Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,557   Posts: 1,573,254   Online: 962
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: Which 210mm?

  1. #21
    paul_c5x4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ye Olde England
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,544
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by DanielStone View Post
    I have a 210mm Symmar-S that's a damn good lens
    For some reason. I appear to have collected three of these lenses in recent months. Indeed, they are nice lenses, but for packing in to the woods, just too darned heavy.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    16,883
    Images
    23
    some good deals can be found on symmar 150/210 convertibles
    be aware that it needs a lot more than 210mm to focus at infinity ...

  3. #23
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Jones View Post
    203mm f/7.7 Ektars have been my preferred lenses for decades for the reasons given by Ian. Newer lenses may have multicoating and other technical advances that critical photographers might demand. However, good enough is good enough, and the Ektar has always been good enough for me.
    I have one and love it.

  4. #24
    duparis00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Toronto
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Old-N-Feeble View Post
    I think the Topcon lenses spec-ed to cover 4x5 are the "Super Topcor". The others only cover 6x9cm. But I can't remember...

    It's hard to go "wrong" with any modern lens spec-ed for 4x5.

    You have the same disease as I have... wanting million-dollar perfection on a ten-cent budget.
    LOL I think I might have regret-itis...where I fear the thought of buying something, then realizing I could have had better for same price and all it took was more research.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Alamo City, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,789
    Quote Originally Posted by duparis00 View Post
    LOL I think I might have regret-itis...where I fear the thought of buying something, then realizing I could have had better for same price and all it took was more research.
    Buy something now that fits your budget and needs. If you look for a good deal then you won't lose money if you sell it later to fund another lens.

  6. #26
    Regular Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    550
    Quote Originally Posted by duparis00 View Post
    Hey All,

    I'm looking to get a 210mm lens in the 200-250 range and it seems there's a few choices. Fuji, Nikon, Schneider and Calumet Caltar-II which I'm told could be made by either Rodenstock or Schneider. Of these brands which would you guys suggest or if there is not obvious front runner than they're all pretty good?
    If you can find one that its owner is prepared to sell you could do a lot worse than the Computar 210 f9. Remarkably sharp, tiny, great big image circle and convertible to 370mm. Two lenses for the price, weight and space of one!



    RR

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Along the Southern California Coast
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    360
    For a vintage lens in a diminutive size, don't forget the 8 1/4 inch f/6.8 Goerz Dagor, preferably coated but an uncoated example will still produce excellent contrast for black and white. Prices are high but if you are patient, reasonably priced lenses do
    become available.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,509
    If we're going to tout Dagor types, here's a good one in barrel at, so far, a reasonable price: http://www.ebay.fr/itm/BOYER-PARIS-B...-/131263207940

    Not mine, I'm not acquainted with the seller and I have no idea whether it will ship to the US.

    I have one just like the lens on offer. Its cells are a direct fit in a #1 shutter.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,777
    The Symmar S was not quite as deadly sharp as the newer plastmats from the big four, but it had a somewhat smoother out-of-focus rendering and a tad less contrast, for when those kinds of characteristics might be desirable; and it can usually be had for bargain sums, since it was an abundant lens in its day. You could do a lot worse. I did almost everything with one of these for over a decade. If you want a more critically sharp lens in smaller size, the 210 G Claron is a stellar performer and also tends to be a bargain at the moment. If you need a small lens with a
    bit higher contrast and very very sharp, I'd recommend the 200 Nikkor M.

  10. #30
    jovo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,091
    Images
    196
    My first lf lens was a Rodenstock 210 Geronar. It's a three element lens in a copal shutter. I wanted something "better" and bought a Nikon 210, but I really didn't need to...the photographs I made with it were just fine (b&w enlarged only to 11x14). Two are available now at KEH for $139-144 as EX or EX+. If you're not making unreasonable demands on it, buy one and spend the difference on film which ain't gettin no cheaper no how!
    John Voss

    My Blog

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin