APO Sironar S lenses in 300mm + in today's market

[StuartR]

Hello all. I am looking to move to 8x10, and I was looking to shop for lenses. I generally make large enlargements (regularly 1mX80cm, and right now up to 150x190cm), and I have been very lucky with two Schneider lenses on 4x5...a 110mm Super Symmar XL and a 210mm APO Symmar L. I bought two 150mm APO Sironar S lenses and one 210mm APO Sironar S lens, and none of them seem to be better...one of them is most certainly worse. I do not know if I am just unlucky in buying on the secondary market, but I have seen printed work from a friend's 150mm APO Sironar S, and know it to be a superb lens. In any case, I am looking to get a good standard lens in the 240mm-360mm focal length for 8x10. Generally I would try to get the best lens possible as I enlarge very big, though I realize that this is less of a strain from an 8x10 neg. I will likely contact print in the darkroom, and scan using drum scans for exhibitions, or stitched camera scans from medium format digital.
Looking at ebay and the like, the 300mm Sironar N can be had for a few hundred dollars in some cases, but the 300mm Apo Sironar S is now usually over 3000 dollars used, or 4600 dollars for a new one via special order. I am curious if anyone who has used both can comment on the qualitative differences for general use in the field. I understand the S is optimized better for studio work than the N, but that is not my main concern. I am mostly interested in use on subjects in the field, likely from about 2m to infinity. Finally, how would the N version compare to a comparable offering from Schneider or Nikon? I am sorry, as I know this is a vague and subjective, but at this point I do not want to spend an extra 2500 dollars on a lens on the chance that it MIGHT be sharper, depending on sample variation etc etc. The extra coverage would be nice, but not totally required.

Thanks very much!
Stuart

[Ken Lee]

If you don't need a lot of coverage an APO Nikkor or Ronar are likely just as sharp and are more portable, affordable and available than a Sironar S. The 240mm, 300mm or 360mm Fujinon A series will also match the Sironar S in resolution and coverage but will be smaller, lighter, etc. A 300m Nikkor M will do very nicely also. (My 200mm Nikkor M matches the resolution of my 150mm APO Sironar S)

Have a look at Arne Croell's lens tests: you'll see that with regard to resolution most really good modern lenses are about the same: really good. There are no offerings which stand head-and-shoulders above the rest.

Given the sag of 8x10 sheet film and the comparatively shallow depth of field which often necessitate small taking apertures and long exposures, any one of those lenses should serve well and differences in image quality will be hard to discern.

[Oren Grad]

Good to see you dropping by - I've enjoyed your posts over at GetDPI!

Back in the day, both Schneider and Rodenstock provided data sheets with MTF curves for their respective lenses. I happen to have the sheets for both the Apo-Symmar L and the Apo-Sironar-S in the 300mm focal length. Unfortunately, the only directly comparable MTF data among the respective chart sets are for the 1:10 ratio, not infinity. That said, what struck me in looking at them was how similar the curve sets are. What this says to me is that any hair-splitting one might try to do based on the specifications is likely to be overwhelmed by sample variation, arising from whatever combination of manufacturing variation and differences in how the respective samples have been banged around in the field over the years. Unfortunately, this means the only way to be safe in making a purchase is to buy from a source that will allow a return if the specific sample isn't up to snuff. More unfortunately, that is very difficult to do in today's market, and especially with these two now fairly exotic and expensive lenses.

FWIW, I have most of the focal lengths in both the (Apo-)Sironar-N and Apo-Sironar-S lines, though in the 300mm focal length I have only the N. I have used them primarily to make negatives for contact printing, so unfortunately cannot comment from experience about enlargement. However, FWIW, I am very satisfied with my sample of the 300 N, and I think that given the disproportionate cost of the 300 S in today's market, it would be rational to purchase an N, run some tests and see whether the results are satisfactory for your needs. If you don't like it, you will have much less money on the line, and it will also likely be easier too to sell it on.

[Sal Santamaura]

I strongly recommend you read through this thread, especially starting with my post #163 from two years ago:

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...=1#post1321449

While I have no direct experience with the 300mm Apo Sironar S, Lenny, who I purchased my 300mm Nikkor W from, does. I do own a 135mm Apo Sironar S. With distant subjects and using f/22, it's less sharp than the 135mm Apo Sironar N and 135mm CM-Fujinon W I also have.

As always, sample variation must be considered when evaluating lenses. Good luck.

[Pere Casals]

I've a Sironar-N 300 MC, the APO Sironar-N 300 is mostly the same, not exactly.

I've never seen a Sironar-S...

In theory ED glass (in the S) helps eliminate secondary chromatic aberration (green-magenta color fringes), so (also in theory) the S should deliver slightly better "microcontrast" in fine textures after a high enlargement, but this would not (IMHO) improve general contrast, because modern multicoatings are the perfection.

ED glass has a lower index of refraction so elements are more curved for the same focal length, and I guess this is related to the weight increase in the S version.

My guess is that if we can notice a difference (in some conditions) it would be more related to microcontrast that to the general contrast.


