Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Lens Comparison

  1. #1
    Grego
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lancaster County, PA
    Posts
    74

    Lens Comparison

    Hello,

    Need a comparison on the Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S 210mm 5.6 vs Schneider Super Symar XL 210/5.6

    The Rodenstock is more than half the price. How do these lens compare, based on your experience.

    Thanks all.
    Greg

  2. #2
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    8,653

    Re: Lens Comparison

    Apples and oranges.

    The 210 Apo-Sironar-S is a fine lens for 4x5/5x7/WP. So is its Schneider counterpart, the 210 Apo-Symmar L.

    The 210 Super-Symmar XL is a very big, very heavy, very expensive lens that will comfortably cover 8x10/11x14/7x17.

    Your intended application will determine which you ought to be looking at.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Loganville , GA
    Posts
    14,410

    Re: Lens Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by Oren Grad View Post
    Apples and oranges.

    The 210 Apo-Sironar-S is a fine lens for 4x5/5x7/WP. So is its Schneider counterpart, the 210 Apo-Symmar L.

    The 210 Super-Symmar XL is a very big, very heavy, very expensive lens that will comfortably cover 8x10/11x14/7x17.

    Your intended application will determine which you ought to be looking at.
    The Apo Sironar S also covers 810. But just covers it. It has a 316mm image circle at f22 at infinity so that would allow 3mm of rise and 2mm of shift on 810 with the back positioned horizontally.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    973

    Re: Lens Comparison

    Theoretically the Sironar-S will perform ever so slightly better in the center of the image, but in reality I think you will have a terrible time telling the difference between images taken between the two lenses. Some time back I compared my 150 Sironar S and SS150XL, and couldn't really tell the difference when evaluating chromes with a 10x loupe.

    As far as coverage is concerned, it's no contest. The Sironar's coverage on 8x10 is so tight that few people use it on 8x10. I certainly would not recommend it. The 210 SSXL, on the other hand, may have more coverage (and more bulk) than you need if you are only shooting landscapes (which traditionally don't require a large amount of lens coverage).

    For other 210mm 8x10 lens alternatives, see my post here:

    http://www.largeformatphotography.in...030#post426030

  5. #5
    Grego
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lancaster County, PA
    Posts
    74

    Re: Lens Comparison

    This would be for 4X5. Sorry I left that out of my question.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    973

    Re: Lens Comparison

    The 210mm SSXL is an 8x10 (or greater) lens. It is tremendous overkill for 4x5, both in coverage, size/weight and price.

    The 210mm Sironar-S is a fine 4x5 lens, as are any of the other 210mm f/5.6 plasmats from Schneider, Nikon or Fuji. If you don't mind losing some brightness when focusing, a number of f/9 lenses are much smaller/lighter and are excellent performers: Nikon 200M, G-Claron 210, Fuji 240A, etc.

  7. #7

    Re: Lens Comparison

    Just to chime in on Eric's comments. The Fuji A-series lenses are very very sharp and will probably perform as good as (or better than) the lenses you suggest on 4x5". The lenses I have in mind are the 180mm and the 240mm. The common denominator for both of these is the small footprint (i.e. small physical size and Copal 0 shutter) as compared to the Sironar-S or even much worse, the SS-XL 210. In real world photography, there is probably no way of telling which of these (series of) lenses was used in a particular situation.
    Personally I've already made my choice and one of the first lenses I bought for my "new" endeavour into LF photography was a Fuji A240 f/9 lens. I will probably never part with it.
    If you're worried about the max f/opening. When shooting "longer than normal focal length", the max opening really doesn't mattter that much. It's quite easy to focus anyhow, as the lens is quite far from the ground glass, hence the rays of light is quite perpendiqular (sp?) to the ground glass. (As opposed to wide angle lenses, where this is a real problem and using huge f/4.5 doesn't help much.)

    So, it's up to you. If your pictures are up to the "creme de la creme", go ahead and get a Sironar-S. It's the best lens there is. The SS-XL is designed for much larger negative sizes, as mentioned in an earlier post. Also, it's simply huge. But if that is what you want, go ahead.
    Else, save your back (and the rest of your muscles) and shoot some equally good pictures with the much lighter lenses that Eric (and I) propose to you.

    //Björn

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Bath, Ohio 44210 USA
    Posts
    565

    Re: Lens Comparison

    We have already established that the SS-XL is over kill for 4x5. If anyone is considering it for 8x10 or larger (I bought mine for 7x17), you should also know that you will probably want a $1000 center filter on many of your shots.

    John

Similar Threads

  1. 4x5 Ultra Fine Focusing and Calibration
    By rvhalejr in forum New Products and Services
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 11-Dec-2009, 18:26
  2. Lens Comparison Test
    By OldBikerPete in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2-Jan-2007, 20:34
  3. MF lens comparison to LF lens
    By mario abba in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-Jul-2000, 18:17

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •