Picking a 210 for 4X5

[jmooney]

Hi All,

I'm guessing that I could pretty much pull a name out of a hat and get a good lens among these choices but I'm newish at this so I wanted to see if there were any major reasons for or against any of these.

The lens will be part of a two lens kit to get me started in 4x5. It'll be paired with a 125mm Fujinon W. I'll later be adding a 90 to the mix and maybe a 300 down the road. They'll be used on a monorail at first so I'd like as much movement as possible but my searching leads to be believe that all these will have ample coverage for 4X5. It'll be used to photograph bascially anything that comes in front of the camera: portrait, landscape, still life, etc.

Your vote and any thoughts would be much appreciated.

Take care,

[Steve Hamley]

I "see" a little wider, and chose a 180mm Apo-Sironar-S over the 210mm. The reason I chose the S over the N was not so much the image circle (although that would be more of a requirement shooting buildings), but because of the wider range of reproduction optimization. I have frequently used my 180mm "S" close up when I need a bellows extension factor of 1/2 stop or so, and it performs wonderfully.

I'd choose the Apo-Sironar-S; more movement, better close up.

Cheers, Steve

[Ken Lee]

"Your vote and any thoughts would be much appreciated."

Considering size, weight, and filter size...

The 240 Fujinon A (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/index.html#240A) takes 52mm filters and weighs only 245 grams, yet it has a 336 mm circle of coverage: enough to function as a portrait lens on 4x5, a normal lens for 5x7, a wide-angle for 8x10. Its reputation for sharpness is well-deserved.

The others are larger, take larger filters, and are heavier. They open to f/5.6 while the Fujinon achieves its reduction in size by being f/9, a difference of 1.5 f/stops.

240 is not 210, but 14% longer: an (arguably) negligible difference.

[Bill_1856]

Fujinon. I think it's a good idea to keep within a single "family" of lenses unless there's a good reason not to. (For me, the Symmar-S would be the choice).

[memorris]

I use a Rodenstock APO Sironar S 210mm as my primary lens on 4X5 and it can even cover as a wide angle on 8X10. It is a fantastic lens and is capable of doing digital and film. Every time I use it and need a lot of movements, it does the job.

[Ken Lee]

On our forum we have a nice chart (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html) which gives all the specs, such as size, weight, coverage, etc. for a large selection of lenses.

It even mentions... price :)

[Don Dudenbostel]

Also consider a Nikkor W. I have a Symmar S 210 that I've used for over thirty five years and have both Nikkor W and Fujinon W 180mm lenses. I have no experience with Rodenstock but between the top four makers of modern lenses there will be no real difference. I would buy the one with the best price.

[Oren Grad]

For myself, out of the three, I'd take the Sironar-N.

But I think the point about keeping it in the family is a good one. Although late-model plasmats are virtually all fine performers on all objective measures, each brand, and generation within a brand, does tend to have a particular flavor in the more subtle aspects of rendering. And since you've already got that Fujinon W...

[David Karp]

Out of the three, I would pick a Caltar II-N! Depending on the vintage, it is a Rodenstock APO-Sironar-N or Sironar-N (my understanding is that there is no difference) rebranded for Calumet. You can usually pick up a Caltar for less money than you would have to pay for a Rodenstock. I paid less than $1 per mm for mine!

You can't really go wrong with the Fujinon or the Schneider. I have several Fujis in different focal lengths and like them all. They too are often available at bargain prices, so that might be a consideration.

[Len Middleton]

The problem of course is YMMV, depending upon your objectives and constraints...

I have an old 210 Symmar convertible what works well, but it does not fit into the Technika V when folded, so got a 210 G-Claron that does.

It may be that my quality requirements do not match yours, but it works for me.

Oh, did I mention YMMV?

Len

[lenser]

The Caltar II is an outstanding performer for me. Another possibility is the Ilex or Caltar (same thing) 215mm acuton which is also a very fine performer and a convertible to about 355mm and usually goes for under $100.00 on the auction site.

[Brian Stein]

answer d. any of the above

As everyone has indicated all of the big LF manufacturers have lenses that are very similar in quality. All of these plasmats will be similar in size and weight; if this is critical then you need to think about Kens suggestion of the 240A.
In second hand I am looking for the balance of quality of the individual lens up for sale with its price. Go for the best deal. For me it was a fuji at 210 but a Caltar at 150mm and an Ilex at 90.

[goodfood]

I use 210mm Apo Symmar. It just cover 8X10 when stop down.

[David Karp]

OK. Here are a couple of wild suggestions that you might want to consider along with your 125mm Fujinon.

