210mm f/5.6 - Rodenstock or Nikkor?

[Drew Wiley]

Don't forget Fujinon. Every bit as good. So, basically, any of the "big four" manufacturers will be adequate.

[Salmo22]

I did some more research on my end and found that John Sexton, who's work I admire, has primarily used Nikkor glass for many years. Mr. Sexton states that for a period of seven years he only had one lens and shot with it exclusively - a 210mm Schneider Symmar. He then switch to a nearly 100% Nikkor lens setup which include their 210mm offering. I'm currently a one lens guy with a fine little Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S 150mm f/5.6 mounted firmly on my 4x5. It has been a terrific lens; however, the 210mm focal length beckons - for reasons I can't readily explain. Since I've enjoyed my 150mm Rodenstock so much, it is would be easy to simply duplicate that brand in a 210mm. Unfortunately, the expense has me looking at less costly alternatives. No doubt that the W Nikkor and Rodenstock APO-Sironar-N have more than enough coverage to allow me plenty of movements with my 4x5. Sharpness, contrast, resolution for my black and white work is most important to me. I just need to make a decision...

Thanks for all your input and comments.

[Luis-F-S]

It doesn't matter what someone you admire uses, it only matters what YOU use. Too much research will only confuse you. There are good and bad lenses in every brand. Bernice has expounded on this point. I have the following 210 mm lenses G-Claron (2), Golden Dagors & Symmar, 2-3 Caltars and I hardly ever use them, usually use longer lenses in larger formats. Buy one or two and see what you like and then sell the one you don't. There is no other way! L

[Bernice Loui]

Lens alone will not result in an image style like John Sexton. There is a LOT more involved than lens alone as the lens is one small facet of what resulted in any print.

While there are variations within all production lenses, the modern Plasmat as a group by the big four Fujiono, Schneider, Nikon, Rodenstock are more similar than different. Know John's name fame can easily net him a promo & marketing deal with Nikon to use their lenses. There was a similar with Sally Mann and Toyo where the ad ran with Sally and her kids with a Toyo 810M (good camera regardless). Keep in mind lenses and such are really image making tools used as a means to achieve a print in mind.

So, as mentioned numerous time on LFF, find your own light testing lenses, film, developer and the entire print making process to find your own light.



Bernice

I did some more research on my end and found that John Sexton, who's work I admire, has primarily used Nikkor glass for many years. Mr. Sexton states that for a period of seven years he only had one lens and shot with it exclusively - a 210mm Schneider Symmar. He then switch to a nearly 100% Nikkor lens setup which include their 210mm offering. I'm currently a one lens guy with a fine little Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S 150mm f/5.6 mounted firmly on my 4x5. It has been a terrific lens; however, the 210mm focal length beckons - for reasons I can't readily explain. Since I've enjoyed my 150mm Rodenstock so much, it is would be easy to simply duplicate that brand in a 210mm. Unfortunately, the expense has me looking at less costly alternatives. No doubt that the W Nikkor and Rodenstock APO-Sironar-N have more than enough coverage to allow me plenty of movements with my 4x5. Sharpness, contrast, resolution for my black and white work is most important to me. I just need to make a decision...

Thanks for all your input and comments.

[Salmo22]

Lens alone will not result in an image style like John Sexton. There is a LOT more involved than lens alone as the lens is one small facet of what resulted in any print.

While there are variations within all production lenses, the modern Plasmat as a group by the big four Fujiono, Schneider, Nikon, Rodenstock are more similar than different. Know John's name fame can easily net him a promo & marketing deal with Nikon to use their lenses. There was a similar with Sally Mann and Toyo where the ad ran with Sally and her kids with a Toyo 810M (good camera regardless). Keep in mind lenses and such are really image making tools used as a means to achieve a print in mind.

So, as mentioned numerous time on LFF, find your own light testing lenses, film, developer and the entire print making process to find your own light.



Bernice

Thank you Bernice for your comments. I'm not suggesting that buying a Nikkor 210mm like John Sexton will help me make images like him. He has his style and I have mine. And I also don't care if Nikon gives Sexton his lenses for free or discount. John Sexton isn't going to use a lens brand that doesn't allow him to make his photographs to his standards. I also don't buy into the notion that lens production from the big four was so sloopy that you have to acquire numerous copies to weed out the stinkers, which I would then apparently sell to some unsuspecting soul, and keep the one gem I found. In my opinion, that is a ridiculous notion. I've never seen nor heard of a single fine art photographer extol this practice of lens acquisition. Why is that? I had hoped that my original question might illicit more responses like Pere and StuartR. Observations on different traits, if any existed.

[Salmo22]

Lens alone will not result in an image style like John Sexton. There is a LOT more involved than lens alone as the lens is one small facet of what resulted in any print.

While there are variations within all production lenses, the modern Plasmat as a group by the big four Fujiono, Schneider, Nikon, Rodenstock are more similar than different. Know John's name fame can easily net him a promo & marketing deal with Nikon to use their lenses. There was a similar with Sally Mann and Toyo where the ad ran with Sally and her kids with a Toyo 810M (good camera regardless). Keep in mind lenses and such are really image making tools used as a means to achieve a print in mind.

So, as mentioned numerous time on LFF, find your own light testing lenses, film, developer and the entire print making process to find your own light.



Bernice

Thank you Bernice for your comments.

