Questions about Schneider Apo-Digitar 210 T

[cuida1991]

Hello,
I have several questions regarding Schneider Apo-Digitar 210 T:
1. Schneider brochure states that there are two Apo-Digitar 210 T, one is f5.6, another is f6.3. What's the difference between the two versions, and which one is better for a digital CMOS?
2. What's the ACTUAL image circle of the lens? Schneider states 120mm, but since the ACTUAL image circle of Schneider 180 T is larger than what Scheider states, is the ACTUAL image circle of 210 T also larger than 120mm?
3. How is the resolving power of 210 T on high resolution CMOS such as iq4150/cfv 100c? Is the Schneider 210 T better than Rodenstock Apo Sironar S 210 on digital?
Thank you so much in advance.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Hi

I have both the 210T in Alpa and 210 Sironar Digital - very rare - in Copal on my Arca F.

I see no difference in practice. The IC from SK is a conservative statement based on what can be considered reasonably sharp for digital still when shifting. SK is known to have had their own kind of fluid definition of IC and sharpness is relative in that regard. Ie no hard stop like with some Rodies.

So for most bodies, ie anything but the Pano, you will have no sharpness problems with either in practice, meaning 20mm +/- no problem.

The 210 SD can shift 30mm on my F left and right w/o problems.

BR
Paul

 

[ThdeDude]

... there are two Apo-Digitar 210 T, one is f5.6, another is f6.3. What's the difference between the two versions ...

The Digitar T 210mm ƒ/5.6 has a Copal 1 shutter while the ƒ/6.8 version has a Copal 0 shutter.

If my recollection is correct, all Rodenstock's digital lenses has/had Copal 0 shutter and so all Schneider's digital lenses except Digitar T 210mm ƒ/5.6.

Maybe it was the lack of availability of Copal 1 shutter that made Schneider to introduce a ƒ/6.8 version using a Copal 0 shutter?

 

[ThdeDude]

... What's the ACTUAL image circle of the lens? Schneider states 120mm ...

The Digaron-SW 90mm also has a stated image circle of 120mm. Judging by looking at the ground glass, seems to cover 4x5".

Too bad no more Polaroids, would be an easy way to test to what extend Digaron-SW 90mm and Digitar T 210mm are useable on a 4x5"?

(90mm and 210mm are the most useful focal length in a two lens 4x5" kit.)

 

[Paul Spinnler]

That's 100% zoomed in of the Sinaron Digital 210. Its an awesome tele. Its as sharp as my 210T and I feel the IC is even bigger. I mean here inline in the post and when you click this on a high res screen that's like 200-300% on C1, so its extremely sharp just shot raw at 100%.

This is the other side of a lake here, so you can even distinguish the tiles on the church and even the little glass elements in the church window.

 

[anyone]

My Digitar 210 is a bit sharper than my Sironar-S 210. It's an awesome lens.

 

[ThdeDude]

I am not surprised. Especially if no great angle of coverage is required, this focal length is easy to design and to built.

And digital sensor are using only the center portions which is the sharpest anyway.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Tiny, tiny fraction of an IQ4 150 frame; the Sinaron DIGITAL is an awesome lens. Very high micro contrast, perfect for Panos. I think it makes a difference that its the digital variant and sinar selected. I also have the Sinaron-SE 240 and this one is a touch sharper.

Another awesome tele is the 150 Sinaron-W btw - sold one a few months ago. Also endless IC.

 

[dchew]

I just got the sk210/6.8 (note it is f/6.8, not f/6.3). I've tested it a bit, but still more to do. My interest was comparing it to the zeiss 250 superachromat, which is a wonderful lens. My only grip about the 250sa is a relatively small image circle, so I wanted to compare it to the sk210T.

Mine is mounted on an Alpa long barrel, so that still needs to be addressed because I can only shift horizontally 15 mm until it vignettes against the body. A short barrel wouldn't do that. But I can shift up/down a full 20mm. Combined with a 15mm lateral shift, I get this at f/11. Upper left corner is ~116mm image circle. Sk210T left, z250sa right. The sk210T is at 125% to make the view the same:


Note I'm stressing the z250sa way beyond it's comfort zone. Please don't interpret this to mean that lens is not good; it is stellar within its intended image circle, about 80mm+.

I will say the sk210T impresses me. I think the 120mm stated image circle is very useable, and although the jury is still out, I may find it performs better at f/8. That would align with the publshed MTF's. The z250sa is definitely better in the APO category. See the specular highlight on the metal here. sk210T left, z250sa right.



Dave

Edit: Forgot to say shot with an IQ4150

 

[dchew]

Here are both lenses on center. This time I moved the z250sa further back to get similar views. These are at f/8. sk210T on the RIGHT this time. Center is better at f/8 vs f/11 on both lenses:

 

[4x5Australian]

Dave, thank you for posting those test images.

The resolution of the SK 210T is pretty wonderful, even at the maximum shifts that the long barrel allows.

Your comparison images of the chimney vents show off another quality of the SK 210T: effectively zero distortion.

The published distortion graph for the Zeiss Superachromat shows 1.5% distortion at the defined image circle radius of 40mm.
The graph for the SK 210T shows just 0.1% distortion at its defined image circle radius of 60mm, and around half of that at 40mm radius.

