210 APO Sironar-W & 210 Fujinon W (inner lettering) = 10 Fold price Difference... [Archive]

turtle

11-Mar-2012, 13:04

Its interesting to note that a mint 210 Sironar-W with yellow band just sold for close to $2000 (Eur 1450), whereas a clean 210 Fujinon-W (inner lettering) can be found for 1/10th of that. Both have the same listed 352mm IC and the Fujinon is well under half the weight and in a copal 1 rather than copal 3.

Has anyone ever put the two on a 10x8 and compared the real world image circle at landscape apertures?

Could the Fuji really have just as much coverage and comparable performance under field conditions, but perhaps sacrifice a little contrast and wider aperture performance?

How could one explain the size differential? Surely that bulk goes into performance somewhere, right? The question is, does it matter much in the real world?

I am curious as to the view of those who have compared such lenses. My own use of various lenses of various vintages has shown that aside from coverage, in B&W there is no reason to spend the money on the modern lenses.

What do you think? Are you prepared to spend big money on lenses like the 210 APO Sironar W and if so, why?

redu

11-Mar-2012, 13:28

here (http://photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/00ROSY) is a previous discussion on this very topic.

Sal Santamaura

11-Mar-2012, 13:54

here (http://photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/00ROSY) is a previous discussion on this very topic.Which does absolutely nothing to answer the OP's questions.

Unfortunately, I've never owned the 210 Apo Sironar W, so can't compare it to my 80-degree 210 Fujinon W. If you're making contact prints or relatively small magnification enlargements from negatives shot at small apertures (f/22 - f/45), bokeh won't be an issue and I can't imagine the Rodenstock being any sharper than the Fujinon, which is superb. In color, there will probably be a difference in balance.

The Fujinon is single-coated, so it likely exhibits less contrast and flare resistance than the Rodenstock, but in black and white field work I've never had anything to complain about. I don't shoot into the light, however, so, in addition to color work, that could be a situation where you'd find the Rodenstock's multicoating valuable.

John NYC

11-Mar-2012, 18:04

Its interesting to note that a mint 210 Sironar-W with yellow band just sold for close to $2000 (Eur 1450), whereas a clean 210 Fujinon-W (inner lettering) can be found for 1/10th of that.

For a while I was looking for a Sironar W, then I gave up and looked for the Fujinon. Took a while to find the Fujinon but I did via a good man here on the forum. I am glad I didn't wait for the Sironar W... I would have never paid that for one. They seem to be very rare on the used market, so maybe that is why the price is so high. I would not mind owning one for less than that though.

Steve Hamley

11-Mar-2012, 18:17

I've done it on the 180mm Apo Sironar-S versus the 180mm Fuji-W (inner lettering). I didn't test coverage, but could.

Resolution was tested by photographing a page with text in fonts from 4 to 24 point. I could distinguish no difference in the smallest readable line. I also tested if either shifted focus upon stopping down from f:5.6 by focusing at f:5.6 and f:11, then shooting at f:22. No difference. The Fuji seemed to render shadows a bit warmer.

I'd do the Fujinon versus the Apo ironar-W, and probably the S if I were doing it over. I do point out my Fuji is an extremely clean example, and I paid $199 for it.

Cheers, Steve

turtle

11-Mar-2012, 21:05

That's interesting Steve. I'm really curious about coverage, because we know that different manufacturers have different levels of optimism when it comes to IC. Now that I have re-entered 10x8, I decided to go for 18x24cm simply because I was able to get astonishingly cheap new holders and a good number of them. This should mean that all lenses have a touch more movement than on 10x8 as the film area a little smaller.

I already have 210 and 240 G clarons sitting at home waiting for me to get back (2 months from now) and I recently came across a 210 Fujinon W (inner lettering) and 240 Sironar S for 'can't pass up' prices. I know my 210 G Claron can be tight on 8x10, with movement, but the 240 is very much better. I will soon be able to make some comparisons and see if the 240 Sironar S really does provide meaningfully better 'real world' performance for my needs in return for a 4 fold increase in weight and also whether the 210 W really does have a larger useable IC at F32 and 352mm on paper than the G claron at under 270mm on paper! I have never felt the G clarons lacking once stopped down, but the smaller IC does make itself known as one opens up from F32 with the 210. I am expecting the Sironar-S to deliver significantly better contrast than the G Claron, but this is of limited importance. A much larger IC at F22 would be and this is what I expect to see. It'll be interesting, for sure.

jeroldharter

12-Mar-2012, 05:21

No comparisons, but I have the 210 Sironar W and can say that it is very sharp. Coverage is massive relative to my 21 G Claron. It is a brick though and requires large filters.

