Good 210 for 4x5??

[Bernice Loui]

As previously mentioned many times, modern view camera lenses from the big four Fujinon, Rodenstock, Nikkor, Schneider were all intended for the working photographer market. Majority of these folks back then understood well what LF was about and demanded a given level of performance from their lenses. None were bargain priced lenses back then, all were more similar than different. While there are differences between brands, these days IMO, those differences are not relevant or that significant. Any of these four brand of lenses will do the job. re-branded lenses like Caltar is much identical the same.


Bernice

[John Layton]

I'd bargain to guess that there are more "good to great" 210's, in both variety and sheer numbers (and for very favorable prices) - than there are of any other FL's...perhaps followed closely by 135's/150's and 300's. But this is just a hunch!

[Daniel Unkefer]

I bought a chrome barrel 210mm Schneider Componon yesterday for $90. Comparable to my 210mm chrome Symmars in about every single way. If you don't need a shutter barrel lenses are great deals. BTW front and rear groups come out in solid cemented blocks with all the Comps, and even thick milkiness can be cleaned away with dishwashing soap and warm water. Then you have a "best possible" Componon. I was taught this trick by repair Guru Ken Ruth, right before he retired.

Ken said "Don't be afraid. Just do it, anyone can do it"

[drew.saunders]

A quick check of ebay for "210 5.6 large format" gets 155 results, most under $400, a few under $200, a few for disturbingly large amounts of money, and a few with cameras attached. At least one of those will do!

[Drew Wiley]

Somewhere on the web I've stumbled onto a list of the many various Caltar lenses over the years. These were common lenses rebranded for Calumet. I know they offered both a 2105.6 plastmat which was simply a so-called "Apo" Sironar N in later years, and a less expensive tessar-style design, perhaps a 210 Schneider Xenar. The Fujinon 210 L is a thick-element single coated tessar. The 200 Nikkor Q evolved a bit towards the thinner element style but remained single-coated, and the Nikkor M 200 is the most modern tessar design, being thin element as well as multi-coated - it has LOTS of extra wiggle room for 4x5 applications; don't listen to those old generic stereotypes about tessars. We're not talking about a 135 or 150 here; a 200 has a significantly larger image circle. The advantage of tessars is that with only six air/glass interfaces, they give exceptional hue and contrast rendition. And the Fuji L has a little gentler rendering once prized by portrait photographers, but don't mistake that fact for thinking it is somehow unsharp!

Likewise, I preferred the older Schneider Symmar S 210/5.6 plasmat for portraits over the newer ultra-crisp ones; but that doesn't mean it is unsharp either - I've got a several 30X40 inch Cibachrome prints in the house printed from 4X5 chromes taken with that very lens, and nobody would call those unsharp in any manner! It's just a bit differently nuanced look between these various lenses. When it comes to sheer compactness for sake of long backpacking trips, I carry the 200M. If I wanted optimal near-macro performance, I'd get a 210/9 G-Claron. But it's hard to go wrong with any of them.