Schneider 210mm Apo-Symmar or Rodenstock 210mm Apo-Sironar S?

Bob,

I once taught a workshop and explained how to make a zone 1 denisty test to the group. One fellow came back to another workshop 8 months later with a 3 ring notebook full of zone 1 tests with each lens he owned. I asked where were the photographs he made after attending the workshop, he didn't have any. How sad is that, you're not from northern Massachusetts are you?

Steve,

 

To be fair, you and Bob are discussing a piece of equipment, not a photograph. Pieces of equipment can be measured and analyzed according to standardized (or at least generally agreed upon) methods and the results can be compared in an objective fashion. I think Bob's point is to try to make sure that others who read this exchange can separate opinion from fact.

 

I, for one, tend to simply ignore comments which are some derivative form of "because I said so". Perhaps, if you don't have side-by-side comparative results, you have specific experience with specific lighting situations or contrast situations that you can share so we can all understand better how you arrived at your opinion? Your particular experiences may not be charts and graphs but they would certainly be factual (and helpful!) information.

Poor Sacha! I'll bet you are wondering how you got herself into this situation. Realize that Bob sells Rodenstock lenses, and would love to have you buy one of his lenses. Steve is talking about those "great old lenses" that have a mystique about them. The real reason that they open up the shadows and display such low contrast is because they are not coated and are prone to internal flare. Get a "modern" 210 lens, made by any of the manufacturers that have been mentioned, and enjoy your new learning experience. The answer to your last question is: Not likely that one of these 210's will cover the 8X10 format and serve as a wide angle lens. There won't be much movement capability, and it will vignette. However, Nikon makes a 120 wide angle that just barely covers 8X10, and works great for 4X5 and/or 5X7. Perhaps it should be your second lens purchase in the future. Again, good luck, and hold off asking any more questions on this thread.

unfortunately neither of the lenses mentioned will cover 8x10.

 

It's a big gap in the modern lens manufaturers lens sets that they don't seem interesting in covering. A 210 with moderate coverage for 8x10 that doesn't need a mortgage. AND isn't huge

 

Otherwise you are into Super Symmar XL 210's or Super Angulon, which tend to have massive image circles - generally, almost more than you normally need

 

Apart from hunting out some of the somewhat older lenses in this range, probably the nearest to what you are looking for to cover 8x10 would be a used 210 Sironar W (not made anymore) - which isn't too old a lens. Either that or pay big bucks and take a weight lifting course....

 

As for Schneider or Rodenstock (or Nikon or Fuji) - there really is little practical difference between their modern lenses - some claim they find one brand slightly warmer or cooler than another, but overall, in prectical use, I doubt you will ever really notice the differences.

unless of course the image circles have increased in the all new designed Apo-Symmar-L series which replaces the Apo-Symmars....

found it - Apo-Symmar-L 321mm circle @ f22 - so it has increased, but only cover 8x10 without movements

Sacha,

 

A short answer to your question is that either Apo-Symmar or Apo-Sironar-S will serve you well. In reality (regarding making photographs), I doubt you can really tell the difference. As Bob mentioned earlier, if you take 10 rodenstock and 10 Schneider and do a "lens test", you will find 5 Rodenstock lenses are better than Schneider, and vice versa. Remember that you will use your lens, either Schneider or Rodenstock, to take pictures, not for counting lines pairs. I personally use a Linhof Select Rodenstock Sironar-N in Compur 1 shutter, and I'm very happy with the results. Wonder how Linhof selects their lenses. I don't think they just pick up lenses from Schneider and Rodenstock and then put on Linhof label. They must do some kind(s) of tests to select lenses to meet their own specs. Maybe Bob can comment on this.

 

Regarding Dagor lenses, I have to agree with Mr. Randall. In B&W, Dagor lenses produce more pleasing tonality, especially in shadow areas (modern Schneider and Rodenstock seem "harsh"). This is based on my observations, not sure many other people will agree with me. In this aspect, I don't understand why modern lenses can't beat those old Dagors. Maybe this is how Dagor got its reputation. My favorite Dagor is a 1920s 12" uncoated lens retro-mounted in Copal#3. Cheers,

Correction:

 

It should be Steve Sherman, not Mr. Randall. Oh, boy! I'm really getting old. Cheers,

I have both Rodenstock and Schneider lenses. I got them based on their specific qualities such as image circle, flange focal distance, focal length and physical size(compactness, filter size). As to your specific question I would pick the Rodenstock as it is smaller and has a bigger image circle (based on my own needs). I know you are going to a demanding school that probably expects more modern equipment from their students so stick with modern lenses as these are what you will most likely use in the future, especially if you become a commercial photographer in the industry. Now unlike Eugene Singer, I am not going downstairs for my umpteenth cup of coffee( no offense Eugene, I actually like your casual atitude on this forum) but I am going to hear a lecture by John Szarkowski at the CMA in Cleveland, Ohio. It is good to hear from the heavyweights in photography occasionally!

Hi Sacha, Fun huh? Should you buy a Ford or Should you buy a Chevy? A couple of years ago I owned a 210 Sironar N and a 210 Symmar S at the same time. So I took them up in our local historic mining park and did identical pics with both to see which one I'd keep. These are both mid '80's multi-coated lenses but not new. Short answer is I couldn't tell the difference even with a 50 power microscope so I kept the Schneider because I felt it was a tad prettier. They just seem to have a nice finish. Don't have either one now, when I shoot 210, I choose between an 8 1/4" APO Red Dot Artar or a Schneider G-Claron. Both are APO and both excel at the detail shots that seem to please me the most. And by the way, if you think you might gravitate eventually to 8X10 the G-Claron will cover with increasing movements beyond about f22 1/2. It is an economical way to do a whole bunch of things well. Good luck.

"Wonder how Linhof selects their lenses. I don't think they just pick up lenses

from Schneider and Rodenstock and then put on Linhof label. They must do

some kind(s) of tests to select lenses to meet their own specs."

 

Linhof uses the Rodenstock Siemens Star projector for their tests. This

essentially duplicates the Rodenstock QC test. Sinar also uses the same

projector.

For those of you who stayed with the subject, thanks.....and thanks to those of you who didn't, it has all been informative. I am still doing research on the two lenses, so if anyone wants to put their two cents in, please do! As far as the 8x10 info goes, I probably will be using that format after I garduate for personal, fine art work, so anything and everything is helpful.....speaking of, I am extremely fascinated by Irving Penn's 8x10 studio portraits, is anyone out there familiar with his techniques, equipment, etc.....or for that matter, Joel Meyerowitz's large format techniques, equipment, etc. I know Meyerowitz used an 8x10 deardorff for most of his well known works, do they make those cameras any more.....or anything like it? Does anyone have 8x10 portrait experience? Sorry if I ask too many questions or offend anyone with my ignorance, I'm still learning and actually, hope to never stop. Thanks Everyone

Bob: Are you saying YOU'VE actually done the test?

Yes, We do comparison tests as part of service when one has a problem with

their lens.

 

We have also seen the massive comparison test done by Rod at Photomark.

Bob: You're saying you do test or have tested Dagors against your current offerings with respect to shadow detail, or just one modern sample against another when someone has a complaint?

Haven't tested a Dagor in almost 30 years. It did very well as a copy lens vs

Sironars and Symmars and very poorl compared to them for product work.

Sacha, I didn't mean that you should stop asking questions. Just start a new thread when you have a question on a new topic. This forum has more of a problem-solving and information-sharing format than a chat-box format. I'm not trying to insult you, only trying to help.

I should have started a new thread.....but then again so shold a few of the others. On the subject though, can anyone tell me why the difference in weight is so important, I understand if you're backpacking, it all certainly adds up.....but even then, the difference is just over two tenths of a pound, if I'm not mistaken. Please feel free to set me straight. Thanks

Also, does anyone have experience using either of these lenses for portraits or fashion?.....any specific characteristics of either with DOF, flesh tones, contrast?

These lenses are optimized for middle to far distances (1:10 to infinity). They do not have to be closed as much as their process lens counterparts (e.g., Schneider G-Claron or Apo Ronar) to attain maximum sharpness and contrast. In contrast, the process lenses are optimized for 1:1 magnification. For portraits (often taken in diffuse lighting), I suspect you will find the f5.6 aperture of the Apo Symmar or Apo-Sironar preferable for easier focussing. Some of the older lenses of the 20's and 30's might even be preferred by you for portraits because of their softness--see any album of portraits by Steiglitz (SP?).