Bob Salomon

12-Mar-2012, 06:35

"we know that different manufacturers have different levels of optimism when it comes to IC"

Why? Rodenstock meets industry specifications and does not exagerate coverage. If they give you an image circle for any Apo Sironar type lens then it will give you that circle at the specified aperture (f22) at infinity with no more then 1/3rd stop fall-off center to edge.That is what it does.

It also meets the specified distortion, color curves and light fall-off curves that they also publish for their lenses.

And an Apo Sironar, of any type, is not made to photograph news print or type on a flat surface at "some distance". The N was corrected for 1:20, the S and W for 1:10. Any test comparing a process type lens to a general purpose test lens only shows that the process type lens works well for photographing a page of news print. It doesn't test the performance of the non-process type lens. If you want to compare newsprint shots then you need to compare the Apo Ronar vs other process lenses.

At some point photographers have to accept the fact that lens manufacturers are making lenses for a wide field of applications. We have recently just sold a major Ivy league University, through one of our dealers, a Rodenstock lens in the new eShutter which will be mounted in an external pod of a C-130 on a trip through arctic conditions for a project. It was critical that the engineers, the user, the project co-ordinator could all rely on the published specifications.

It does not pay for the manufacturers to "fudge" the numbers. There are too many customers out there; military, industrial, government, educational, etc. who are perfectly capable of doing their own tests to ensure that what they buy meets the published specs.

turtle

12-Mar-2012, 06:38

I would guesstimate that I get around 340mm out of my 210 G Claron at f45 if my memory serves me correctly (about five years back). I suppose the Sironar W does serve up lots more as 352mm of 'manufacturer grade IC' is achieved to stops sooner (f22).

Does the 210 Sironar W give more image circle at F32 and F45 or does it mechanically vignette?

I have always loved the 90mm-135mm range on 5x4, as do many landscape shooters, and I am surprised so few comparable FLs were so little produced by manufacturers with decent image circles for 10x8. I wonder why Rodenstock / Schneider did not make lenses one stop slower with more coverage or smaller size. A 210 F8 Sironar W would have been much smaller and much cheaper than the f5.6 and still a lot more usable than the limited 210mm 72-75 degree lenses,or struggling with a G claron 210. Its an area where Fuji got smart with their 450 12.5 and 600 11.5 C lenses and Schneider followed suit with the 350mm f11.5. If we can manage with 90mm f8 lenses on 5x4, a 210, or even 180 F8 would have been no worse!

No comparisons, but I have the 210 Sironar W and can say that it is very sharp. Coverage is massive relative to my 21 G Claron. It is a brick though and requires large filters.

Bob Salomon

12-Mar-2012, 07:26

Rodenstock gives their specs at the diffraction limited stop, f22. They do not give coverage at smaller stops. But they do give the mtf for the Apo W, N, S and Macro, series at f11 and at f22. All other specs are at f22 only on these lenses. With the Apo Grandagon's MTFs are at 8 and 11 while the Grandagons are at 11 and 22.

Bob Salomon

12-Mar-2012, 07:43

"A 210 F8 Sironar W would have been much smaller and much cheaper than the f5.6 and still a lot more usable than the limited 210mm 72-75 degree lenses"
The cost of R & D, buying glass, cutting, polishing, coating, making the mounts, centering, assembling, inspecting, testing, storing, selling, shipping, advertising, marketing, etc. are virtually the same. There would be no major savings today. Especially considering the rapidly shrinking market size today.

And, a 115mm Grandagon-N was a 104° coverage lens and at f22 at infinity it just missed covering 8x10 as it covered a 291mm image circle. Of course you would have also needed a center filter and the cost of that, combined with the cost of the lens, combined with the cost of 112mm filters for the center filter, would have driven the basic price of the lens up quite a bit anyway. And the 115mm 6.8 was not inexpensive to begin with.

