Confused - which 210 lens for horseman VHR?

[Hugh Sakols]

As posted earlier I'm looking for a telephoto lens for my Horseman VHR (6x9). I'm looking for a quality lens that will work well for color transparency film without spending more than is neccessary. The VHR will accept copal 0 and 1 lenses. I checked on Midwest photo and found the following used lenses with a rating of 9 or more.

Nikon 200 f8 Nikkor M (I've heard great things but pricy - $525)
Fuji 210 -W f5.6 ($296)
Nikkor-W 210 f5.6 ($296)
Rodenstock 210 f5.6 Caltar IIn ($329)
Schneider 210 f5.6 symmar s (I'm not sure how modern the coating is - could be excellent??? $349)

Any comments on these lenses would be appreciated. I have no idea how to decide. I plan to make color digital prints at about 16x20 inches. Other than the price of the Nikon 200 f8 which I know is great, I have no idea how to decide? Keep in mind I will be using it on a small 6x9 field camera for landscape photography. From what I read in posts it appears that all of these brands produce excellent results especially at sizes below 30x40 inches. What about rendition of color and contrast?? Help????????????????????????????????

[Dave_B]

Hugh:
I own both Nikkors, the Schneider and the Rodenstock. There is a reason the Nikkor 200M is the most expensive. It is a great lens. Of the four it is the smallest and lightest. It has the smallest IC (210mm) of the four but it is large enough for any reasonable set of movements. I highly recommend the 200M.
Cheers,
Dave B.

[Dan Fromm]

The less expensive the better. The lighter the better. All have more coverage than you can possibly use, so you'll almost always be using the very center of the image circle, where image quality is best.

As for color rendition and contrast, well, you'll get many responses and most of them will disagree with what I write here. If the lenses are all free of haze -- this can be a problem -- and their shutters are all accurate and they are all coated they should all be equally contrasty and should render color the same. In my limited experience, the effects of slight differences in shutter speeds on color rendition with reversal materials swamp differences between lenses' transmission. This based on lens trials with a fair number of lenses hung in front of a known good AE 35mm SLR.

I don't trust anyone's claims that one lens renders cooler or warmer than another because so much that can influence rendition is badly controlled when all of us shoot. If you want to know what a lens will do to color, ask it with a spectrophotometer, not with film.

Good luck, have fun, let the opinions fly,

Dan

[Dave_B]

Hugh:
I agree with Dan. All the lenses will be more than good enough for any photography that any of us will ever do. "Best" is a subjective evaluation that we all make based on our personal preferences and a recollection on what the scene looked like when we shot it. When I got the Nikkor 200M it blew me away and the others haven't gone out with me since. Before the 200M showed up, I was very happy with the others, especially the Schneider. Given that I largely backpack, the 200M with a Copal 0 shutter (the other three are Copal 1's) the combination of great performance and small size decided it for me. However, if you do not have a 55 year old, slightly dicey back, you may make another choice and will no doubt be happy with it. You will probably hear from members of this forum that the best choice is to buy the cheapest lens within reason and spend the difference on film that you shoot. It is hard to argue with that as a strategy.
Cheers,
Dave B.

[Ted Harris]

The Schneider, Rodenstock, Fuji and Nikkor W are all the same basic lens design. AT the prices you quoted all should be more modern multicoated lens. 210mm is one of the most popular and often purchased lenses (along with 150mm) for 4x5 so there are many of them on the used market. The Rodenstock/Caltar IIN is a modern/current design with multicoating and without knowing more about the other offerings that would be my choice because you will save some $200+ and gain an fstop over the Nikkor M. If the $$ are less important than size and weight then go for the Nikkor. The difference in size and weight is quite amazing if you put the two of them side-by-side. One of the reasons my Fuji 240 is always with me is that it is so small and lightweight in its #0 shutter.

You mentioned making 16x20 digital prints and if that is yoru goal then the quality of the scans you get will be more important than your final choice between these fine lenses.

[Jim Galli]

What Ted said. Skip them all and buy a Fuji 240 F9A. Another standout IMHO is the Schneider G-Claron 210mm f9, but the earlier one in the 10 - 11,000,000 serial range. It is a dagor formula and VERY small for the punch it packs. 40.5mm filters.

[Ernest Purdum]

210mm is the "standard" size for 5" X 7". We are usually thinking in terms of lots of excess coverage so as to be able to use our movements freely, but in your case, using a 6 X 9 cm back, the excess coverage of most 210mm lenses would just be a lot of unused light entering your camera unless restricted by careful use of a compendium lens shade.

For this reason, you might want to consider one of the lenses which have much less coverage than those mentioned earlier. Red Dot Apo Artars and Apo-Ronars are the most commonly seen. Though their apertures are small, most people don't find this a handicap when using a tripod. Actual taking apertures are likely to be near f22 anyway.

You used the word "telephoto" in your question. True telephotos require bellows extension much less than their focal length. Their angle of view is also much less than that of normal lenses. A handicap is that attempts to use front tilts and swings lead to madness. I don't know about the Horseman, but the other lenses mentioned are not true telephotos and the extension needed at infinity is close to their focal length and considerably more at close distances.

[Ernest Purdum]

P.S. I see I was in error in thinking you had mentioned a Horseman lens.

An additional benefit of the Apo lenses is that they are often available at significantly less cost than the others.

[Dan Fromm]

210mm is the "standard" size for 5" X 7". We are usually thinking in terms of lots of excess coverage so as to be able to use our movements freely, but in your case, using a 6 X 9 cm back, the excess coverage of most 210mm lenses would just be a lot of unused light entering your camera unless restricted by careful use of a compendium lens shade.
<snip>

Perhaps I've eliminated the problem by hanging my 210s in front of a #1, which certainly does cut off the outer part of the cone of rays, but I've had flare problems with only one of the 210s I use on my 2x3 Graphics. A lens hood solved that problem, so I think the problem was due to reflections inside that lens (6 air-spaced elements, single-coated) rather than to stray light not being absorbed by the bellows.

Same goes for all of the other lenses for formats larger than 2x3 that I've shot on my Graphics or tried out in front of a PB-4 or Zenit bellows with a Nikon behind. The 35 mm bellows have a narrow lens throat and the lenses are attached to 'em with narrow adapters.

People I respect have told me in all seriousness that they've had problems with bellows flaare, so I have to believe that it isn't just another old photographer's tale, but I still wonder what it takes to provoke it.

Cheers,

Dan

[Ernest Purdum]

Dan, I didn't intend to indicate that flare problems would necessarily result from using a lens with very wide excess coverage, just that it was one more factor in lens selection, unnecessary in his case. I thought it might be useful to propose possible alternatives to the excellent lenses already under consideration, particularly since he indicates that he doesn't want to spend more than necessary.

I think that there is more chance of reduced contrast from this cause than flare. Proving it would be beyond my testing capabilities, though.

Regards,

Ernest