Recommend a 210mm lens please

[Ron Marshall]

I am considering the Fuji 210mm CMW, Rodenstock APO Sironar-N 210mm and Nikkor 210mm W. Only these because I want a modern lens with a filter thread of 67mm or less.

I have read that most of the modern 210mm plasmats are similar in performance, ie. contrast and resolution. I don't think I can go wrong with any of these.

Would those of you who have experience of two or more of these lenses please offer your opinion.

[Ted Harris]

I have used the Nikkor 210 W, the Apo Sironar N and the Apo Symmar (you may want to add it to your list even though it has a slightly larger filter thread). I have done side-by-side comparisons of the three lenses and found the Schneider and Rodenstock samples to be virtually the same in their performance. The Nikkor had exactly the same resolution but was a small bit less contrasty than the other two. Stopping it down a half stop brought the contrast up to that of the others. Of course, YMMV. You won't go wrong with any of these lenses.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

I'll second Ted's recommendation to inclue the APO Symmar in your search. You didn't mention what format you'll be shooting with this lens. I use mine primarily on 4x5 for color work. I had previously standardized on 67mm filters. So, I just leave a 72mm - 67mm step-down on the lens at all times. In theory, I may be giving up a few mm of coverage due to mechanical vignetting. In practice, this hasn't been an issue for me on 4x5.

Previously, I had a 210mm Nikkor W that was one of my most used lenses for several years. I really had no complaints, but when I had a chance to pick up a 210mm APO Symmar at a very attractive price, I gave it a try. In terms of overall performance, I'd say the APO Symmar is just a tiny bit better than the Nikkor W, but unless you make some very big enlargements, you're not likely to notice any difference. The Schneider seems to have slightly better color saturation and immunity to flair, but again I never really had any complaints with the Nikkor and many of my all-time favorite images were made with the 210mm Nikkor W.

Like you said, it's hard to make a BAD choice in a modern, multicoated 210mm plasmat. They're all pretty darn good. I like my 210mm APO Symmar, but I could also get by just fine with a 210mm Nikkor W.

Kerry

[Gregory Gomez]

Ron,

Go with Kerry's advice; he knows more about lenses than most of us. But also remember, that John Sexton uses the Nikkor 210; his images are fantastic. They are as sharp as my eyes can resolve, maybe sharper.

Unless you are going to make some really huge prints or want a certain look because you will be doing color, then choose the lens that is the least expensive.

[paulr]

I'll third Kerry's recommendation ... not just because I have one and love it, or because the published data makes it look like a contender for best of the best, but because someone is selling one for cheap right now in the for sale area.

[Gregory Gomez]

Kerry,

Since we are on the subject of 4x5 lenses, how would you compare a Nikkor-W 210 with a Schneider 210-G Claron? Do they deliver the same level of sharpness and contrast for the 4x5?

And what is your opinion of the Nikkor-SW 120 f8 versus the Schneider 120 f8 Super-Angulon. Which one is sharper? Although these lenses are large, I like the extra coverage.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Greg

[Christopher Perez]

I would go with Ted and Kerry's recommendations.


Gregory, GClarons are single coated. In many situations this makes little to no difference. I used to own a single coated 305 GClaron that was just as sharp and contrasty as my multi-coated 300 Nikkor M. To make matters worse, I think my single coated APO Germinar is subtly sharper and contrastier than either the GClaron or Nikkor M.

If you need coverage, there are few substitutes for Schneider's 110Super Symmar XL. Modern design, modern glass, modern shutter. But at f/22 and for many applications I doubt you would see any difference between a 110XL and either the 120mm wide angle lenses you mention.


Since we are on the subject of 4x5 lenses, how would you compare a Nikkor-W 210 with a Schneider 210-G Claron? Do they deliver the same level of sharpness and contrast for the 4x5?

And what is your opinion of the Nikkor-SW 120 f8 versus the Schneider 120 f8 Super-Angulon. Which one is sharper? Although these lenses are large, I like the extra coverage.

[Gregory Gomez]

Christopher,

Thanks for your reply.

I already have the Schneider 120 f8 Super-Angulon. So it's my understanding that changing it in favor of the Nikkor-SW 120 f8 would not give me any advantage whatsoever.

As for the Schneider G-Claron 210 f9, I have this lens already. There are, however, new Nikkor-W 210 f5.6 lenses still available at B&H at reasonable prices. I was just wondering if the Nikkor was a sharper lens than the G-Claron. I think the answer is "no." But I like the idea of the multicoating to control flare in some backlight situations. What I might do is to buy the Nikkor, and use the G-Claron when I have to hike five or more miles.

If I don't receive anymore feedback to my question, I will most likely buy the Nikkor because the Nikon large format lenses will soon disappear now that Nikon is no longer making them. That is certainly the case for Nikon manual focusing 35mm equipment. I bought a complete outfit just a few months ago. Now most of that gear is no longer available.

[Scott Rosenberg]

another outstanding lens is the 210 Sironar-S. i tested mine against two APO-Symmar's and found them to be comprable WRT to resolution. however, the Sironar-S seemed a bit warmer. i like all of the Sironar-S lenses, so might have been unintentionally biased.

[Joseph O'Neil]

Christopher,

As for the Schneider G-Claron 210 f9, I have this lens already. There are, however, new Nikkor-W 210 f5.6 lenses still available at B&H at reasonable prices. I was just wondering if the Nikkor was a sharper lens than the G-Claron. I think the answer is "no." But I like the idea of the multicoating to control flare in some backlight situations. What I might do is to buy the Nikkor, and use the G-Claron when I have to hike five or more miles.

-snip-

I'm in a very similar boat as you - I use a 8.25" Apo Red Dot Artar (209mm), F9. Want some advice? Skip re-inventing the wheel, unless you want a 210mm that has a bigger image circle and more movements than your G-Claron - which might be kinda hard to do. The coverage chart for G-Clarons is here

http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/large_format_lenses/g-claron/chart.htm

Anyhow, I have a 270mm G-Claron myself, and I like these lenses.
The other thought, and the only reason I have ever thought of getting another 210mm is that F9 can be dim/dark to focus through, especially if you are doing a lot of night shots.

But I think if you got another 210mm - any size, brand, type, you might be a wee bit disappointed you spent all that money for little gain. Look seriously instead at a different size - even a 180 or 240mm, or a nice wide angle. Whatever else you've been looking at and thiking about.
good luck
joe

[Gregory Gomez]

Joseph,

Thanks for your insights.

If I bought the Nikkor, I don't think I will be disappointed.

I will be shooting in very dim light and in backlight situations in which lens flare may be a problem. So the Nikkor is still tempting.

Also, the coverage on the 210 G-Claron is really huge. With the lens wide open and the camera focused at infinity, this lens will cover an 8x10 with movements. I have tried this myself and know it to be true. I don't know why Schneider lists the 210 G-Claron's image circle as only being 260mm at f22. That image size would not cover an 8x10 ground glass.

As it now stands, I own too many lenses and I am looking to standardize and reduce my inventory to only those lenses I will be using on a regular basis. This final line up will include:

1. Nikkor-SW f8 90mm

2. Schneider Super-Angulon f8 120mm

3. Fujinon CMW f5.6 125mm

4. Nikkor-W f5.6 210mm

5. Schneider G-Claron f9 210mm

6. Nikkor-M f9 300mm

7. Nikkor-T (ED) f8 360mm

The Fujinon and the G-Claron will be used in situations in which weight and bulk are major considerations, as they are on very long hikes. In such situations, it's really important that my entire pack weight not exceed about 25 pounds (11.4 Kg).

[Geert]

a 210mm? Is budget and issue?

Try the Symmar convertible 210/370mm. It's not a very modern lens but nevertheless...

Less weight, 2 focals in 1 lens, tons of movement and they already sell for 150 Euro!
I just missed one because I clicked the buy me now a minute too late while I was waiting for the seller to reply to my enquiry for the shutter accuracy. Be sure to always ask this.
Check ebay.de for interesting offers and adjust your searches to the sellers' typo's.

To compensate, I just bought a 150/265 to accompany me on a leightweight 10 days trip next summer... only 150 Swiss Francs, that's less than 100 Euros!

G

[David Karp]

210mm Caltar II-N lenses seem to be going for around US$200 lately. An awesome deal if the lenses are as good as described. These are identical to the Rodenstock APO-Sironar N. I just bought one and am looking forward to receiving it.

[Gregory Gomez]

A new 210mm Caltar II-N is selling for $760, and is most likely identical to a Rodenstock 210mm f/5.6 Apo-Sironar-N, which may be no longer available. When last available, the Sironar-N went for $965 at B&H.

Also, my budget for 4x5 equipment is not too limited; now for 11x14, that's another matter.

http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/CL2210.html

[Joseph O'Neil]

Joseph,

I will be shooting in very dim light and in backlight situations in which lens flare may be a problem. So the Nikkor is still tempting.

Also, the coverage on the 210 G-Claron is really huge. With the lens wide open and the camera focused at infinity, this lens will cover an 8x10 with movements. I have tried this myself and know it to be true. I don't know why Schneider lists the 210 G-Claron's image circle as only being 260mm at f22. That image size would not cover an 8x10 ground glass.