"If we can manage with 90mm f8 lenses on 5x4, a 210, or even 180 F8 would have been no worse!"
Of course the 200mm f6.8 Grandagon-N cvered 102°, as did the 155mm. These lenses fully covered 810 with the 155 having a 382mm circle and the 200 a 495mm circle. Neither is small though. The 200mm uses 135mm filters!

Sal Santamaura

12-Mar-2012, 08:02

I would guesstimate that I get around 340mm out of my 210 G Claron at f45 if my memory serves me correctly (about five years back). I suppose the Sironar W does serve up lots more as 352mm of 'manufacturer grade IC' is achieved to stops sooner (f22)...As previously noted, I don't have a 210 mm Apo Sironar W, but caution you against supposing that stopping one down to apertures smaller than f/22 would increase the usable image circle like it does with a G-Claron.

I do own a 150 mm Sironar W as well as Apo Sironar Ns in 135 mm, 210 mm, 240 mm and 360 mm along with a 135 mm Apo Sironar S. In all those cases, design of the cells limits image circle to a relatively hard stop regardless of aperture. Rodenstock's designs of these series, which typically have rather bulbous front elements, places the front cell's filter ring proportionally much further away from the shutter than its location on the single-coated 80-degree Fujinon W series. As a result, available movements are constrained no matter how far one stops down.

turtle

12-Mar-2012, 08:05

I explained myself very badly. I am aware of the gigantic 200/210mm f8 Super angulon type lenses. Back in the day when there was a reasonable volume to sales, its a shame they did not produce 210 Sironar W wide angle plasmat type lenses that are a bit smaller and slower, rather like Leica has a 24 f1.4 Lux asph and 24 Elmar f3.8 asph. Presumably dropping a stop would have meant lower prices, smaller size and still enough movement on 10x8 for field use for many users. Instead, everyone was stuck between limited coverage 210mm 75 degree lenses that just hit the corners or gigantic 210mm F8 wide angle types. The 210 APO Sironar W was a rare and very expensive freak that filled this void but was probably too expensive for many people in their intended application, or at least for the coverage gain over a 72 degree lens. For 5x7, the 150 APO Sironar W really has no competition.

Bob Salomon

12-Mar-2012, 08:44

"did not produce 210 Sironar W wide angle plasmat type lenses that are a bit smaller and slower"

They actually did, the W was discontinued partly because the S is so good!

John NYC

12-Mar-2012, 09:03

"did not produce 210 Sironar W wide angle plasmat type lenses that are a bit smaller and slower"

They actually did, the W was discontinued partly because the S is so good!

But it is not a direct replacement since it doesn't offer as much coverage.

turtle

12-Mar-2012, 09:11

I imagine the S replaced, rather than joined, the W because the additional coverage of the 150 APO Sironar-W was overkill for 5x4 and that sales for 10x8 were slow due to the bulk and cost of the 210mm version. The 5x7 format is marginal at best and has been for sometime (sadly) so the niche for the 150 APO Sironar W would seem to have vanished.

Unfortunately, as good as the S may be, it is no substitute for the 150 W on 5x7 or 210 W on 10x8 because the S series lenses in these focal lengths don't have large enough circles for reasonable movements. The quest for optical perfection by optics manufacturers is not always good for the consumer, because we end up with the choice between a brilliant lens that is larger and more expensive than we need, or nothing. In reality, many photographers would gladly trade perfection in the outer field of the image circle, or a bit of brightness on the ground glass for something smaller, lighter and more affordable. Sadly it is too late and the 210mm/240mm problem will be forever with us for 10x8 shooters. I find it interesting that the last lens Schneider introduced was the 350 f11.5, which si relatively small, light has a large enough IC to be useful on 10x8 and is dramatically cheaper than its larger faster relatives. If only that mind set had existed 20 years ago!

"did not produce 210 Sironar W wide angle plasmat type lenses that are a bit smaller and slower"

They actually did, the W was discontinued partly because the S is so good!

