sironar-w orrrr super symmar HM?

[Pfeiffer Duckett]

I've been using a 210 g-claron for my 810 work, and although I appreciate it's light weight and ability to cover 810 at lower apertures, I do find myself wishing I had some more room for movements and a brighter throw on the ground glass.

I have these to lenses in mind. The symmar is more expensive; but I really like the images I've seen on flickr that it has produced (albeit the 150mm version on 45).

I suppose I'd be happy with either lens, granted, but I wanted to see if anyone had any opinions before I let my wallet decide for me.

[Arne Croell]

I am not so sure you'll gain a significant increase in movements, maybe a little bit. The official coverage of the G-Claron is 64°, and it reaches about 80° on stopping down. Both the Apo-Sironar W and the Super-Symmar HM have a nominal 80°, but won't go that much above it. However, you will have those 80° at wider apertures and with sharper corners.
As for the choice between the two, I doubt there will be any detectable difference between them in real world photography. I have not tested or used the 210's, but I did test and use the 120mm (HM) and 150mm (W) versions of it. Both are very, very good. The 120HM was actually one of the best lenses I ever tested, reaching peak performance (80lp/mm) at f/16 in my test setup. The W did not fully reach that but was still up there with the best.
If you go for the HM, there is a weight and size (length) penalty you pay (about 400g and 4cm more for the 210HM vs. the W). And for both you have to get much larger filters compared to the G-Claron.

[Gudmundur Ingolfsson]

I have had the Apo Sironar -W 210 5,6 since it was first made in 1988 or 89. It is a fantastic lens with good coverage for 8x10 (352mm) and it is easy to focus. But those are very heavy the Sironar W close to a kilogram and the Symmar HM close to 1,5 kilo.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

It won't be brighter, but there is a 210/9 Computar for sale on this forum which is a fantastic 8x10 lens--very sharp and 90+ degrees coverage. I have even used mine on 11x14.

[Pfeiffer Duckett]

It won't be brighter, but there is a 210/9 Computar for sale on this forum which is a fantastic 8x10 lens--very sharp and 90+ degrees coverage. I have even used mine on 11x14.

Do you have any scans that I could see? I would like to see how this lens 'draws'.

Thanks everyone for the replies so far!

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Sorry, I almost never scan my negatives, perhaps someone else has an example.

[Sevo]

IIRC the Computar is a process Dagor exactly like your G-Claron - don't expect any change to the better or worse from it.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

IIRC the Computar is a process Dagor exactly like your G-Claron - don't expect any change to the better or worse from it.

The Computar, like the recent G-Clarons are 6/4 "process" Plasmats, not 6/2 Dagors. While they have the same basic optical lay-out design, the Computar has much less mechanical vignetting, and will sharply illuminate just short of 95 degrees stopped down, while the G-Claron will sharply illuminate about 84 degrees stopped down. Another example of this design is the Fujinon-A series, however these lenses only cover 70 degrees. Not all plasmats are created equal...

[Allen in Montreal]

"super symmar HM"

I can only speak to the 120 super symmar HM, which I have had since it launched back in the day.
It is razor sharp!!
I love the contrast and sharpness of that lens, it is a great piece of glass and I would think the 210 version would be equally as amazing.

[jeroldharter]

I have both the 210 G-Claron and the 210 Apo Sironar W. The latter is a great lens with lots of coverage and quite sharp. But as stated it is a pig and I think it takes 105mm filters. For field use, the G-Claron wins. If you use just one or two lenses, or don't wander very far, the Rodenstock is hard to beat.

[8x10 user]

I have compared a Sironar S with the Sironar W under a 10x Schneider loupe and they were both as sharp as can be.