For backpacking, I have a 210mm f/6.1 Caltar Pro that is much smaller than the II-N or the other lenses you are considering. It is the same as a Schneider Xenar and was made by Schneider for Calumet. It is very sharp and I like it a lot. Fuji made a 210mm Fujinon L, which I believe is of the same design as the Caltar Pro/Xenar. The Fujinon has an f/5.6 max aperture. Both use much smaller filters than the larger lenses you are thinking about. I believe both are smaller than 52mm (I know the Caltar Pro is smaller, since I have a step up to 52mm on mine). Both are single coated, if that matters to you.

If you need multicoated, then Nikon made a 200mm f/8 Nikkor M, and Calumet and Rodenstock have a three element multicoated 210mm f/6.8 that perform very well when stopped down to normal shooting apertures. Another lens to consider is a 180mm Fujinon A. This is also a small lens. (If you looked through two cameras side by side, one with a 180 and one with a 210, you would hardly see a difference.)

[Peter K]

My Symmar 210 works very well with my Technika 4x5".

If I need a realy big image circle the SA 210 works better - but not with the Technika.;)

Peter

[Roger Thoms]

I put my vote in for the Fujinon simply cause that's primary 210mm lens. I also have a Schneider 210 convertible that I have shot with a little with good results. In addition I have a Nikkor W which is in mint condition. It was a Craigslist purchase that came with a Toyo 45C for 200 bucks. Maybe I'll go shoot with Nikkor as it looks like a very nice lens.

Roger

[Drew Wiley]

I used a Symmar S 210 for many years. It was a good lens, but certainly not as sharp
as lenses of even more modern design. I actually moved up to a 250 Fuji W 6.7, then to a 250 G-Claron and 240 Fuji A, which are even better, and work on the 8X10 too.
If I were looking for a 210 today, it would be a G-Claron.

[RichardRitter]

I had the pleasure (chore) of testing the lenses listed. The Schneider 210 was the best. It was sharp and had a nice even tonal range.

The tests were photographing day to day subject matter.

[ic-racer]

The Symmar is the sharpest, no the Symmar is not very sharp, so get a modern lens, no get an antique formula G-Claron, no get a 210mm Apo Symmar because it just covers 8x10, but wait the older Fujinon covers 8x10 with movements, but why not just get the Fujinon 250 with more coverage....

I'd just choose randomly :D

[David Aimone]

Here's a sleeper lens on fleabay for a good price. I have one of these, and it is tack sharp, and abundantly covers 4x5 (I understand it just covers 8x10).

http://bit.ly/caHCUY

[David Aimone]

Here you go, right on this forum:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=64961

[evan clarke]

I have, at last count, 9 210mm lenses, one of which is a Schneider APO Symmar L. The very first 210 I ever bought is a "Sinaron" AKA Sironar N and still has a subtle look I like the best of all 9...Evan Clarke

[David Karp]

Wow!

I have 3, plus 2 180s. You make me feel a lot better. :)

[Bruce Watson]

Considering size, weight, and filter size...

The 240 Fujinon A (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/index.html#240A) takes 52mm filters and weighs only 245 grams, yet it has a 336 mm circle of coverage: enough to function as a portrait lens on 4x5, a normal lens for 5x7, a wide-angle for 8x10. Its reputation for sharpness is well-deserved.

+1.

[jmooney]

Thanks for all the suggestion so far, I really appreciate them.

I have some thinking to do, I do really like what I've seen from the 240A but it's price would mean it would be the only lens for a while and I'd really like to have a wide and not so wide to use, however I'm still considering it.

I've also looked at the Caltar II-Ns as well and I would be happy owning one of those so they are still in the running.

Off to Starbucks to ponder and use free Wifi....

[Peter Gomena]

My $.02: Pick a manufacturer and stick with it. You will have a consistent look to your images, especially if you work in color.

Peter Gomena

[BradS]

I have all three of the lenses you suggest (and a host of others in the 210mm focal length). My favorite of the ones you mention is the Sironar-N but, given that you already have a Fujinon, I'd suggest that you get the 210mm Fujinon-W. My reasons are several:

1) The shutter controls on modern Fujinon LF lenses in Copal shutters are laid out slightly differently from other modern Copal shutters.

2) the 210mm Fujinon-W that I own is easly the sharpest lens I own. It is everybit as sharp as the much more expensive Sironar-S (which you did not mention). It is amazing

3) they're dirt cheap these days for some reason - way undervalued by comparison.

4) all three of the lenses you mention are excellent - you really cannot go wrong with any of them. (the 210mm Nikkor is also in this league).

[Bruce Watson]

Another choice would be the Nikkor M 200mm f/8. At only 180g, it's a backpacker's delight. And it has an excellent reputation.

But if I have to pick from your list, the Sironar-N is the best compromise for me. YMMV of course.

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah ... the whole problem with lenses in the 210 to 250 range is that there are so many good ones to choose from! And lots of good deals out there right now. But since
I backpack a lot and shoot 8x10 even more than 4x5, that narrows the ideal choices down to large coverage in a lightweight lens. But all of the lenses mentioned so far would be damned good on a 4x5. I just personally like the angle of view of a 240 or
250 a little better than 210; and the 240 Fuji A comes about as close to a dream lens
as anything I have ever used.

[Don Dudenbostel]

If you're thinking about a 240 consider a G Claron Schneider. It covers 8x10 with reasonable movements at infinity. Its quite small and exceptionally sharp. The are reasonable but not as cheap as a premium 210.

[patrickjames]

Like everyone says, it is hard to go wrong. I would suggest sticking with Fuji since you already have one. I bought a Fuji 210 NW at KEH a month or so ago for $130. Can't beat that! Keep your eye out. You can find some cheap lenses that are still perfect. Good luck.

[evan clarke]

Another choice would be the Nikkor M 200mm f/8. At only 180g, it's a backpacker's delight. And it has an excellent reputation.

But if I have to pick from your list, the Sironar-N is the best compromise for me. YMMV of course.

I didn't count that as one of my 210s but have one and it really is a sweet little lens. All the Nikkor Ns are great...EC

[Martin Aislabie]

Look for a lens which takes the same filter size as your existing lens

Buying filters in several different sizes is v expensive and the weight soon adds up

Almost any of the modern lenses has more than enough performance to satisfy anyone but the most hardened of lens chart addict.

If you shoot colour than manufacturers lenses tend to have their own colour cast - but if you shoot mainly B&W this can be ignored.

Martin

[Rust Never Sleeps]

I have a rodie 210 S red stripe. I like the shots from it a lot and I like the 210 focal length so it gets used a lot. I bought it new from MPEX. If I was going to do it all over again I would have bought a used one in very good condition and I wouldn't care which of the big four it came from. I would get what ever looked best at the time.

Staying with the same manufacture for all your lenses is silly IMO as one of the biggest benefits of large format is the huge lens selection. You could also get another 210 down the road and shoot them side by side and keep the one you like. I have a 65,75,90,120,150,210,300,360 and have never looked at a tranny that was properly focused and exposed and said hey man that lens has got to go. In fact all the lenses I have are stellar. Good luck.

[John Kasaian]

What?? No body has suggested the 203mm f/7.7 Ektar?

[Darren H]

I think you have the right plan of spacing your lenses and nice spacing between lenses. I am not sure there is any huge difference between any of the 210mm lenses. Coverage, weight, and cost may be bigger differences than image quality.

I went Nikon because I found one cheaper than the others and because it had 67mm filters which is what I tried to standardize all my lenses around (75mm Nikon, 125mm Fuji, 210 Nikon). That worked for me but maybe you want smaller lenses or do not mind different filters.

I dont think you can go wrong with any of them so I'll not even vote.

[Thalmees]

Really do not know why more votes went to 210/5.6 Fujinon-W ? compared to 210/5.6 Symmar-S MC ?
Thanks for any comment.

[rdenney]

I think you have the right plan of spacing your lenses and nice spacing between lenses. I am not sure there is any huge difference between any of the 210mm lenses.

Which leads to a corollary question: Has there ever existed a bad 210mm large-format lens? I'm thinking the 210 is like the 135 for small format. Some are cheap, but even most of the cheapies are decent. I would suspect differences in corner performance for wide-field 210's used with 8x10, but I bet that any 210 used for 4x5 is going to be pretty darn good.

Rick "thinking good designs in terms of sharpness have existed at this focal length for at least a century" Denney

[Dave Wooten]

Which leads to a corollary question: Has there ever existed a bad 210mm large-format lens? I'm thinking the 210 is like the 135 for small format. Some are cheap, but even most of the cheapies are decent. I would suspect differences in corner performance for wide-field 210's used with 8x10, but I bet that any 210 used for 4x5 is going to be pretty darn good.

Rick "thinking good designs in terms of sharpness have existed at this focal length for at least a century" Denney

210 is more like an 85 mm in 35 mm film photography. :)

[rdenney]

210 is more like an 85 mm in 35 mm film photography. :)

Not my point (though the 210 isn't even that long relative to the format--it's more like a 60). The 210 is the standard "longer" lens for 4x5 use (probably because so many were available, given that they are normal lenses for 5x7). The 135 was the standard accessory long lens for small format. Thus, both were have been produced in quantity relative to their markets, and offered at relatively low price points. Also, both are long enough to be "long", but not long enough to require a telephoto design. That has the double-pronged benefit of not requiring much coverage and not including elements that magnify faults.

