Differences between 150mm Apo Sironar S and N

[John Layton]

Being about to bite the bullet and bring my prints up to 30x40 inches, this discussion becomes important. Then again, I'm already quite happy with my three Rodenstock lenses - a 90 f/6.8 Grandagon, and 135 and 210 Sironar-N's, all three from the mid eighties. So I'll save my money for film, paper, and maybe an extra trip to the coast!

[Bob Salomon]

Marco, there is no mistake. People who pay the extra for the Sironar-S are getting a measure of extra useable coverage. Of course, many want to believe that their lens is sharper over the whole field and superior in other ways too. It is just another example of a self fulfilling lens myth that has little actual basis in reality, much like the Heliar bokeh myth and so many others. If you don't need the extra coverage, and I really doubt you ever will, you will likely be very happy with image quality of the Sironar-N.

Marco,
These two lenses are optimized for F22, not 11. Why not look at the curves at optimal aperture? And, while you are at it, also the distortion, fall off and CA curves for the lenses.

[Marco Gilardetti]

Bob, gently, if there's something I might not have grasped, please expand. Otherwise, the curves at f:22 seem only to confirm that the N is sharper. Looking again at the graphs for the 150 mm focal lenghts, the 20 Lp/mm curve for the N is almost linear and stays well between 70% and 65% up to 72 mm of image circle radius, where it begins to fall rapidly. The same curve for the S is never really up to 70%, then falls below 65% at around 45mm and at 63mm it is already around 60%.

The only real thing that the graphs seem to say in favour of the S is that it has a bit more coverage. Not a "huge amount" of extra coverage: a "bit" more coverage. This is confirmed by data tables: it's 75° for the S against 72° for the N, which means 5 cm of vertical shift for the S versus 4 cm of vertical shift for the N at 4x5'' format (again 150mm focal length). Wether this achievement is a huge difference or a negligible difference it's up to the end user.

But that the S is sharper than the N, I really wouldnt' say so by looking at the graphs.

[Drew Wiley]

Am I missing something in all the foregoing? The S was specifically marketed to provide better performance toward the margins of the image circle, therefore
with respect to wider usable f-stops without compromising the image. Or you could state that, at more typical stops like f/22, you'd get more potential movement from it. And they get more dollars. So "sharper" depends where you mean, in terms of how the lens is used. Hard to go wrong either way; but if you've got the
bucks, might as well get the best.

[Drew Wiley]

John... Heck, I've got 30x40 Cibachromes made from old-school Symmar S and 4x5 Ektachrome 64. Sure, I can tell the difference in a 30x40 print made from 8x10 E100G, with for example, with a Rock N Roll Cat's Meow Fuji A, or from that kind of lens even with later 4x5 film. But it ain't something the public is going to notice quickly. I doubt inkjet can even resolve those kinds of differences on that scale. I optically print color, some am a bit nitpicky, I must admit. But really, this whole subject get a bit overblown, esp when the subject is large-format-this vs large-format-that, all relatively modern. It's kinda really good lenses versus really,really good lenses. And sometimes out in the elements or salt spray or whatever I might not want to risk my very best lens when another one will give me just as good practical results.

[ruilourosa]

Hey! What about the 150 apo sironar W? anyone has any info about it?

THanks


RUi Lourosa

[Marco Gilardetti]

Rui, that's quite a different lens, a way between a "normal" and a "wide angle". To achieve the wider angle of view (a whooping 80° for the 150mm!!!) one more group has been added. It's actually a front single positive meniscus with a very very narrow separation volume from the inner group: the two groups almost touch each other in the centre. As a consequence, there are two more air-glass separation surfaces, and as a side effect the added lens turns an almost ideal symmetric design into an asymmetric one. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing (some of the all times' greatest lenses have an inherently asymmetric design; they generally have less lenses and more contrast than their symmetric counterparts and personally I like them very much!) but, as it is well known, some (not all) aberrations are hard to correct in asymmetric designs while they are automatically corrected by symmetry in symmetric designs. More precisely, the W looks middle way between a symmetric and asymmetric design: a genuine symmetric design that has been asymmetrized retrospectively. A very interesting design approach.

As usual in optics (as usual in whole physics, actually) you gain some, you loose some. What you loose to gain in angle of view is - exactly as expected - a bit of resolution, contrast, and linearity of performance across the field. "A bit", I say. So, if you think that the extra angle is an interesting feature that matches your photography, and most of all if you like the pictures that you take with this lens, hold it tight and never let it go, and forget the charts that say that the S and the N are a bit sharper: it's true on papers but probably it's not even discernible in the final prints or it is overshadowed by other factors.

[ruilourosa]

Well I have noticed an increase of sharpness (and a much more pleasing general rendition of tones) in the 150 Sironar W comparing to the 150 apo symmar ... that was already a very very good lens!!

[VictoriaPerelet]

Since about 2000 when LF moved from professional to hobby equipment I never cared about resolution or sharpness of lf lenses(digital beats on all tecnical params) . Most that I cared were movements, selective focus and film borders with no no crops. IMHO the only thing that keeps LF unique.

I mostly used Nikkor SW 150mm in stidio on Sinar P2, I published many editorial pics from that setup. Later when I switched to Sinar F2 and Arca Nikkor SW became problem on weaker/lighter cameras because of weight.

I switched to Sinar Sinaron 150mm WS 80deg and pretty happy with it. It has enough of coverage for movements. IMHO 150mm lens straight on is most boring 4x5 lens, but movemets make it pretty unique.

Also, I had this table saved from old days - a bit of demystifying of rodenstock namings, maybe somebody can add this missing info to largeformatphotography.info/lenses tables

Sinaron-S = Apo-Sironar-N f/5,6 - 6 elements - 72°
Sinaron SE = Apo-Sironar-S f/5,6 - 6 elements - 75°
Sinaron WS = Apo-Sironar-W f/5,6 - 7 elements - 80°
Sinaron-W = Grandagon-N f/6,8 - 6 elements or f/4,5 - 8 elements - 102° or 105°
Apo-Sinaron = Apo-Ronar f/9 4 elements - 42 ° to 48°
Sinaron-WE = Apo Grandagon f/4,5 - 8 elements - 110° to 120°

[dave_whatever]

Rather than speculating on performance based on charts, how about looking at some tests? Thought all tests have caveats, Chris perez and Kerry Thalmann tested the two types of lenses:

http://ww.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html