Kodak 203mm vs. Sironar-N MC 210mm

[morgan]

Someone has offered to sell me one of two lenses. A great condition Kodak Ektar 203mm in Supermatic shutter or a Rodenstock 210mm Sironar-N MC in Copal shutter. The Ektar is a bit cheaper. Both lenses and shutters are in mint condition. I shoot 99% black and white and I print no larger than 20x24. I shoot wide open or close to wide open most always so the out of focus areas are as important as sharpness of focus. Anybody out there use both this lenses and care to impart some guidance?

thanks,

M.

[John Kasaian]

morgan,

I confess that I don't have a Sironar-N but I do have the f/7.7 Ektar, which is a great lens however in your situation, I'd go with the Sironar UNLESS 1) The Ektar was extremely cheaper---like hundreds of $$ cheaper, or 2) The Sironar was too big or heavy for my camera's lensboard or standards. My reasons why are because, while it sounds like either lens will serve you admirably, the Sironar is more modern and unless the Ektar becomes a cult classic (which it deserves to be) the Sironar represents a far greater value being faster and having multicoated glass. OTOH, if the Ektar were a whole lot cheaper, I'd go for it and buy film with the left over $$$. It sounds like a very good deal either way---I doubt if you'd see any differences in your prints with either lens(of course I wear big thick glasses!)

[Christopher Perez]

The Ektar is very sharp wide open.

If you don't need much rise/fall/swing/tilt, then the Kodak lens should be good. I wouldn't spend more than $150US for one, even in mint mint condition. Prices are variable, but 203 Ektars commonly sell for around $125US these days.

If you need perspective controls, then the Rodenstock would probably meet the need. While the Kodak covers 5x7, the Sironar will cover more than 6x8. The value of something like this is north of $200US.

[Oren Grad]

I have a 210 Sironar-N. Although out-of-focus character is ultimately a matter of individual taste, I'm fairly picky about it and at least for my taste, the Rodenstock is the nicest of the modern plasmats in that respect. It's a close cousin to the ultra-refined Apo-Sironar-S series, which sets the standard for modern glass so far as I'm concerned. A clean 210 Sironar-N is easily worth $300, so if you're being offered one for that or less it's a good deal.

I've used other Ektars, though never the 203/7.7. My understanding is that it's a very competent lens and certainly worth consideration, especially if you're on a tight budget. However, if you're enlarging as far as 20x24 and also working wide open or close to it, you're likely to be better off with the newer glass.

You haven't said how often you push as far as 20x24. If it's very often, then you're spending lots of money on materials and pushing the optical technology to the limit. In that case, you ought to think hard about spending the extra for a 210 Apo-Sironar-S. But the 210 N is a reasonable starting point - you should be able to resell it easily and, assuming you pay a fair price now, get most or all of your money back if you decide you need to move up to the 210 S for cutting-edge performance.

[Frank Petronio]

Somebody has a SK Grimes mounted 203 Ektar in a newer Copal on fleabay right now. It will probably fetch a higher price than a newer Sironar-N but it is a pretty cool idea. And Grimes probably charged the poor fella as much as a Sironar to do it!

[Oren Grad]

Somebody has a SK Grimes mounted 203 Ektar in a newer Copal on fleabay right now.

Nice opportunity to run a test of the effect of the different iris geometries on the way that particular optical design renders the OOF stuff...

...bokeh-brained Oren

[Frank Petronio]

We should just make some waterhouse stops with circular apertures Oren.

Or do what I do - never stop down!

[morgan]

I went with the Sironar-N. If only because it's MUCH easier to get filters,lenshoods,etc. I know it's easy enough to get SK Grimes to make a pushon filter holder, but egads are those blokes expensive! I love their work and they are geniuses, but eesh!

M

[Oren Grad]

We should just make some waterhouse stops with circular apertures Oren.
Or do what I do - never stop down!

Every Copal shutter should come with a slot for Waterhouse stops so those of us with that particular neurosis can take it to its (il)logical conclusion...

But Frank, you're a bad influence. A lovely quarter-plate RB Graflex B in ready-to-use condition landed on the doorstep today at Not So Stately Oren Manor. I'm going to try some "Graflexing" of my own. With the lovely iris on the attached Kodak Anastigmat, I can even stop down a bit in good conscience... ;-)

Morgan - good luck with your new toy!

[John Kasaian]

morgan,

Good choice! I think given the circumstances the Sironar-N is more value for the money but not neccesarily for filters and accessories. The Ektar (mine anyway) uses series filters and a slip on adapter---not all that expensive or difficult to obtain. OTOH it can be a bit of an inconvenience if you've got a filter kit with threaded filters already for a modern lens and you add a classic lens requiring something different to your "stable."

Have fun!

[Jim Rhoades]

I would buy the Sironar N. However if you do any amount of hiking with your camera I would also start looking for a Ektar 203 f/7.7 mount 370 in a Epsilon shutter. With the Epsilon it will fold into a Horseman and can be swapped out with any #0 Copal. No big expense with S.K. You will need a f/stop scale made however. My Epsilon seems like it's made of tin foil but it works fine so I kept it. With a series 6 slip-on you can use a 46mm adapter or stick with series filters which is what I do for a ultra light outfit. With a 135 Schneider and a 90 Optar both from a Graphic I have a 3 lens outfit that weights as much as a single Plasmat lens. Coverage is limited with two of the lenses but the 203 covers 5x7 and is sweet.

[Diane Maher]

Jim/John,
What is this series 6 slip on thing? Is there a limit to what can be used with it? I have the Lee filter system.

[Jim Rhoades]

Diane,
Kodak and others, made a filter system series 5,6,7,8,9 of round filters without threads just a metal rim. They were a standard size for each series. You could get either screw in or slip on adapters for each lens. You placed the filter in the slip/screw adapter, then screw in a lens hood or plain ring to hold it on.

If you want to use a filter or shade for the well respected 14" Ektar you need series 9 stuff. The bigger the lenses the higher the series you need.

I have a neat little leather box from Kodak (series VI) that carries four filters a lens hood and ring that works for all three lightweight lenses that I use when hiking. The slip or screw on's I keep on each lens. You can also get mm to series adapters to use this system on a modern lens.

In the old days before color TV lenses did not have a standard mm thread size so the series system was used. It still is used amoung us Luddites. Did you know that once even TV was black & white?

[John O'Connell]

The Rodenstock 210 N MC actually hits the corners on 8x10.

[Diane Maher]

"Did you know that once even TV was black & white?"

Yes Jim, I know that TV was once black and white. You don't need to be sarcastic. I do appreciate your answer to my original question though.

[Oren Grad]

Nice opportunity to run a test of the effect of the different iris geometries on the way that particular optical design renders the OOF stuff...

Hmmm, scratch that. The Kodak Flash Supermatic itself has only five blades; I should have remembered that, too - my 127 Ektar is in the same shutter...

[Jim Rhoades]

Diane,
I was goofing on me being a Luddite and a dinosaur, not you.

[Oren Grad]

Hmmm, unscratch that. As Don Hutton reminds elsewhere, modern Copals have 7 blades, not 5.

...bokeh-brained Oren, leaving a trail of iris-specification errors wherever he goes...