As it now stands, I own too many lenses and I am looking to standardize and reduce my inventory to only those lenses I will be using on a regular basis.

-snip-

Want some advise? If you are married, *never* let your wife hear you say you own too many lenses. :)

For dimlight - I hear you. As much as I love my Apo-Artar, an F9 lens for a night shot can be a total PITA. Daytime, no problemo, but night a low light shots.

However as to backlighting, try BOTH lenses if you ever do get that new 210mm. Some of those older, single coated lenses are actually pretty good - or cool - when shooting a scence that is back light. Try it and you'll see. Sometimes I wonder if the flare issue for some lenses isn't more related to the design or mechanical build of the interior of the lens itself, not just coatings. Although, is the G-Claron not multicoated? Well, i suppose that depends on the age of the lens to begin with.

As for the coverage on the G-Clarons - yes - waaaaay huge. I don't know for sure, but I think my 270mm would cover 11x14 if I had too. More coverage than my feild camera has movements to be sure.

joe

[Gregory Gomez]

Joseph,

My wife is very supportive. She has her collections: jewelry, suits, shoes, etc.

I believe the G-Claron series is single coated, and optimized for one-to-one shooting. At infinity, down to 1-to-10 reproductions, the standard 210 plasmat, theoretically, should be sharper. But as Ron Wisner pointed out in a Darkroom Techniques article many years ago, beyond f22 defraction tends to make all large format lenses about equally sharp, or dull, including the older, classic uncoated designs.

[Gregory Gomez]

Greetings,

For what it's worth, I just pulled the trigger on a Nikkor-W f5.6 150mm from Badger Graphic, and a Nikkor-W f5.6 210mm from B&H. Next up will be the Fujinon CMW f5.6 125mm from Badger along with an Ebony SV45Ti 4x5.

http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=66

Stay tuned because I have a lot of mint condition large format equipment that will be going up for sale.

It's a nice feeling knowing that I have finally zeroed in on the right equipment for me and the type of work I will be doing. It's taken a long time. :o

[Oren Grad]

A new 210mm Caltar II-N is selling for $760, and is most likely identical to a Rodenstock 210mm f/5.6 Apo-Sironar-N, which may be no longer available

150 and 210 are the two focal lengths from the Apo-Sironar-N line which are still current. The rest have been discontinued.

[David Karp]

In my earlier post, I was talking about used prices for the 210mm Caltar II-N. So far, all but one of my lenses are used, and they are all in great condition. No more new lenses for me!

[Ron Marshall]

Thank-you to everyone for the advice.

I forgot to mention that I intend to use the lens in the field, so weight is a consideration. I also do lots of low light, and plan to do some night shots, so f5.6 is important for me.

With all of that in mind I went for a Caltar II N for $400.

At 440 grams it will be just managable in the field.

[tim atherton]

of course you could always get a Kowa Graphic 210mm if you want small/compact and incredibly sharp. Until recently I only used this for 8x10 (and have a Fujinon 210 for 4x5), but since I recently standardized to technika boards on everything, I've been using it on 4x5 when i take both outfits along somewhere.

f9 in barrel, but seems to be 6.8 once it's in a shutter.

You usually need to find a copal 1 for it (and need to improvise a filter ring - but for that you can basically pick whatever size you want...) - and there is one version that doesn't screw straight into the shutter

But even with finding a shutter they can still work out reasonably priced. They are popular with the 8x10 crowd, but I've still seen them go for $125/135 in barrel on ebay recently

[David Karp]

Ron,

Hopefully, I will be getting my Caltar II-N in the mail soon. From my experience with my other Rodenstock lenses, I don't think we will be disappointed. I had been looking for a bargain priced 210mm f/6.1 Schneider Xenar, but could not find one. The more complex plasmat designs were frequently going for less!

Good luck. I think we will be pleased with our Caltars.

[Ole Tjugen]

I'll have to do my planned 210mm comparison shoot soon...

I have: 180 Dagor f:6.8 (barrel), 180 f:4.5 Xenar (uncoated), 180 f:5.6 Symmar convertible, 210 f:7.7 Suter Aplanat (uncoated, of course), 209mm f:4.5 Copy Raptar, 210 f:4.5 Industar, 210 Xenar f:4.5 (coated), 210 f:6.8 Angulon (uncoated), 210 f:7.2 Busch Aplanat, 210 f:9 G-Claron, 240 f:5.6 Symmar convertible. And a few other odd old 180-240mm lenses, like a Casket set...

I've been planning to do a "shootout" of these to see if there is any discernible difference between these at f:16, except the contrast difference between coated and uncoated. To be quite honest I don't really expect to be able to see which negative was shot with which lens...