E. von Hoegh

12-Mar-2012, 09:22

Some 210 Dagors will cover 8x10, and all 240 Dagors will, with a wee bit of room for movements.

turtle

12-Mar-2012, 10:13

From what I have read online, the dagors and G clarons have similar coverage, but that could be completely wrong. Finding a 210 Angulon (at all), a 210 APO Sironar W (at an affordable price), or a 210 dagor (at all) are exercises in frustration. While 240 APO Symmar/APO Sironar-N lenses abound with roughly 350mm ICs, 210mm is a different matter! A clean 240 APO Sironar-N can be had for $350...

The absence of modern 180mm lenses with 10x8 coverage mirroring the hugely popular 90mm FL in 5x4 is also complete mystery. I could understand the absence of 210mm lenses, if 180 was well served along with 240mm, but it was not until the APO Sironar S that there was a 240 plasmat with a decent IC for 10x8. Thank heaven for Fuji in the 70s and the SC 210 Fujinon W and Schneider for the 210 G claron, both of which are presumably being used outside of their design expectations (I assume) on 10x8 however!

turtle

12-Mar-2012, 10:16

Are you suggesting that the IC of the old style Fujinon W should continue to increase at smaller apertures (than f22) unlike the Rodenstocks N/S series?

BTW I'm not going to buy a 210 APO Sironar W. Waaay out of my price range. The Fujinon 210 W is a different matter and if it offers a bigger useable IC than the G Claron then it is a winner!

.. Rodenstock's designs of these series, which typically have rather bulbous front elements, places the front cell's filter ring proportionally much further away from the shutter than its location on the single-coated 80-degree Fujinon W series. As a result, available movements are constrained no matter how far one stops down.

Bob Salomon

12-Mar-2012, 10:41

"Unfortunately, as good as the S may be, it is no substitute for the 150 W on 5x7 or 210 W on 10x8 because the S series lenses in these focal lengths don't have large enough circles for reasonable movements."

What is reasonable?
For 5x7 the 150S gives 17mm of rise and 13mm of shift in landscape format at f22 at infinity. That is probably reasonable for many shooters. The N gave 4 and 3mm so the S offered significantly more in a lens that was not much larger or heavier then the N. 810 is a different matter. The N did not cover 810 and neither did the W and the S does not either. The 210S just squeaks in on 810 with 3 and 2mm of movement while the W had 29 and 24mm. But at much larger size and weight. But the 210 S had better MTF curves then the 210 W.

Sal Santamaura

12-Mar-2012, 11:13

Are you suggesting that the IC of the old style Fujinon W should continue to increase at smaller apertures (than f22) unlike the Rodenstocks N/S series?...My single-coated 80-degree 210 mm Fujinon W is not on a lensboard right now, but I just evaluated mechanical vignetting at various apertures. Stopping down below f/22 permits an increasingly unobstructed light path, i.e. ability to project a larger circle, all the way down to f/64, although a standard-ring B+W filter would vignette below f/45.

Even for contact prints, I wouldn't count on more than Fuji's specified 352 mm. Although it will light up more diameter, field curvature and sharpness falloff in the corners probably won't meet my standards. I've previously confirmed this with my 250 mm f/6.7 single-coated 80-degree Fujinon W. Just beyond its 298 mm circle, everything falls apart, even though there's not much loss of brightness.

Steve Hamley

12-Mar-2012, 17:05

Pardon for not responding, but I've been on vacation at the beach (Edisto Island, SC) and taking pictures! Botany Bay is a must.

Response to Bob Salomon: I've always been intrigued how manufacturers specify image circle. So does Rodenstock and other current manufacturer's use resolution, vignetting, distortion, or what to determine usable image circle?

Response to Turtle: In my experience, the modern 6/6 and 6/5 Fujinons (the NWs and CM-Ws) are sharp out to a few mm beyond the specified image circle. They have 4-6mm or so of fuzziness before vignetting on the ones I have, which is not a lot beyond the specified IC. I would consider Fuji's image circles as accurate if you're enlarging, and you maybe get 5-10% more contact printing. You can get away with a lot contact printing. I think Fuji designed the 6/5 and 6/6 lenses to be sharper further out. Whether they succeeded and at what apertures I don't know.

That said, the early "inside lettering" Fujinon Ws are plasmats, so maybe I'll pop the lenses on the 7x17 or 8x20 to see what the illumination circles are. That doesn't tell you a lot except what might be acceptable for a contact print. Sal's comment is interesting.

