schneider 210 vs rodenstock 240mm apo

[jesus_blazquez]

hi,

i need help , because i don?t know which is better a schneider super symmar hm

210mm or a rodenstock 240mm apo sironar s. the first has a 80? and the second

one is 75?. the price of second hand is very similar

please any recomendations for 8x10 landscapes?

regards

jesus

[j_rgen_loob]

Jesus

 

I believe , that both lenses are superb . I work with the APO-SIRONAR-S 240mm and find the

results absolute super . But , i would not recommend you to have this lens , because i have it

, but because of the focal length of 240mm , which i think matches better your desired

format of 8x10 inches , and probabely this lens will also have a bigger image circle in

comparison to the 210mm lens . That in turn would mean , a bit more shifting and tilting .

[david_papas]

Be careful with the Symmar _S, check for bubbles in the internal black anti reflective coating,

very common in that lens, good lens otherwise, I had one for years. I agree the 210 may be a

better choice for 4x5 then the 240, a little easier to work with. the 210 may not cover 8x10.

the 240 is actually a slightly wide lens for 8x10 but should cover without a lot of movements.

The symmar -s may also be an older design then the apo-sironar.

[BrianS1664879711]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF8x10in.html

 

If I'm reading this table correctly, there is only a 6mm difference in image circle between these two lenses. Personally, I'd select the one that looks like it has the cleanest glass and the best sounding shutter if the price is about the same. There doesn't seem to be enough of a difference to make on clearly better than the other.

[BrianS1664879711]

Comment on David's post:

 

As mentioned, "Schneideritis" happens and can be identified as described, but nobody seems to have shown that it actually impacts image quality. It does impact lens value in resale... and in purchase. If desired, I believe that one can use shneideritis to ones benefit in negotiating purchase of an afflicted lens.

 

Both of my Shcneider lenses have symptions to differing degrees and both are still excellent optics.

[brian_ellis16]

David et al - He isn't talking about the Symmar S lens, he's talking about the Super Symmar HM, which is a newer and different lens from the Symmar S.

 

The 210 SS HM has a 356mm image circle at f22 so it will cover 8x10 with some room for movements. It's also a big and heavy lens which might be relevant if you plan hikes. I don't know anything about the Apo Sironar in 210, I have the 135 and it's an excellent lens. FWIW, I've used both a 210 and a 240 in 8x10. I liked the 210 a little better, I guess my theory was that if I wanted a wide angle lens the wider the better all other things being equal (though whether they are equal in the case of these two lenses I don't know since I know nothing about the 210 APO Sironar). If you have no strong preference for either focal length as you apparently don't, I'd suggest buying on the basis of cost, image circle, size and weight of lens, filter size, things like that. I suspect that in terms of optics both are equally excellent.

[stefan_geschke]

Dear Jesus,

 

in the world of 8x10, the 210mm super-symmar hm might well be the widest lens that

you are ever going to be able to afford. I would say go for it, if the lens is in good shape.

Are you enlarging/scanning, or is this strictly for contact prints? Unless you are contact

printing, you can always crop, especially in 8x10. Therefore I would opt on the wide side.

I personally use 240mm, but I often think that it is too short for normal and not wide

enough for wide.

[brian_ellis16]

If you're thinking about going wider than 210 the Wollensak WA 159mm F9.5 is a nice, affordable, wide angle lens for 8x10. They come up on ebay fairly often. I've owned two, one single coated and the other uncoated. Both seemed to be good lenses though I never made big enlargements from either. But at about $300, and very small, very light, they're hard to beat for an 8x10 wide angle that covers the format with room for movements.