Image circle with Rodenstock Sironar-N 240/5.6 ?

[benrains]

I know the image circle for the lens, reported to be 350mm, only leaves a small amount of movement on 8x10, but I'm just curious to know what the fall-off is like. Specifically, from those of you who use or have used the lens, I'd like to know whether it gradually goes a bit softer while maintaining good illumination or if it starts to vignette right away.

At the moment I've a Fujinon W 250/6.3 that I've long used for 4x5 work. It just covers 8x10 and remains quite sharp up to the published image circle spec, but beyond that it almost immediately drops off to black. Ideally I'd go for a Fujinon W 250/6.7, or a Sironar-S 240, but the Sironar-N 240 is more in line with my budget at this point, but I'd like to know what to expect before I go that route.

[Gene McCluney]

I have found most Sironar-N lenses are pretty good out to the edge of their coverage.

[Gene McCluney]

Here are the coverages gleaned from THIS website:

240mm Sironar N f5.6 337
240mm Symmar S f5.6 337
240mm Fujinon 5.6 300
250mm Fujinon W or WS f6.7 398
250mm Fujinon CM-W F6.3 320
240 Nikkor W f5.6 336

As you can see, they are all about the same except the older 250mm Fujinon W or WS.
You wouldn't be gaining much by going with the Sironar N over the f6.3 fuji, just a little bit.
For the Wide Coverage Kings we have:

as above the 250mm Fujinon W or WS f6.7 at 398
The 240mm Computar f9 @ 372
The 250mm Kodak Wide Field Ektar @ 422 (the King)

[benrains]

Thanks Gene. The Kodak WF Ektar 250 would be nice for sure, although I've read its a beast of lens in terms of size and weight, and from what I've see on eBay they're also out of my price range. :-)

The number above you found for the Sironar-N doesn't match what I've seen published in the Rodenstock literature. They claim 350mm for the 240/5.6--
http://www.butzi.net/rodenstock/apo-sironar-n/page2.htm

And it's pricier sibling, the Sironar-S 240/5.6, has an image circle of 372mm--
http://www.butzi.net/rodenstock/apo-sironar-s/page2.htm

I guess what I'm after is more of the nature of the image circle beyond the "acceptably sharp" part. For example, on my Fujinon W 250/6.3, it just kind of drops off a cliff into blackness. Whereas with my old Schneider Angulon 165/6.8, which only has an image circle of 300mm, although it's not sharp in the corners of my 8x10 the illumination is still ok even with a little movement. I'd like to know whether the edges of the Sironar-N's image circle's is more like what I've noticed in the Fujinon or like the Schneider Angulon.

[Gene McCluney]

Thanks Gene. The Kodak WF Ektar 250 would be nice for sure, although I've read its a beast of lens in terms of size and weight, and from what I've see on eBay they're also out of my price range. :-)

The number above you found for the Sironar-N doesn't match what I've seen published in the Rodenstock literature. They claim 350mm for the 240/5.6--
http://www.butzi.net/rodenstock/apo-sironar-n/page2.htm

And it's pricier sibling, the Sironar-S 240/5.6, has an image circle of 372mm--
http://www.butzi.net/rodenstock/apo-sironar-s/page2.htm



You are not looking at the specifications for the lenses you asked about. The links you give are for the APO-Sironar-N, and APO-Sironar-S, not the plain Sironar-N, and Sironar-S. The APO's are newer lenses and would possibly have different coverage.

[Oren Grad]

There is no "Sironar S", only the Apo-Sironar-S.

Manufacturing refinements aside, the Sironar-N is essentially the same lens as the Apo-Sironar-N.

Ben, I tested the 240 Apo-Sironar-N quite a few years back. It's a fine lens if you can live with the limited coverage for 8x10, but my recollection is that the illumination cutoff is pretty abrupt.

Yup, the 250 Wide Field Ektar in Ilex #5 is big...

[benrains]

There is no "Sironar S", only the Apo-Sironar-S.

Manufacturing refinements aside, the Sironar-N is essentially the same lens as the Apo-Sironar-N.

Ben, I tested the 240 Apo-Sironar-N quite a few years back. It's a fine lens if you can live with the limited coverage for 8x10, but my recollection is that the illumination cutoff is pretty abrupt.

Yup, the 250 Wide Field Ektar in Ilex #5 is big...