Most people add a 210 to their 4x5 collection using the same basic motivations as people adding a 135mm lens to their 35mm collection.

The equivalent focal length to a 135 would be something like a 450, which is rare and expensive for 4x5 use, and which commonly requires a telephoto design to work on a 4x5 camera. 4x5 users think hard before buying one, and in that format it's a specialty lens, not the default long lens.

(I should add that the only reason there are sucky 85's is because they push the limits in terms of speed. Most cheapie 135's are f/2.8-f/4 lenses, just as most 210's start at f/5.6 or smaller. There are probably no bad 85/2.8's, but most 85's are f/2 or faster, and are considered more of a specialty portrait lens than an accessory telephoto.)

Rick "thinking in market terms" Denney

[BrianShaw]

Didn't one of the LF saints tell us we needed a 210... either St. Ansel or St. Fred the Picker. Isn't that really why there are so many onthe market? :)

Which one probably doesn't matter. I chose mine using the eenie-meenie-mynie-moe method and ended up with Schneider. I remember lots of talk of Schneider being lower contrast than Nikon and Fuji having a reddish color cast... but never noticed these differences myself. If I knew at the time that Nikon had 67mm filters I might have gone that way.

[jp]

I like my 203mm optar.

I'm sure you can't go wrong with any of the poll choices either. I have a fujinon and a symmar-s in other focal lengths and they are well made.

[Drew Wiley]

Brian, 210 was pushed by some of the pro photo schools for its versatility. If a student
had one of these for portraiture and general use, and a 90 for architecture, they had
most applications covered with a minimal investment. Plus a 210 has a much better image circle than most "normal" lenses like a 150. In fact, it came to be regarded as
"normal" by many 4x5 users. I certainly regarded it that way, and liked the angle of
perspective too, although now I consider 250 more as my personal "normal".

[Ken Lee]

In 35mm terms, you can divide that by 3, so it is very slight difference.

14% is 14%

(240-210)/210 = (80-70)/70

:)

[Dave Wooten]

Not my point (though the 210 isn't even that long relative to the format--it's more like a 60). The 210 is the standard "longer" lens for 4x5 use (probably because so many were available, given that they are normal lenses for 5x7). The 135 was the standard accessory long lens for small format. Thus, both were have been produced in quantity relative to their markets, and offered at relatively low price points. Also, both are long enough to be "long", but not long enough to require a telephoto design. That has the double-pronged benefit of not requiring much coverage and not including elements that magnify faults.

Most people add a 210 to their 4x5 collection using the same basic motivations as people adding a 135mm lens to their 35mm collection.

The equivalent focal length to a 135 would be something like a 450, which is rare and expensive for 4x5 use, and which commonly requires a telephoto design to work on a 4x5 camera. 4x5 users think hard before buying one, and in that format it's a specialty lens, not the default long lens.

(I should add that the only reason there are sucky 85's is because they push the limits in terms of speed. Most cheapie 135's are f/2.8-f/4 lenses, just as most 210's start at f/5.6 or smaller. There are probably no bad 85/2.8's, but most 85's are f/2 or faster, and are considered more of a specialty portrait lens than an accessory telephoto.)

Rick "thinking in market terms" Denney

Rick, You are right, mom always said I wasn't mathematically inclined! She was right. I have the Sironar 210 and have been very pleased with it. I have also used it on my 8 x 10 Wista but even the slightest movements and it tends to loose the corners. It is fine for 5 x 7. 215 mm paragons are out there cheap at times and they also have good coverage but I don t think they are a coated lens.

[rdenney]

215 mm paragons are out there cheap at times and they also have good coverage but I don t think they are a coated lens.

Yes, they are coated. I have an 8-1/2" Paragon in the fast f/4.5 version. It's a tessar design and a nice lens for many applications. It can go sharp or soft, and the bokeh is not bad. They are big, though, for their format, being mounted in an Ilex No. 4.

Rick "who has tasked the Paragon as a portrait lens for the Speed Graphic, and will calibrate the Kalart for it once all the right pieces are collected" Denney

[Kirk Keyes]

210 or 240 G-Claron

[Vaughn]

Just to toss another lens into the ring, I used a Computar Symmetrigon 210/6.3 (Copol 1) that was very sharp and came with a nice metal lens shade. I used it for 4x5 and 5x7. It got ripped off with the rest of my 5x7 gear back in 1995. But I recently bought another 5x7, and another Symmetrigon that I just mounted on a lens board -- so I will see if it will match the sharpness of my old one.

