240 Sironar-N vs SuperSymmar 210 HM

[jetcode]

Is there any real advantage with the 210 HM? Thanks in advance.

[Don Hutton]

It (the 210 HM) is wider (more than you would think) and has much more coverage... Depends what you need. There are plenty of 240mms which cover 8x10; not too many 210mms. The 210 Super Symmar HM is one of the finest, but it comes at the expense of size and weight.

[audioexcels]

Is there any real advantage with the 210 HM? Thanks in advance.

I know it's not a "high end" piece of glass like the Super Symmar or an APO SE version of the Rodenstock 210/240, but the Fujinon 210 W has the same IC as the Super Symmar HM 210...

[jetcode]

I've decided to stick to the 240mm. While the 210 HM may be marginally better the expense and weight cannot be easily justified.

[archivue]

i think at infinity focus, it should be similar, but for table top photography i believe that the HM is superior !
Anyway for landscapes, the best 210 are 210W and 210XL... and the best 240 is the apo S...

[jetcode]

i think at infinity focus, it should be similar, but for table top photography i believe that the HM is superior !
Anyway for landscapes, the best 210 are 210W and 210XL... and the best 240 is the apo S...

for table top I have a 210mm Sironar macro

[Really Big Cameras]

I know it's not a "high end" piece of glass like the Super Symmar or an APO SE version of the Rodenstock 210/240, but the Fujinon 210 W has the same IC as the Super Symmar HM 210...

The original, single coated 210mm f5.6 Fujinon has the same RATED image circle as the 210mm Super Symmar HM. However, the Super Symmar HM actually has more usable coverage. Back in the early 1970s when Fuji introduced the original W series, they were a bit optimistic in their coverage claims compared to other manufacturers. Yes, the lenses did indeed cover 80 degrees, but performance at the margins of the image circle drops off considerably. Fuji caught some flack about it in the press at the time and has since speced their large format lenses more conservatively. I'm not saying the original single coated 210mm Fujinon W is a bad lens. It's not. It's on par with anything else that was made at the time. It's just not as razor sharp over the full 80 degree rated coverage as the newer, more expensive 80 degree lenses from Schneider and Rodenstock.

Schneider's spec on the 210mm Super Symmar HM is more conservative. It covers the full 80 degrees with outstanding sharpness - and a bit more. It is sharper wide open than the older Fuji and sharper in the extremes of it's coverage. The HM series fell out of favor after the XL line came out, but they really are some of the finest large format lenses ever made. Of course, it's also a lot bigger, heavier and more expensive than the single coated 210mm Fujinon W. So, no free lunch.

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras
http://reallybigcameras.com

[audioexcels]

The original, single coated 210mm f5.6 Fujinon has the same RATED image circle as the 210mm Super Symmar HM. However, the Super Symmar HM actually has more usable coverage. Back in the early 1970s when Fuji introduced the original W series, they were a bit optimistic in their coverage claims compared to other manufacturers. Yes, the lenses did indeed cover 80 degrees, but performance at the margins of the image circle drops off considerably. Fuji caught some flack about it in the press at the time and has since speced their large format lenses more conservatively. I'm not saying the original single coated 210mm Fujinon W is a bad lens. It's not. It's on par with anything else that was made at the time. It's just not as razor sharp over the full 80 degree rated coverage as the newer, more expensive 80 degree lenses from Schneider and Rodenstock.

Schneider's spec on the 210mm Super Symmar HM is more conservative. It covers the full 80 degrees with outstanding sharpness - and a bit more. It is sharper wide open than the older Fuji and sharper in the extremes of it's coverage. The HM series fell out of favor after the XL line came out, but they really are some of the finest large format lenses ever made. Of course, it's also a lot bigger, heavier and more expensive than the single coated 210mm Fujinon W. So, no free lunch.

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras
http://reallybigcameras.com

Ahhhhhh...that makes perfect sense. An arguement can be made with respect to coverage and "any" older/modern lens like the original Fuji W and these newer designed lenses "particularly" when shot on larger sheet film, but one cannot argue the coverage numbers.

I think the 240 is an excellent choice, but doesn't it weigh 2lbs??? For a few lens kit (couple/maybe three) seems the larger 240 would more than make up for any weight issues especially with what that HM lens goes for (choke/cough). One lens not mentioned that is also up there with coverage if I have good enough memory, and is very light, is the 210 APO L.

Kerry...did you see my thread on heads for 6lb 8X10 or really any type of LF camera? I have a gorgeous head, but it's a bit of a deadweight, though just like Joe decided the bit of extra weight isn't a big deal vs. the major price difference, I'm starting to see that the head I have is maybe only 1lb difference from others people are using. Any advice if you can go over to my thread would be helpful.

Joe made a perfect choice IMHO. Just ask Oren...it's up there as his favorite? on the larger formats.

[audioexcels]

for table top I have a 210mm Sironar macro

;):):)...I don't think it gets much better than that.


I bid on one of these a while back due to the coverage it has at infinity. Have you ever shot the lens as a "normal" lens in the field?

Good choice on the 240. It's cheap and it's exceptional.