210mm f/5.6 - Rodenstock or Nikkor?

[Salmo22]

Dan's advice is excellent.. seriously consider it.

Images made at f22 to f45 using nearly any good example from the big four are going to be far more similar than different. Pick any of the big four with a good-reliable shutter and move on.

As for the obsession with the "best" lens, the "best" lens will not make a given image "better" at those taking apertures (f22 to f45) as there are a pile of many, many other factors that will have far more impact on the finished print.

At taking apertures of f4.5 to no more than f11, then the differences can be quite variable from lens type to specific lens sample.



Bernice

Thank you again Bernice.

[Salmo22]

Perfection is the enemy of the good.

Well said Peter.

[Bob Salomon]

Dan, you are a holy man. That is just what I needed to hear and read. In a past life I shot competitive benchrest rifle competitions all over the western USA. Instead of calling it the 'magic bullet', although that would have been appropo, we called it 'follow the leader'. Whomever won the match was overwhelmed with questions as to what scope, action, bullet, primer, powder, etc that he/she used to win. If I could obtain the same equipment, I would win just like him/her. After several years of frustration, I learned that I needed to improve my shooting technique to win, which I did. My equipment was not the answer I thought it would be. Thank you.

I used to work a lot of Monte Zucker seminars, as many as 23 one year. His speciality was one light portraits using one main strobe and a reflector he made Rembrandt lighting easy.

At one seminar there were at least 500 attendees in the hall. Monte pointed out that the groom that he was shooting was too short for the shot he wanted with the bride. So he told the group that he had the groom sit on a telephone book (remember those?) as soon as he said that an attendee stood up, waving his hand and wanted to know “what city”?

Later on Monte mentioned that he carried a step ladder with him to get high to do group shots. Again a guy stood up to ask “which brand ladder”?

The worst thing with these seminars was that Monte, or Clay, or Al Gilbert or Tibor would pose and light the subject and then step back and say that’s what it should look like! Then a few hundred photographers would stand up and shoot. But none were ever at camera position!

[hiend61]

As it´s said many times here, you will no go wrong with any 210 mentioned here. I have tried lots of different 210mm lenses. All of them are very good lenses. The only differences I could find are about contrast, so I kept the
ones that fit better my personal taste, and in my case are Rodenstock Apo Sironar S and N. I shot architecture and landscape with color transparency film.
If you can try and compare, buy the one that writes what you like to read.

https://jjpascuallargeformatphoto.com/

[neil poulsen]

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. . . .

I took both of the John Sexton Expressive Black and White Print workshops. Both were great.

During one of them, John mentioned that Ansel Adams had requested a test be conducted that compared lenses among the various manufacturers. In their comparisons, Nikkors emerged as the optics with the best contrast. So, he decided to use Nikkor lenses.

He also mentioned that, of all the tele's that they tested, the Nikkors were by far and away the best. That's what he uses on his Linhof Master Technika.

[Pere Casals]

John mentioned that Ansel Adams had requested a test be conducted that compared lenses among the various manufacturers. In their comparisons, Nikkors emerged as the optics with the best contrast.

if Ansel was alive and testing glass (died in 1984) this could be in the 1970s when a fraction of the lenses were multi-coated and versions of multi-coatings were improving.

He also mentioned that, of all the tele's that they tested, the Nikkors were by far and away the best. That's what he uses on his Linhof Master Technika.

Yes, the Nikon Ts shine in their segment, they have an ED element (I guess that in the front) that makes them superb, but we also see Christopher Burkett with the APO Tele-Xenar mounted in the C1, recording for the ilfochromes...

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...l=1#post131987

[hiend61]

if Ansel was alive and testing glass (died in 1984) this could be in the 1970s when a fraction of the lenses were multi-coated and versions of multi-coatings were improving.


I have used All the Nikkor T ED lenses and Apo Tele Xenar 600/800.
My conclussions:

Nikkor T ED 270 and 360 are simply superb with perfect contrast. 500 and 600 very good just need a bit more contrast to be perfect. 720 and 800 good, images are good but need more contast. a bit of purple CA. 1200 good if you can have your camera steady. Purple CA.

Apo Tele Xenar 600/800 Are superb. Perfect contrast. Just two problems, 1,-they need long distance objects to perform at their best and 2,-They are very expensive.









Yes, the Nikon Ts shine in their segment, they have an ED element (I guess that in the front) that makes them superb, but we also see Christopher Burkett with the APO Tele-Xenar mounted in the C1, recording for the ilfochromes...

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...l=1#post131987

[Drew Wiley]

As I recall, Sexton had a preference for Nikkor M lenses because they are small as well as contrasty. The 200M, being a multi-coated tessar, is naturally going to give higher contrast than 210 plasmats with more elements; but it has a smaller image circle. But if we're comparing apples to apples, the differences between later MC 210 plasmats of any of the "big four" manufacturers is going to be barely noticeable in a print. How they perform nearly wide open might differ; but in such a case your lack of precise film flatness will probably render such nitpickiness into an unrealistic expectation. You need to stop down further due to that problem as well as subject depth of field. Telephoto lenses are a whole different topic and don't pertain to focal lengths as short as 210 in LF work anyway. What do I presently use in that focal length category? The 200M.

[Drew Wiley]

If I were to choose a 210 plasmat per se, it would be the 210 G-Claron. Even though it's single coated, it's probably better corrected than any f/5.6 general-purpose plasmat, especially at close range. At f/9, it's tiny, but with a huge image circle. I don't have one because I prefer the 240/250 range as my 4x5 "normal" lens.

[Arne Croell]

If I were to choose a 210 plasmat per se, it would be the 210 G-Claron. Even though it's single coated, it's probably better corrected than any f/5.6 general-purpose plasmat, especially at close range. At f/9, it's tiny, but with a huge image circle. I don't have one because I prefer the 240/250 range as my 4x5 "normal" lens.

I used the 210mm G-Claron for a while in the 1990’s for bulk and weight reasons. I was never 100% happy with it on 4x5, compared to an APO-Sironar S 210 mm, and later switched to a 210mm f/6.1 Xenar, which I preferred for its rendering. I later settled on the 210mm Germinar W, which was the best of both worlds for me.