Another benefit of Schneider's Apo-Symmar-type symmetrical construction.

Rod

 

[ThdeDude]

... sk210/6.8 (note it is f/6.8, not f/6.3) ...

Yes, you are correct. I corrected my previous post.


Schneider Digital Lenses Sales Brochure 17966

 

[ThdeDude]

I just got the sk210/6.8 (note it is f/6.8, not f/6.3). I've tested it a bit, but still more to do. My interest was comparing it to the zeiss 250 superachromat, which is a wonderful lens. My only grip about the 250sa is a relatively small image circle, so I wanted to compare it to the sk210T.

Note I'm stressing the z250sa way beyond it's comfort zone. Please don't interpret this to mean that lens is not good; it is stellar within its intended image circle, about 80mm+.

I will say the sk210T impresses me. I think the 120mm stated image circle is very useable, and although the jury is still out, I may find it performs better at f/8. That would align with the publshed MTF's. The z250sa is definitely better in the APO category. See the specular highlight on the metal here. sk210T left, z250sa right.
...

Dave,
Have you ever considered the Nikkor M 300mm ƒ/9?
Read somewhere that this is one of the sharpest analog lenses for digital work.
MN

 

[dchew]

Dave,
Have you ever considered the Nikkor M 300mm ƒ/9?
Read somewhere that this is one of the sharpest analog lenses for digital work.
MN

Funny I just had a conversation with a friend about the 270T from Nikon. I hear the Nikkors are great but I’ve never had the pleasure to own or even use one. I have an affinity for the 135mm equivalent focal length, so that was another reason for my interest in the sk210T.
If I carried a bellows system I’d probably be all over one of those. But with helical mounts I’m pretty much at my personal limit of what I’m willing to carry.
Dave

 

[rdeloe]

Funny I just had a conversation with a friend about the 270T from Nikon. I hear the Nikkors are great but I’ve never had the pleasure to own or even use one. I have an affinity for the 135mm equivalent focal length, so that was another reason for my interest in the sk210T.
If I carried a bellows system I’d probably be all over one of those. But with helical mounts I’m pretty much at my personal limit of what I’m willing to carry.
Dave

For what it is worth, I tried a Nikkor 270T and it was terrible on a GFX setup. As always, the caveat is that sample size was 1. However, it was a very nice copy and I saw no signs of damage so on the basis of trying it out thoroughly and never getting good results, I let it go.

The Nikkor M lenses are a whole other thing.

 

[ThdeDude]

If I carried a bellows system I’d probably be all over one of those. But with helical mounts I’m pretty much at my personal limit of what I’m willing to carry.

With an extension lens board, the Linhof Techno just has enough extension for the Nikkor M 300mm. This is why I mentioned the Nikkor M 300mm.

But I can see that the required extension may make it impractical with helical mounts.

(But then on the other hand, the Nikkor M 300mm is just a bit more than a quarter of the weight of the Zeiss 250 Superachromat!)

 

[anyone]

For what it is worth, I tried a Nikkor 270T and it was terrible on a GFX setup. As always, the caveat is that sample size was 1. However, it was a very nice copy and I saw no signs of damage so on the basis of trying it out thoroughly and never getting good results, I let it go.

The Nikkor M lenses are a whole other thing.

+1. Mine wasn’t terrible, but not worth keeping. It was okay. On film it was good.

 

[cuida1991]

Since some people mention Nikon M 300/9 here, how exactly does the lens perform on high resolution CMOS? And how does this lens compare to Rodenstock apo sironar S 300 lens on digital sensor?

 

[4x5Australian]

Since some people mention Nikon M 300/9 here, how exactly does the lens perform on high resolution CMOS? And how does this lens compare to Rodenstock apo sironar S 300 lens on digital sensor?

My Nikkor-M 300mm f/9 images sharply and cleanly on the IQ4-150. (As does the Nikkor-M 200mm f/8.)

Indeed, I've recently refused a request from someone to buy my Arca-Swiss F-Metric 4x5 in large part because my 300mm f/9 and Schneider Apo-Tele-Xenar 5.6/400 Compact perform so well on the IQ4.

I checked out the 300 f/9 again from my back deck late this afternoon, with the targets including a tall construction crane about a kilometre or so away and trees set against the pale clear sky. At f/11 and f/16, the imaging was crisp. There were no colour fringes.

The performance is strongly dependent on aperture: sharp at f/11 and f/16 but obviously degraded at f/22.

The optical design of the Nikkor-M series is a copy or perhaps a slight variation of the Zeiss Tessar, with four elements in three groups.

How does the imaging compare to the Rodenstock Apo-Sironar S 5.6/300mm? I no longer have my Apo-Sironar 5.6/300mm to make that comparison. However, I would point to the advantage provided by the Nikkor-M's much smaller angle of view, being 55° at f/9 and 57°at f/22 (the Apo-Sironar S is 75°) and the weight of just 290g (the Apo-Sironar S is 1210g). The fewer elements leads to high contrast, too.

Rod

 

[ThdeDude]

... Schneider Apo-Tele-Xenar 5.6/400 Compact perform so well on the IQ4.

Good to know.

Schneider Apo-Tele-Xenar 5.6/400 Compact on offer on eBay for $2.5K-4K. In contrast, the Nikon Nikkor-T 360mm can be had for $500.-