Rodenstock 210 5.6 Apo-sironar-n vs Schneider 210 Symmar-s

[leonora_bora]

<p>Hi all,<br>

I am looking for a 210mm lens, and have a good deal on either <strong>Rodenstock 210 5.6 Apo-sironar-n</strong> OR <strong>Schneider 210 Symmar-S</strong> . I know the Rodenstock is APO, but what is the advantage of that; also because I read some older posts that Schneider is superior than Rodenstock in the 210mm particularly.<br>

I also looked at <em>Christopher M. Perez/Kerry L. Thalmann </em> tests (http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html#180mm_thru_270mm) and they say the Schneider Apo symar 210 is a superb lens, sharper than Rodenstock sironar N and Rodenstock Apo-sironar S. But they havent tested the Apo Sironar-N, nor the Schneider Symmar-S.<br>

I dont want to be too petty and picky, but just curious...otherwise i am just going to go with gut feeling and get the Rodensstock Apo sironar N, because it has a return policy.<br>

<br /> thanks !!<br /> </p>

[dave_s]

<p>I would get the one with the return policy, just in case there are any issues. Some thoughts:</p>

<p>(i) The Symmar-S is a superb lens, but earlier versions were single-coated and not multicoated. I think it's agreed that the multicoated versions are better. I have a 100mm MC Symmar-S that I use on rollfilm, and it's excellent.</p>

<p>(ii) There is some debate about whether the Rodenstock APOs are really apochromatic by everyone's definition. You can find the heated discussion of this elsewhere on the interweb, I think on the large format site-- and I'm sure the Rodenstock salesman is going to weigh in on this! :>D It seems the DIN (German industry standard) definition of 'apochromatic' is considerably more flexible than that used by optical scientists, so the term is not used the same in all situations.</p>

<p>(iii) Having said that, for most of us, it's like arguing about whether we should spend $7000 on a titanium racing bike, or on a carbon fiber bike, when, unless you're name is Armstrong, you don't need that kind of performance. Neither of these lenses would be the limiting factor in my photography, but you may play in a better league than me. I'd buy on condition, and that return policy sounds like a good thing.</p>

[VKinCA]

<p>Either lens is fantastic.<br>

Thoughts:<br>

I'd choose the one with the cleanest glass or the newest shutter.<br>

Your film processing technique will of greater consequence.<br>

If you're shooting color, I understand that Rodens' coating is designed for color uniformity from lens to lens. I shoot only B&W 4x5.<br>

I have a 150mm Schn. Symmar-s and a 210mm Roden. Sinaron -they're both excellent.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Bora...</p>

<p>Fellow Photonetter Mr. Perez and associates have kindly posted some results here: </p>

<p><a href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html">http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html</a> </p>

<p>ATB</p>

[marike1]

<p>

<blockquote>

<p>Mr. Bora...<br>

Fellow Photonetter Mr. Perez and associates have kindly posted some results here:<br>

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html" target="_blank">http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html</a></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>First, I may be wrong, but with a lovely name like Leonora, I don't think Ms. Bora is a Mr. Second, the OP referenced the Chris Perez tests in her question, and is correct that they do not test the Symmar-S. </p>

</p>

<p>If I were buying sight-unseen, I'd buy the Rodenstock as I have yet to see any Schneideritis issues with Rodenstock lenses. If you were talking about the APO Symmar, the choice would be easy as it is reported to be one of the best 210's ever. While the Symmar-S MC lenses are excellent, there is a good chance that the APO Sironar-N is a newer lens, which would probably make the shutter a better bet. <br>

It's a tough call, but I think you are making a good choice, which is not all that hard as it is very tough to go wrong with either lens, providing they have no issue. </p>

 

[ivan_j._eberle1]

<p>Essentially all LF lenses with similar coverage will all be similarly bottlenecked by f/22 as diffraction limits resolution. (That is to say, most lenses will have very similar performance at apertures commonly used in landscape photography).<br>

What kind of photography do you need the lens for? The APO 210mm Sironar N f/5.6 has a 301mm image circle which is very generous for 4x5 and also works to 5x7. No doubt I'd be equally happy with an APO Symmar, but my Caltar IIN version was a better bargain perhaps. It's exactly the same lens as the APO Sironar N but cost less than $200 US used, in pristine shape.<br>

Almost all lenses since the 80's should be multicoated; Schneider and Rodenstock have the advantage of being able to be dated reasonably accurately them by S/N. Look more to the condition and operation of the shutter, rather than worrying about how a particular lens example stacked up when tested a decade or so ago (somewhat unscientifically, using a variety of cameras and setups, according to the footnotes).</p>

[leonora_bora]

<p>Thank you everyone for the input! I ended up buying a Schneider 210 Apo symmar for a little more money than the Rodenstock in the store. The prices in B&H and Adorama and not too much higher than ebay, and one gets some guarantee for buying used.<br>

I would take Ivan's advice on Caltar IIN and look for a 135mm now, for a bit wider shots<br>

Thanks again and all the best to all!</p>

[ivan_j._eberle1]

<p>From what I gather the Caltar IIN versions tended to have been purchased more often as student lenses, with many appearing not to have been used much beyond a semester or two. They sell used for considerably less than "pro" labelled Rodenstocks and Sinarons (which to me is ironic, considering the other two versions would be more likely subjected to hard professional use).</p>