows and camera will be out to 720mm to 960mm, will the camera set up be stable and all needed to produce a vibration-shake free exposure on film? Lens focal length affects how the table top subjects can be lighted.. Always use a GOOD bellows lens shade, preferably an adjustable four sided curtain shade. These go a very long ways to reducing lens flare and flare light due to excessive lens image circle size relative to film image size.


Then there is taking aperture-vs-camera movement-vs-table top subject placement-vs- what can be in apparent focus-vs- lighting. These and more are all trade offs for table top images.

Applying camera movements coupled with stopping down the lens to achieve apparent focus if the table top subjects becomes a balance of stopping down more shaves off resolution due to diffraction and puts more demands on lighting and there are absolute limits on what can be put into apparent focus using camera movements.

Given all these other factors involved with table top images, lens choice is really a modest consideration to the overall needs of table top image making. Oh, field folder cameras are often not a lot of joy to use for complex table top images.



Bernice

Bernice,

Thank you for the detailed reply! It's much appreciated. I'm using a Sinar Norma for 8x10, but I have the accessories to extend the bellows out for 1:1 if need be. (I already had a Sinar P 4x5 that arrived with lots of extras, and the Norma 8x10 came with some as well.) It has certainly been more than stable enough a camera for my needs thus far. I take it from your reply that those process lenses allow for ample movements? And in your estimation, do those same lenses still perform well when taking portraits? That is, when the reproduction ration is a ways lower than 1:1?

Best,

Matthew

[Bernice Loui]

Sinar Norma is a near ideal camera for this kind of work.

Lens image circle is the least of the concerns. 210mm being most common with 4x5, 240mm-300mm with 5x7, 360mm-480mm with 8x10. Any GOOD APO process lens (sinar shutter allows using barrel lenses with ease) is far more than good enough optically and image circle wise, camera movement with these focal lengths for table top will not be an issue due to the reproduction ratios involved. Keep in mind, lighting, subject placement will be FAR more important than lens-camera in your case with the Norma.

If the image reproduction ratio becomes life size aka 1:1, APO process lenses work fine in every way.

Do NOT forget about bellows exposure compensation aka bellows factor or the images on film will be under exposed.

Table top subject placement often becomes tallest object in the rear, shortest object in front. This is driven by what is possible to keep in apparent focus with camera movement. If the table top subjects cannot be held into apparent focus, back up the camera set up reducing the subject size on the GG. Use the largest possible taking aperture, don't be surprised if f45 become needed for 8x10 just to hold apparent focus. At f45, lighting becomes a rather curious issue.

If this is the first time doing table top, suggest trying it all on 4x5, not 8x10 first to get some idea of how this works out. Know subject placement must be done based on the ground glass image, not what is visual on the table.


Have fun,
Bernice






Bernice,

Thank you for the detailed reply! It's much appreciated. I'm using a Sinar Norma for 8x10, but I have the accessories to extend the bellows out for 1:1 if need be. (I already had a Sinar P 4x5 that arrived with lots of extras, and the Norma 8x10 came with some as well.) It has certainly been more than stable enough a camera for my needs thus far. I take it from your reply that those process lenses allow for ample movements? And in your estimation, do those same lenses still perform well when taking portraits? That is, when the reproduction ration is a ways lower than 1:1?

Best,

Matthew

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48575543432_b9508d2fee_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2h1smHw)8x10 Norma 480 Apo Ronar (https://flic.kr/p/2h1smHw) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Back in the 80's-90's this was my 8x10 Sinar Norma portrait camera with 480 Apo Ronar. Later I acquired a barrel 59cm Zeiss Apo Planar and a barrel 420 Imagon, but the 480mm Ronar was the go-to. HP5+ Pyro+ dev, maximum acute resolution and soft light was the style back then for me

[Luis-F-S]

I'd get a 16 1/2-19" Artar, readily available in shutter or mountable in a Copal 3 and be done with it! I've paid as little as $300 for the 19" in shutter. L

[Drew Wiley]

Gotta disagree with Bernice a little bit. Tabletop work often involves strong front tilts, and the combination of a big image circle and superb close-range correction in a Fuji A or G-Claron really facilitates that. In fact, shuttered GC's were primarily marketed by Schneider as their premier studio tabletop series, even though these are excellent at infinity outdoors too. I certainly wouldn't want to be dealing with the bellows extension of a 450 lens for that kind of work. I have plenty of barrel process lenses on hand, including the superb Apo Nikkor series, but prefer my 360 Fuji A for such things. Nikkor M's don't seem as well corrected for very close range work, though I love them for certain other applications. Portraiture is a somewhat different topic, lens-wise.

[Bernice Loui]

Does the lens image circle change with the image reproduction ratio going from infinity to 1:1_life size.

If yes, does the image circle increase or decrease and by how much?

Fujinon A and G-Claron are the only LF view camera lenses optimized for non-infinity image reproduction ratios, yes-no?


Bernice



Gotta disagree with Bernice a little bit. Tabletop work often involves strong front tilts, and the combination of a big image circle and superb close-range correction in a Fuji A or G-Claron really facilitates that. In fact, shuttered GC's were primarily marketed by Schneider as their premier studio tabletop series, even though these are excellent at infinity outdoors too. I certainly wouldn't want to be dealing with the bellows extension of a 450 lens for that kind of work. I have plenty of barrel process lenses on hand, including the superb Apo Nikkor series, but prefer my 360 Fuji A for such things. Nikkor M's don't seem as well corrected for very close range work, though I love them for certain other applications. Portraiture is a somewhat different topic, lens-wise.

[Drew Wiley]

It's related to several factors. As magnification increases, the image circles of course increases, regardless of lens. But with the specialized plasmats, you're starting out with a bigger image circle to begin with, which makes composition and focus per se easier wide-open. Otherwise, as per your question, No; the Fuji A and GC are not the only lenses corrected for both close-up and infinity. Everyone should know by now that certain barrel process lenses like apo artars, apo ronars, and apo nikkors perform excellently all the way from 1:1 to infinity, though some seem to need a slight shimming re-space of the two components. But having compared functional ease and performance with both categories apples to apples, for example, Fujinon A 360 vs Apo Nikkor 360, I'd reach for the Fuji A every time for tabletop usage or nature closeups. Flat head-on copy work is a different category - the process lenses are distinctly better at that. This is my real-world experience. I'm not guessing; I've specifically tested for it.

An outlier that some people love for tabletop work is the Componon S in shutter, normally associated with just enlarging; but I've never personally tried that option. And I'm deliberately excluding approx 1:1 only lenses, like Nikkor AM, because this thread assumes something more versatile, and not specialized diamond ring or insect photography.

But to a certain extent, we're talking about nuances of method or performance, not significant advantages or limitations one way or the other. There are a lot of suitable lens choices out there. Nuances do factor if I'm making a 30X40 inch full gloss color print, but certainly not for publication purposes. You'd get your chrome however you preferred, and they'd make the color separations with a copy camera and suitable process lens like those just mentioned. Now they predominantly scan, don't need the lenses anymore, and we benefit by buying those wonderful process lenses cheaply! That's not the case with Fuji A's; a 360 of one of those will still suck your wallet dry if you can even find one. 355 GC's are more common.

[Bernice Loui]

From:
http://www.savazzi.net/download/manuals/Apo-Nikkor.pdf

Spec image circle of an APO nikkor 360mm f9 APO nikkor at 1:1 or 1X is 710mm, image circle required to cover 8x10 is 312mm.. would an image circle of 710mm be large enough for 8x10 with any extreme of camera tilt with other combined camera movement?
215781

If you're hanker'n for using the Fujinon A, do that. Point being, the Fujinon A is NOT the only option for this kind of work as there are a number of LF lenses that can and will equal and exceed the optical performance of the Fujinon A.

Keep in mind, the great LF optical equalizer is f22 and smaller taking apertures. As for the flat field myth, majority of any decent LF lens is flat field.

We should be done with this Drew, it's not that big a deal :rolleyes:

Bernice



It's related to several factors. As magnification increases, the image circles of course increases, regardless of lens. But with the specialized plasmats, you're starting out with a bigger image circle to begin with, which makes composition and focus per se easier wide-open. Otherwise, as per your question, No; the Fuji A and GC are not the only lenses corrected for both close-up and infinity. Everyone should know by now that certain barrel process lenses like apo artars, apo ronars, and apo nikkors perform excellently all the way from 1:1 to infinity, though some seem to need a slight shimming re-space of the two components. But having compared functional ease and performance with both categories apples to apples, for example, Fujinon A 360 vs Apo Nikkor 360, I'd reach for the Fuji A every time for tabletop usage or nature closeups. Flat copy work is a different category - the process lenses are distinctly better at that. This is my real-world experience. I'm not guessing; I've specifically tested for it. An outlier that some people love for tabletop work is the Componon S in shutter, normally associated with just enlarging; but I've never personally tried that option.

[Drew Wiley]

Argue if you want. I work with em both, have done test mockups with both. "Flat field" in this instance refers to apo repro screen standards themselves for precise dot shape, as you should very well recognize. Tangential performance at significant tilts is a different parameter set, as you should also well recognize by now, but have neglected in this case. F/22 performance standards are a myth. Yes, it's how repro lenses were used, so the specs matched that. But Apo Nikkors are at their peak between f/11 and f/16; and in 8x10 work, I never shoot anything at a wider stop than f/32, and rarely even that - more likely f/45. So that shoots down looking into Apo Sironar S lenses with their claim to fame being reaching their peak performance a little wider open than most other plastmats, because it wouldn't ever apply to me. Depth of field issues are more important in general 8x10 shooting, and sheer precision flat on the enlarger, which is where I most often use Apo Nikkors. Have fun! It's always enjoyable to banter with you - you have quite a lens background.

[MCohn]

This has been extremely enlightening and quite a bit to chew over! Thank you all for your very detailed responses. I guess my remaining question concerns using those process lenses for portraits: what are the differences in character between the process lenses and the other (regular?) lenses mentioned when shooting portraits at less than 1:1? Drew, you spoke rather elegantly about the differences between the Nikkor-M and the Symmar-S. Or, since I'm contact printing for the foreseeable future--no room yet for a 8x10 enlarger--are the differences negligible?

[Drew Wiley]

Just depends on your intended "look" in portraits. But for me, process lenses are simply too harsh or acutely sharp and contrasty for portrait versatility, at least for women. That's why I recommended looking into the 420 Fuji L. I don't own one, but some people like the Nikkor 450M for portraiture. The other problem with process lenses is that they're ordinarily in barrel only. So you'd have to factor in the extra cost and fuss of a big added shutter, perhaps even an old no. 5 for anything longer than 360. Most 4-element process lenses also tend to render background blur or "bokeh" in a busy, distracting fashion. This question of signature look is somewhat independent of sheer optical resolution.
With 8X10 film, you'd really need to have a massive print to see much difference between any decent lens in that respect. And with any 450, you're going to have relatively shallow depth of field, so you have to think about "modeling" or moulding the in and out of focus areas of the face to the best effect esthetically.

Don't get hung up on lens sharpness; that will relate better to tabletop product photography, but again, it is almost a null topic unless you're contemplating BIG critical enlargements of that kind of subject matter. I realize it's hard to make choices starting out, when there are so many flavors of ice cream to choose from. You can't go wrong with either of your initial choices starting out. Somewhere down the line, when you find your groove, so to speak, you might want to add a second lens. But tabletop work per se is going to be logistically annoying with anything as long as a 450 due to depth of field issues and just how long your bellows is likely to get. That kind of focal length is nice for face shots in 4X5 photography; but for head and body, I'd prefer a 360.

[Daniel Unkefer]

I've never seen in person a 480mm Symmar-S. They are uber expensive and weigh like a boat anchor. I paid $200 for my 480 Apo Ronar and they are plentiful and sometimes priced in this range. I do have a 360mm Sinar Norma chrome barrel Symmar with rabbit ears and it is great for 3/4 8x10 portraits. Today I am buying a second 360 barrel Symmar for my twin lens Norma. The 480mm Ronar I used for tight heat shots. I used a lower powered Broncolor Impact monolight in a Chimera medium softbox, placed about 4' and f/stop was F22 if I remember on HP5+ in Pyro+. Contacts were made on 8x10 Ektalure R paper, 4X mounted 16x20 silver prints prints were made for me by a local commercial lab. Detail when viewed closeups full face was very impactful, you see every hair, pore in the skin, every thread in the fabric. Large format fidelity. My subjects were always comfortable and I would tend to study the 8x10 glass for a really long time, making many small changes. Two or more sheets would then be exposed. Very contemplative.

I have been buying Sinar Norma Shutters rather cheaply, I buy them not working, with all the interconnecting cables. Then send them out for repair and they are good for another sixty years. I now have four of them and really I could use another. With the Sinar Shutter you can put any barrel lens out there, as long as the rear cell dosen't strike the shutter blades, and will fit a Sinar board. If that is a problem you forward mount the lens and this can be done in all kinds of ways. It allows a world of lenses to explore that do not have shutters. If you decide you don't like the Apo Ronar sell it and try something else. I think you will like it :) I have never found the Apo Ronar to be excessively contrasty.

If you get into barrel lenses the 360mm chrome Componon is one to investigate. I paid $150 for mine and it has the Durst Forward Mounting Cone

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50189329028_1346afbb54_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2jt4qX7)8x10 to 5x7 Norma Special Bellows 1 (https://flic.kr/p/2jt4qX7) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51000252657_ee80bf885e_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2kGHChZ)8x10 Sinar Norma Long Apo Ronar 2 (https://flic.kr/p/2kGHChZ) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

520mm F9 Apo Ronar on 8x10 Norma in my studio. I own Apo Ronars forward mounted up to the 790mm F11. Some day I will buy the 1070mm F11

[MCohn]

That is certainly an enviable set up! Thank you for the advice. Out of curiosity, where do you find inexpensive Sinar shutters? Every one I’ve seen listed has been fairly expensive—though I suppose worth it, since it’s so useful. I just haven’t pulled the trigger on one yet.

[Daniel Unkefer]

The local pro shop had one recently, and I found a couple over in Europe. They pop up. Do you want a Norma one, or the later black ones that matches your P? I prefer the Norma ones myself

[Exploring Large Format]

I have the Norma Copal "Switzerland", Made in Japan Shutter. Love it. But still confused about models.

Do you, Daniel, only buy the same? Or do you also purchase the newer "DB" Shutters or other versions? Still trying to understand all the versions, their features, the lenses that match. No point in getting DB lens with Norma Shutter, right?

I've read bits and pieces of Sinar lit (each from a different era), but haven't yet seen a side-by-side. Does such a thing exist?

Thanks!

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

[Daniel Unkefer]

I have only bought Norma Shutters with cables. If they don't work that is a bargaining point regarding price. $300-$350 with/without shipping is where I am comfortable.

The later DB's don't integrate to the Norma as far as I know, so no point in that. Later shutters do tend to cost more, I'm not familiar. I prefer all original Norma but I do have a few modern things as well

[Bernice Loui]

Sinar shutters are usable on all Sinar cameras from Norma to P2. Norma shutter works in the P2 and last generation Sinar DB shutter works with DB mount lenses on Norma.
215894

One of the prime attractions to the Sinar system is the shutter which allows using barrel and other optics that could be a serious challenge on any other view camera.


Bernice




I have the Norma Copal "Switzerland", Made in Japan Shutter. Love it. But still confused about models.

Do you, Daniel, only buy the same? Or do you also purchase the newer "DB" Shutters or other versions? Still trying to understand all the versions, their features, the lenses that match. No point in getting DB lens with Norma Shutter, right?

I've read bits and pieces of Sinar lit (each from a different era), but haven't yet seen a side-by-side. Does such a thing exist?

Thanks!

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

[MCohn]

That’s very good to know! Glad I just need to keep an eye out for any model in good shape (with cables), and don’t have to look for the Norma one specifically, as those seem harder to find. Thank you for the information.