Thanks Oren. I guess I should consider holding out a little longer for a Fujinon W 250/6.7.

[cjbroadbent]

I've been using a Sironar-N 240 on 8x10 for ages. It's more or less glued to the camera. I never had a coverage problem and I do shift a lot. It never occurred to me that there might be a problem. Ages means about two thousand sheets of film.

[Steve Hamley]

Why not consider the 240mm Computar? One's for sale here - not cheap, but it solves movement problems.

Cheers, Steve

[Bob Salomon]

350mm @f22 @ infinity

[benrains]

Why not consider the 240mm Computar? One's for sale here - not cheap, but it solves movement problems.

Well, I guess I'm not so desperate for a lens of that focal length that I find myself compelled to buy a Computar 240/9 for $1850 when there are alternatives with decent 8x10 coverage for 1/4th to 1/5th the cost. I'm sure it's a fine lens, but I would actually like to have some money leftover to buy film!

[Allen in Montreal]

"250mm Fujinon W or WS f6.7 398"


This is a really nice lens, wait, and you will find one at a good price.

[benrains]

I've been using a Sironar-N 240 on 8x10 for ages. It's more or less glued to the camera. I never had a coverage problem and I do shift a lot. It never occurred to me that there might be a problem. Ages means about two thousand sheets of film.

Thanks for the info Christopher. From the details in your profile here and your linked public Picasa portfolio, I gather you mostly work in still life (nice images, by the way.) Given the greater lens to film distances in that kind of photography, I'd imagine you're at least partly benefiting from the resulting larger image circle. I'd primarily be using the lens for landscape work. Perhaps the best thing for me is to get my hands on one and see how it works for my style of shooting. If I don't like it, I can always sell it.

[Chauncey Walden]

The numbers always seem to be a little funny. I've never had any problem corner to corner on 8x10 with my 240mm f/4.5 Xenar which Schneider says covers only 282mm at f/16 at infinity. Obviously, focusing at normal landscape distances and stopping down to f/22 or more makes a big difference with this lens.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

The computar covers quite a bit more than the WF Ektar. In my experience, the 240mm f9 Computar covers 90+ degrees (7x17 with movements) while the WF Ektar covers about 84 degrees (11x14 with no movements) . Both are way more than you need for 8x10.

[Oren Grad]

I've been using a Sironar-N 240 on 8x10 for ages. It's more or less glued to the camera. I never had a coverage problem and I do shift a lot. It never occurred to me that there might be a problem. Ages means about two thousand sheets of film.

It's a matter of your tastes and how you use it. When I tested the 240 Apo-Sironar-N for general scenic snapshooting, with focus from middling distances to infinity, I found myself running out of coverage quite regularly. With the way I see things, I find that with a wide lens on a squarish format like 8x10 I want lots of front rise. So I bought the Apo-Sironar-S instead and I've been very happy with it.

But again, purely with respect to its optical performance, the 240 N is a fine lens, and for anyone who doesn't need the extra coverage I think it's a good choice.

[Steve Hamley]

Well, I guess I'm not so desperate for a lens of that focal length that I find myself compelled to buy a Computar 240/9 for $1850 when there are alternatives with decent 8x10 coverage for 1/4th to 1/5th the cost. I'm sure it's a fine lens, but I would actually like to have some money leftover to buy film!

Actually $765 and asking for offers. That's not far out of line from other big coverage options. I'd expect a nice WF Ektar or Apo Sironar-S to bring as much or more, but you would need a shutter.

Cheers, Steve

[benrains]

Actually $765 and asking for offers. That's not far out of line from other big coverage options. I'd expect a nice WF Ektar or Apo Sironar-S to bring as much or more, but you would need a shutter.

Yeah, my comments were based on the more expensive Computar mounted in a shutter offered by Sandy King, but given the absence of shutter on the example you point out, it isn't a practical option for me. (In the same way that buying a steeply discounted mint condition Porsche 911 Turbo without an engine isn't practical for me.)

It would take me another $200-300 to get a used Copal 3, but I'm sure someone who has a spare shutter lying around or someone, who is shooting a collodion based process would love that barrel version of the lens. (In the case of using a wet plate "lenscap shutter"... Q: "Hey, how many horse power does that Porsche of yours have, Ben?" A: "Just the two you see hitched to the front of it.")