[Bernice Loui]

Sadly there are "stinkers".. back in the day if one were to purchase a given lens or had the intent to purchase a given lens new there was right of return or time for trial. One example lens being color balance, while the big four offered similar image results their color balance was different and within the same brand there were slight color balance variations. For those who were really into this, they would order up a new set of lenses from one brand as color matched. This way when the lenses were used for color transparency work, shifts in color rendition and such would not be as significant.

Today given the often unknown history of a used lens, it remains prudent to test before accepting. Brand or type alone is simply not enough.
Over the decades of doing view camera images, I've got an absurd collection of VC lenses and tried-used a pile more. The keepers have all been very carefully selected and tested to meet a very specific set of expectations which are highly likely different from other image makers.

Know this was the very common practice of discriminating and demanding still image makers back in the day. Stanley Kubrick began as a still image photographer then went on to film making, yet he kept his habits and ways with lenses cultivated back in his still image days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb7Meqaz7Aw

What I'll say, back in the days when VC was primarily the domain of demanding serious commercial image making every notable photographer sorted for lenses they used and were not going to simply accept anything they did not test extensively to decide if a specific lens will meet their needs and expectations.

Keep mind modern VC lenses today are an absolute bargain compared to when they were new. Back then shelling out $1,000 or more for one good lens was very common. Today that same lens could be had for $200 or a lot less which is no more than a few boxes of film and processing.


Bernice

Thank you Bernice for your comments. I'm not suggesting that buying a Nikkor 210mm like John Sexton will help me make images like him. He has his style and I have mine. And I also don't care if Nikon gives Sexton his lenses for free or discount. John Sexton isn't going to use a lens brand that doesn't allow him to make his photographs to his standards. I also don't buy into the notion that lens production from the big four was so sloopy that you have to acquire numerous copies to weed out the stinkers, which I would then apparently sell to some unsuspecting soul, and keep the one gem I found. In my opinion, that is a ridiculous notion. I've never seen nor heard of a single fine art photographer extol this practice of lens acquisition. Why is that? I had hoped that my original question might illicit more responses like Pere and StuartR. Observations on different traits, if any existed.

[Oren Grad]

Jeff: plasmats from the Big Four render focus transitions, and foreground and background out-of-focus picture content, differently. I happen to prefer Rodenstock, especially Apo-Sironar-S but also (Apo-)Sironar-N (though not the earliest Sironar-without-letter generation, which has a different look entirely). But we're talking about subtleties that are obscured or entirely obliterated in the scans that we can show on the web, and for which we don't have an agreed set of terms that can convey unambiguously in words what the different "flavors" mean visually. And of course what you like or, on the other hand, what bothers you, is your subjective preference, which may be different from mine. So if you think this is something you might care about, I'm afraid there's no real alternative to comparing lenses from the different brands for yourself, with subjects and settings (focus distances, working apertures) that are typical of your pictures.

It's not that costly to do, though it would obviously require time and effort on your part as well as a bit of working capital up front. Apo-Sironar-S and Apo-Symmar L aside, modern 210mm plasmats are dirt cheap these days. With careful shopping you could probably assemble a complete set of (Apo-)Sironar-N, Apo-Symmar or Symmar-S, Fujinon W, and Nikkor W, for what a single Apo-Sironar-S or Apo-Symmar L would cost, and then keep the one you prefer and sell the rest. Or since you already have a 150 Apo-Sironar-S, you could get 150's from the other three brands so you can compare the different "house styles", then sell the extras when you've reached your conclusions and get a 210 in your preferred "flavor".

[Bob Salomon]

Sadly there are "stinkers".. back in the day if one were to purchase a given lens or had the intent to purchase a given lens new there was right of return or time for trial. One example lens being color balance, while the big four offered similar image results their color balance was different and within the same brand there were slight color balance variations. For those who were really into this, they would order up a new set of lenses from one brand as color matched. This way when the lenses were used for color transparency work, shifts in color rendition and such would not be as significant.

Today given the often unknown history of a used lens, it remains prudent to test before accepting. Brand or type alone is simply not enough.
Over the decades of doing view camera images, I've got an absurd collection of VC lenses and tried-used a pile more. The keepers have all been very carefully selected and tested to meet a very specific set of expectations which are highly likely different from other image makers.

Know this was the very common practice of discriminating and demanding still image makers back in the day. Stanley Kubrick began as a still image photographer then went on to film making, yet he kept his habits and ways with lenses cultivated back in his still image days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb7Meqaz7Aw

What I'll say, back in the days when VC was primarily the domain of demanding serious commercial image making every notable photographer sorted for lenses they used and were not going to simply accept anything they did not test extensively to decide if a specific lens will meet their needs and expectations.

Keep mind modern VC lenses today are an absolute bargain compared to when they were new. Back then shelling out $1,000 or more for one good lens was very common. Today that same lens could be had for $200 or a lot less which is no more than a few boxes of film and processing.


Bernice

We were the US distributor for Rodenstock from 1986 till early 2015. During that period we had exactly one request for multiple lenses to be factory matched. One!

During that same period we sold thousands of new lenses to studios, industry, government, military and had fewer then 10 lenses returned for one reason or another.

But when dealing with used lenses anything is possible!

[Salmo22]

We were the US distributor for Rodenstock from 1986 till early 2015. During that period we had exactly one request for multiple lenses to be factory matched. One!

During that same period we sold thousands of new lenses to studios, industry, government, military and had fewer then 10 lenses returned for one reason or another.

But when dealing with used lenses anything is possible!

Thank you Bob. That is the lens world I remember. My father purchased many LF lenses in the 70's and 80's and never returned one - not one.