Rodenstock APO-Sironar S or Schneider APO-Symmar L 5.6/150mm

[Bob Salomon]

Daniel is correct in the general case.

However, the two lenses under consideration use the same Copal #0 shutter, so no difference in blades.

- Leigh

The Rodenstock is available in Copal 0, Rodenstock eShutter or a Rollei 01 shutter. The Schneider is available in Copal 0, Schneider Electronic or Rollei 01 shutter. So they are not necessarily always in the same shutter when new.

[Daniel Stone]

Bob,

How many aperture blades are there in the newer Rollei, Rodenstock and/or Horseman electronic shutter systems? More or less than a modern, mechanical copal or compur?

just wondering, was looking throug a pdf brochure of the horseman ISS shutter system the other night, then I saw prices online ! I'll stick with my mechanical shutters for the time being

thx,
Dan

[Ken Lee]

With respect to blur rendition (and distortion), both are f/5.6 plasmats and I'd be surprised if we could distinguish any differences.

If you want stronger blur rendition, you can get a something which opens wider, like a Heliar, Tessar, etc. or even a classic portrait lens. As Daniel points out, vintage lenses in vintage shutters have vintage apertures, which have many blades.

Also, to get more blur, get a longer lens: Greater length and width result in greater blur.

[Corran]

All of my Copal shutters save one, both #0 and #1, have 7-bladed apertures, not 5. I have no idea when they switched, or if it is inconsistent across brands/time.

The only 5-bladed shutters I've ever seen have been on Nikkor lenses, but that may be anecdotal at best. Both my Symmar-S and APO Symmar style lenses are 7-bladed, though I don't have the newer "L" one.

[Leigh]

The Copal 0 originally had five blades, as shown in Daniel's photo.
Nikon initiated a change to seven blades, identified by an N in a circle, to enhance the bokeh.
That became standard on the product, probably because Copal didn't want two versions of the same shutter.

So whether the specific shutter(s) under consideration are the five- or seven-blade version depends on vintage.

Larger shutters typically have more blades, as shown in your second and third photos.
These certainly give a more pleasing contour for OOF areas.

Bryan,
The Copal 1 shutters have always had seven diaphragm blades AFAIK.
It's only the Copal 0 that was introduced with five blades, then upgraded to seven.

- Leigh

[Bob Salomon]

Bob,

How many aperture blades are there in the newer Rollei, Rodenstock and/or Horseman electronic shutter systems? More or less than a modern, mechanical copal or compur?

just wondering, was looking throug a pdf brochure of the horseman ISS shutter system the other night, then I saw prices online ! I'll stick with my mechanical shutters for the time being

thx,
Dan

The ISS was just a motorized, everday Copal in Horseman clothes.

The eShutter has 7 blades so it has more blades then some Copals apparently.

There are no modern Compur shutters. Prontor Werke discontinued all shutters a couple of decades ago.

[Oren Grad]

With respect to blur rendition (and distortion), both are f/5.6 plasmats and I'd be surprised if we could distinguish any differences.

Ken, the Big Four have different house styles - in a given generation of plasmats, they've made somewhat different design tradeoffs - and apart from coverage, probably the main area in which that manifests itself is in the OOF rendering.

Miha: to my taste, the way the Apo-Sironar-S renders focus transitions and OOF backgrounds at middle apertures is sheer magic. The contact prints are just sublime. But I've never tried an Apo-Symmar L, only the older Apo-Symmar and Symmar-S series. So I don't know whether Schneider tweaked anything in the L series which might make those as pretty.

But this is really a matter of your taste. For something subjective like this you ultimately have to try and judge for yourself. And yes, that's very expensive now as far as these two particular lens series go. With a bit of patience you should be able to find a second-hand 150 Apo-Sironar-S at a good discount, though my impression is that used Apo-Symmar L's are pretty scarce.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

I have a chrome barrel Symmar 5.6/150 in a Synchro-Compur so plenty of blades in the aperture. I don't care for the bokeh at all, it's far too sterile for my tastes, so I second the recommendation to look at older lenses rather than a 5.6 plasmat if bokeh is one of the major considerations. A Heliar would be a good choice, or a 3.5 Tessar or Xenar.

[EdSawyer]

Agreed with everything above. I have owned both these lenses at the same time. Both are excellent, but you will pay probably 2-3x as much for an Apo Sironar S (used) vs. a used Apo Symmar. (In fact I have an Apo Symmar for sale for $250 in a sinar DB board). The Apo Symmar L is not really any different than regular Apo Symmar, the main reason they rebadged it is they had to switch to non-leaded glass (and hence slightly less performance).

Other good choices might be the Fuji NW 150/5.6, or any of the faster/interesting lenses. Frankly, for bokeh in a 150, the Xenotar is the one to beat in that realm.

-Ed

[mihag]

Leigh - Yes, I'm reffering to boke(h); a word I don't particularly like.

Daniel - thahks for taking the time for sharing the photos of different shutte types. Although I don't necessary agree about the effects of the blades.

Ken - I'm not interested in the strongest blur rendition per se, but I do expect the out-of-focus areas, especially those in the foreground, to look nice to the eye. By nice I mean not 'nervous'.

Oren - Thanks for sharing your personal experience with the Rodenstock.

Ed - which lens did you prefer?

As I said, I'm not interested in alternatives.

I would still like to hear about distortion.

Thanks a lot.