best 210 lens for still life photo

I'm looking for a good 210 lens for still-life. Which one is better? 210 Apo-Symmar "L" or

210 sironar-S. Is there someone who actually tested these lenses?

Edward Weston sure was well known for his still life's of veggies and shells. He used a $5.oo Rapid Rectilinear.

I am sure there are users out there who have tested them. I would suspect that there would be no discernible difference in the results from these two lenses. Even shooting test charts, there appears to be very little difference between most modern plasmats. In real world shooting, there would be none. he only consideration is what subject magnification ratio you are looking at: for subjects at close range, a macro lens will be preferable.

Wanting the best is reasonable, as long as one doesn't get caught up in technical details to the detriment of the image. Sure, Edward Weston used what are now considered primitive lens designs, but he almost always contacted printed using an 8x10 camera. If a photographer today wants to do enlargements from 4x5, they will likely a Rapid Rectilinear inferior to modern lenses. Enlarging will use finer detail from the film than a contact print. The modern lens will also have greater coverage allowing movements such as front tilt for altering the plane of best focus.

 

I have used a 180 mm Apo-Sironar-S. Few photographers bother to test lenses of several brands, and the comparison with the Apo-Symmar-L is less likely since it is still fairly recent. I am sure that they are both very fine lenses. As a practical matter, for photos of still life 3D objects you will likely be stopping down far enough to obtain depth-of-field that diffraction will be the great equalizer between lenses. So I don't think you will go wrong with a lens from the past several decades.

 

As to which is lens is best for your application, it also depends on what ranges of sizes you have in mind for your still life photos. Most LF lenses are optimized for distant subjects. When the reproduction ratio is close enough to 1:1 their image quality may decline. One comparison that I have done is between a Fuji-W and a G-Claron for a photo at 1:few (image a factor of a few smaller than lifesize). The Fuji-W is optimized for distant subjects and the G-Claron is symmetrical and thus optimized for 1:1. I found that wide-open, the Fuji-W was only usable for focusing in the center of the image because the image on the rest of the ground glass was too soft. But when I examined the negatives, which were taken at a smaller and reasonable taking aperture, the results were of virtually identical quality.

 

One possibility would be to go with a symmetrical lens because their corrections tend to be stable from 1:1 to 1:infinity. Popular choices are the G-Claron and the Fuji-A. The drawback is that there lenses have slow maximum apertures, f9, for focusing and composing. The G-Claron is single-coated and discontinued, the Fuji-A multicoated.

 

Rodenstock says that their Apo-Sironar-S works well over a wider range of reproduction ratios than the Apo-Sironar-N, so it might be a good choice too. If your still lifes are going to be smallish, the best choice might be the 180 mm Apo-Macro-Sironar. This lens is optimized for 1:2 but is said by Rodenstock to be well corrected for 2:1 to 1:5 -- this is subjects of 2 x 2.5 inches to 20 x 25 inches. For larger objects the Apo-Sironar-S would be better.

 

I haven't seen as much info from Schneider on the working reproduction ratio ranges of their lenses. I mentioned the G-Claron above. Schneider states that the Super-Symmar-XL works well over a wide-range of reproduction ratios, but if this is the main criteria, the expense of the SS-XL isn't justified over the other choices.

Thanks for your answers. I also checked out the similar discussions in the old forum.

The infos are like this; traditionally schneider has a little better reputation than rodenstock

in 210 lens area, schneider is a liitle colder in color(which is not my concern), sironar-s

might be a little more contrasty. In my case, I need a sharper lens in a natural way. In my

recent test with sironar-s and sirona-n, I noticed quite a bit of sharpness/color saturation

differences.

I'll compare sironar-s and symmar-l and post the result soon.

Regarding the macro-lens, for now I need a normal lens and I usually rent the macro when

needed.

Thank you

Kang, I own both lenses, and also used Schneider 210 Apo-Symmar (not "L"), Super Symmar 210XL and Nikkor-w 210. All of these lenses are excellent, and I cannot tell which one is best. Everyone has his own preference. Schneider 210 Apo Symmar is a wonderful lens, very very sharp. The lens expert Kerry Thalmann said it was "sharp beyond sharp". It is one of the sharpest lens I have used, and can be easily found in mint condition for about $500. The new environment friendly Apo Symmar "L" lens is also a great lens. It's slightly heavier and bigger than its predecessor. When I viewed the first slide shot by this new lens on a light table, I was shocked by its performance. It's definitely a great performer, extremely sharp. The Rodenstock Sironar-S is famous for its "ED" glass and great converage, and it's slightly warmer. You won't go wrong with any of them.

I've used a 240 Fuji A in studio for the past 10 years or so, and unless you

need an extra stop for focusing, this is a fabulous lens to be had for $500 or

less on the average on Ebay. They don't come up often but are worth the

wait.

Schneider's official literature states that the Apo-Symmar L can be used for reproduction ratios from infinity down to 1:3, so typical table-top setups are well covered by this range. A more important practical criterion might be filter size if you have already standardized on a certain size - the Apo-Symmar L has a 77mm and the Apo-Sironar S a 72mm thread (off the top of my head).

Hi,

I've used a rented 210 apo-symmar for a while. And I have 180 sironar s. My feeling about

these two lenses are like this; The 210 seems to be a bit sharper, maybe a little contrasty.

The shadow area of 210 seems to be bluer even though other areas are normal. The 210

schneider seems to be slightly sharper and/or contrasty and masculyn. The rodenstock

seems to be more gentle and color-correct in shadow area.

Hi,

It's been for a while. After looking the answers again, I want to thank you all for the

sincere answers again. I bought the schneider 210 L and used a half year now. I like it very

much. Comparing with my 180 sironar s, I don't find much difference. Even the color

seems to be similar. In fact, I like both lenses. Maybe, now I'm less anal... even though one

of my job requirement is to provide best possible quality work(technically also) to clients

though..

Thanks