Cheers, Steve

Helcio J Tagliolatto

12-Mar-2012, 17:12

Sal, you mean 398 for the 250/5,7, don't you?

Sal Santamaura

12-Mar-2012, 17:17

Sal, you mean 398 for the 250/5,7, don't you?Yes, 398 mm for the 250 mm f/6.7, and it's too late for editing post #21 to correct the typo. Sorry about that. :(

Steve Hamley

12-Mar-2012, 18:00

Folks,

I also did a color comparison in sunlight between a Rodenstock 180mm Apo-Sironar-S, a Fujinon 180mm W early "inner circle" lettering, and a 8-1/2" Kodak Commercial Ektar.

The subjects were grass, and two jackets, one blue and one a North Face reddish-orange Denali jacket. Shot on Provia 100.

All rendered blue and green identically. The Fuji and Commercial Ektar were indistinguishable, but rendered reds more red. In other words, the reddish orange jacket was rendered more red-ish than it actually was, an impression that was noted by field use previously, photographing barn roofs.

The Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S rendered the shades of red more accurately.

Also, the single coated Fujinion-W was a little lower in contrast, but not very much. This can be good or bad depending on the image. The contrast between the Commercial Ektar and Apo Sironar-S was not distinguishable. I wouldn't use contrast between these lenses as a deciding factor.

Cheers, Steve

turtle

13-Mar-2012, 00:07

Some really useful info here...

When I get home, I'm going to commit some film to finding out once and for all what the limits really are with some of the lenses I have, esp the G Clarons. Film might not be cheap, but ruined 'real' negs are more expensive. So many online comments on IC confuse illumination with good resolution and contact printing with enlargements. Of those who enlarge, some never go past 20x16 from even 8x10 and so its hard to know what is what for your own needs. Whatever tests I do, I will post the results here with some commentary.

Steve Hamley

13-Mar-2012, 10:41

I just put both 180mm lenses on a 7x17 and focused at infinity.

Wide open, the early Fujinon-W has an image circle (IC) of about 315mm versus 305mm usable IC specified in the literature, the Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S about 290mm versus 276mm usable IC in the literature, or about 25mm difference on my GG.

Stopping the Fujinon down did not increase the IC. Stopping the Apo-Sironar-S down to f:22 seemed to give about 10mm more, stopping down further did nothing.

The Fujinon drops off a tad more slowly near the very edge of the IC whereas the Rodenstock was a bit more abrupt. So there isn't as much difference as you might think stopped down, with the Fuji giving about 15mm more IC.

The Rodenstock started to show some falloff in illumination at about 230mm and the Fujinon at about 260mm.

The little experiment seemed to confirm my idea that Fuji's specs are accurate, or very close. Rodenstock's specs for this lens seem very slightly understated, but again, I don't know by what criteria/criterion they determine usable image circle and looking at a GG really doesn't do much except give a comparative feel for the coverage between the two lenses. Anyway, the relative differences I measured on the GG is about the same as the difference in manufacturer's specifications, and doing this kind of thing on a GG is sort of a hit and miss proposition.

And I frequently push lenses a little beyond their rated specifications, like the Fujinon 125mm CM-W on 5x7 with a few mm of rise. A little loss of resolution or darkening in the last few mm of the corners in the sky would not be a "deal breaker" for me, or in grass. I doubt we always stop down enough for lens resolution in the corners to make a difference given depth of field throughout an entire image. YMMV of course, depending on what you're shooting, if you're enlarging and how much, and how picky you are.

I'm also interested in looking at edges of ICs with respect to chromatic aberrations, and that's on the agenda for some of my frequently used lenses.

Oh, and just a non-related tidbit, there's only about 10 grams difference in weight between these two.

Cheers, Steve

Helcio J Tagliolatto

13-Mar-2012, 11:25

Also, the single coated Fujinion-W was a little lower in contrast, but not very much. This can be good or bad depending on the image. The contrast between the Commercial Ektar and Apo Sironar-S was not distinguishable. I wouldn't use contrast between these lenses as a deciding factor.

Steve,
during a test comparing Kodak Wide Field Ektar 250 and APO Rodenstock S 240, Carl Weese noted that the contrast of the older lens was much lower than the APO - S. Commercial Ektars and WF Ektars are so different in structure? I really don't know, so my questions...
Hélcio