[David Karp]

Ole,

I think you are right. And I think Chris Perez would agree too, based on his tests. The only reason I went for a new 210 (I have a Caltar II-E) is that I have started to make photos that require shallow depth of field, so I want to use the 210 at wider apertures. This is where the Caltar II-E falls down. Otherwise, it is small, light, and enables sharp contrasty photos when shot at f/22 or lower (or maybe even f/16 or lower).

[Gregory Gomez]

Oren Grad,

Thanks for the clarification. I checked the usual sources here, and I was not sure whether the "N" version was still available.

For what it's worth, Rodenstock makes excellent lenses.

Do they still make the 75mm f6.8 Grandagon that was so reasonably priced? I had that lens once, and stupidly, I sold it!

D'oh! :o

[Ron Marshall]

David,

I think we will be pleased. I have a 75mm and a 180mm (that I probably will sell) by Rodenstock, both of which I am very pleased with, and my 150 should be arriving soon.

With my previous kit, 110-180-300, when I couldn't reposition the camera, I often needed a bit less than 180 or 300, but the jump to the next smaller focal length would have required a bit too much cropping.

[Oren Grad]

Do they still make the 75mm f6.8 Grandagon that was so reasonably priced?

Alas, it's gone from the line :( but not from my 6x9 kit. :)

All the talk about getting a 210 Caltar II-N or Sironar-N for $200 or so is amazing. It's a first-rate modern design, and at that price it's a steal - incredible value for the money.

[David Karp]

Oren,

I am still blinking. But its true. I have seen at least 3-4 Caltar II-Ns or Sironar-Ns go in the last week or so. Let's hope mine doesn't look like someone pounded a nail into it!

[David Karp]

Oren, get this one:

210 Caltar II-Ns going for approximately $200. A 210 Geronar went yesterday for $280.00! I have its Caltar II-E cousin. Its a nice lens as I mentioned earlier, but it is shocking to see one going for more than the II-N.

[Christopher Perez]

Ole,

I have a sneaking (OK, very strong) suspicion that unless one or more of your lenses are improperly manufactured that there will be no difference between them by f/16.

Differences at wide apertures are even sometimes very difficult to see.

Alas, people like what they like and some will defend their position vigorously.

I still think the sharpest lens you will ever own is a tripod. I have since added the comment that using a lens is better than not.

Everything else, it seems, comes out in the photographer's vision. No vision? Uninteresting images. Good vision? Ah, then it probably matters little which lens a person uses.


I'll have to do my planned 210mm comparison shoot soon...

I have [a bunch of lenses] ...

I've been planning to do a "shootout" of these to see if there is any discernible difference between these at f:16, except the contrast difference between coated and uncoated. To be quite honest I don't really expect to be able to see which negative was shot with which lens...

[Ole Tjugen]

...I have a sneaking (OK, very strong) suspicion that unless one or more of your lenses are improperly manufactured that there will be no difference between them by f/16...

On the other hand, I was able to see a slight difference between a 1939 and a 1951 version of the 90mm f:6.8 Angulon. But only outside the area of nominal coverage. The newer lens has a larger sharp region at large and intermediate apertures, which falls off abruptly at the edges. Whereas the older may have poorer edge sharpness, but a more gradual falloff which means it might be acceptable (for contact prints) with up to 5x7" film.
http://www.bruraholo.no/Cameras/Angulon/

Central sharpness, though, seems to be much the same. And that is what I expect of any number of 210mm lenses too - much the same, except in the corners (of 5x7" film).

[paulr]

Central sharpness, though, seems to be much the same. And that is what I expect of any number of 210mm lenses too - much the same, except in the corners (of 5x7" film).

This is what you're likely to see in most old vs. new comparisons. They haven't made big improvements in sharpness on-axis for a long time.

Most improvements, not counting multicoating, have been in image circle size, sharpness closer to the edges, sharpness at wider apertures, and sharpness at magnifications different from the optimized magnification.

And also practical improvements--maximum aperture, size, weight, etc..

[paulr]

I still think the sharpest lens you will ever own is a tripod. I have since added the comment that using a lens is better than not.

A tripod, yeah ... and also a magic wand that makes the wind stop blowing, and an artistic vision that strongly prefers subject matter with a single plane of focus ;)

I find that there's a huge difference in sharpness between my average negatives (which are pretty sharp) and the ocassional super sharp negative.

This tells me that most of the time I'm not even close to seeing the potential of the lens. It's only those magical moments when the scene happens to ocupy a single plane, the wind isn't blowing, nothing's vibrating, and I'm not doing something stupid when I focus, that I see these preternaturally sharp images that probably reflect what the MTF charts show.

The rest of the time, I doubt I'd see any difference at all between my lens and a sharper one, if there is a sharper one.