Vaughn

[Gordon Moat]

I would rather suggest a Nikkor-M 200mm f8.0 instead of much larger 210mm choices. After using a 210mm for a little while, I now find that my longest normally used lens is a 180mm f5.6, and the 210mm sits unused much of the time. So my reasoning behind the 200mm Nikkor is that it takes up very little room in a bag, and it is a really good lens.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Thalmees]

Really do not know why more votes went to 210/5.6 Fujinon-W ? compared to 210/5.6 Symmar-S MC ?
Thanks for any comment.
[IMG]http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=43837&stc=1&d=1280776405

Now Thing are more logic.
Still my query has no answer !!!
Appreciate any input.

[Drew Wiley]

When I owned a Symmar S and a Fujinon W at the same time, the Fujinon was distinctly sharper and more contrasty. The Symmar S series has since been replaced by Apo Symmar, and Fuji W by CMW. Just depends what you are doing, however. On
a 30x40 Cibachrome, like I have often printed, you can see the difference, but not
casually. I have since gone over to the Fujinon A series, which is even sharper and
more of a true apo.

[jb7]

I voted for the Fujinon-
For no other reason that I have one, and like it a lot.
I haven't used any of the others.

Mine is the older, single coated version, with a reasonable amount of movements available on 8x10- in fact, it was one of the factors that pushed me up a format.

Relatively inexpensive, and a good performer as long as you shade the front element in direct sunlight. However, I don't use it much on 4x5-

My vote was for the one I know, I couldn't have voted for any of the others...


joseph

[lilmsmaggie]

Although I have a 210 Sironar-S, I voted for the Sironar-N MC.

My Sironar-S MC is razor sharp. Never used the Sironar-N, or the other two lenes in the list but I suspect that the Rodenstock Sironar-N MC is a fine lens as well.

[Ron Marshall]

Nikon 200mm f8

[Vascilli]

I'm curious as to why the Sironar is last. Too expensive? Smaller image circle? I'm about to buy one in a large kit and the person selling it says it's sharp wide open, and this is an older, non-multicoated version at that.

[Ron Marshall]

I'm curious as to why the Sironar is last. Too expensive? Smaller image circle? I'm about to buy one in a large kit and the person selling it says it's sharp wide open, and this is an older, non-multicoated version at that.

Not much difference in image quality between these lenses. I would opt for a modern multicoated version though.

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

[rdenney]

I'm curious as to why the Sironar is last. Too expensive? Smaller image circle? I'm about to buy one in a large kit and the person selling it says it's sharp wide open, and this is an older, non-multicoated version at that.

Expensive? It's cheaper than others of the same vintage, especially if you get one branded Caltar II-N. And it's a plasmat with the same basic image circle as a contemporary Symmar or Nikkor-W.

Voting for these is a little silly. People vote for what they have, and if they don't have it then they don't know enough to vote. Also, the numbers are just too small to mean anything.

Remember that the APO-Sironar-N, in addition to be sold as a Caltar, was also sold as a Sinaron-S.

Rick "who would not worry about the image quality of a premium Rodenstock" Denney

[chris6869]

I own a nikkor M 200 and a symmar S 5.6/210.
Both are really great, my symmar was one of the latest produced before apo. No difference in term of sharpness.
If you can find a nikkor, take it, you won't be disappointed. The advantages of the symmar are :
- you can find a used one without any problem at a good price.
- It is brighter than the nikkor but with more weight.

When traveling, I prefer the nikkor with a great contrasty rendering.

Hope this will help.

Christian

[Thalmees]

When I owned a Symmar S and a Fujinon W at the same time, the Fujinon was distinctly sharper and more contrasty. The Symmar S series has since been replaced by Apo Symmar, and Fuji W by CMW. Just depends what you are doing, however. On
a 30x40 Cibachrome, like I have often printed, you can see the difference, but not
casually. I have since gone over to the Fujinon A series, which is even sharper and
more of a true apo.
Thanks for sharing your experience. Your post that way is exactly the kind that I'm looking for.

----------------------------------------------------


Voting for these is a little silly. People vote for what they have, and if they don't have it then they don't know enough to vote. Also, the numbers are just too small to mean anything.
Denney
It actually reflects how common a particular lens owned by the members here. In this type of votes, magnitude of total number of participants should not affect the interpretation of the results.
Anyway, in a Forum like LF forum, votes should take longer time to be interpretable correctly.
Thanks.