The S is optimized from 1:10 magnification to infinite, while the N is optimized from 1:20 to infinite. The S is made with some ED glass while the N not. The S has an slightly larger circle. The N may be slightly sharper in the 4x5 corner (see MTF graphs from Rodenstock), while the S may be sharper if going farther than that.

Both the N and the S can generate flare, not because the lens itself but because the very large circle may illuminate (and reflecting in) the bellows more than the film sheet, so a perfect job requires a front hub to trim the 425/450 too large circle to the required 8x10 size.

IMHO a sound 810 shot depends more on the photographer than in if the glass is S or N. Avoiding vibrations (wind), camera alignment, film flatness, using right aperture vs DOF, etc may be way more critical.

Of course the S is a better lens, but I guess that it can be really difficult to notice it, for example if using TMY (instead TMX) you have a sharpness limitation from film that won't allow to see difference in the negative.

I'd say the S is not more contrasty than the N, IMHO any lack of contrast may be related to reflections inside the bellows because the huge circles.

What's about sharpness, even if placing the nose on a 2m print I guess we would not see the limits of an N 300.

My N 300 came with some fungus, but this was solved with no performance loss, I guess. I don't know how a lens can be better, in a way that I think that the glass is better than me.

[Bob Salomon]

I've a Sironar-N 300 MC, the APO Sironar-N 300 is mostly the same, not exactly.

I've never seen a Sironar-S...

In theory ED glass (in the S) helps eliminate secondary chromatic aberration (green-magenta color fringes), so (also in theory) the S should deliver slightly better "microcontrast" in fine textures after a high enlargement, but this would not (IMHO) improve general contrast, because modern multicoatings are the perfection.

ED glass has a lower index of refraction so elements are more curved for the same focal length, and I guess this is related to the weight increase in the S version.

My guess is that if we can notice a difference (in some conditions) it would be more related to microcontrast that to the general contrast.


The S is optimized from 1:10 magnification to infinite, while the N is optimized from 1:20 to infinite. The S is made with some ED glass while the N not. The S has an slightly larger circle. The N may be slightly sharper in the 4x5 corner (see MTF graphs from Rodenstock), while the S may be sharper if going farther than that.

Both the N and the S can generate flare, not because the lens itself but because the very large circle may illuminate (and reflecting in) the bellows more than the film sheet, so a perfect job requires a front hub to trim the 425/450 too large circle to the required 8x10 size.

IMHO a sound 810 shot depends more on the photographer than in if the glass is S or N. Avoiding vibrations (wind), camera alignment, film flatness, using right aperture vs DOF, etc may be way more critical.

Of course the S is a better lens, but I guess that it can be really difficult to notice it, for example if using TMY (instead TMX) you have a sharpness limitation from film that won't allow to see difference in the negative.

I'd say the S is not more contrasty than the N, IMHO any lack of contrast may be related to reflections inside the bellows because the huge circles.

What's about sharpness, even if placing the nose on a 2m print I guess we would not see the limits of an N 300.

My N 300 came with some fungus, but this was solved with no performance loss, I guess. I don't know how a lens can be better, in a way that I think that the glass is better than me.

So you are assuming with no experience! You do know what assume means?

[Greg]

I would seriously consider either a 305mm or 355mm G-Claron in a Copal shutter. I use them on my 8x10 and love them, but then I make contact prints. While back I had one 8x10 inch negative that a way off-center 4x5 inch section of it was way more interesting than the whole image on the negative. Cut out that 4x5 inch section and enlarged it to 20x24 inches (largest print size for me to process easily in my darkroom's sink). The resulting image was tack sharp on the print.

Suggest you do some research on Edward Burtynsky. I believe that he uses or used a 5x7 camera for his color work. I've seen some of his huge, wall sized, enlargements and they are tack sharp when I viewed them up close. Clyde Butcher is another photographer to find out what lenses he used for his B&W work.

[StuartR]

Thanks everyone. If cost and logistics were not an issue, I would try them all. I do think sample variation is very real and likely more important than the differences between makers. I have had access to three 150mm APO Sironar S lenses for testing...one is clearly out of spec, one is sharp in the center but slightly soft in the edges, but more so on one side than the other, and the third is impressively sharp. I plan on sending my two to Rodenstock for service to see if they can be fixed. My 210mm APO Symmar L is better than the 210 Sironar S I acquired which is in nearly mint condition. It is very good, but the Schneider seems better in my basic tests and my workflow. That is not what common wisdom would seem to suggest. But based on being underwhelmed by three Sironar S lenses, I am not looking to shell out 4500 dollars for one.

Greg -- I am nearly certain Burtynsky is using a 100mp back...at least for the more recent aerial work. That is all I have seen in person, but it looked distinctly digital. Good, but digital. I know some other 8x10 shooters I can ask about lenses, but to be honest, people on forums like this generally know the lenses better than most artists (unless they are an artist posting on here). Generally they get what they can afford and just use it. Not bad advice, of course, but since I do not have anything yet, I would rather start with a "forever" lens. I bought my 110mm and 210mm in 2004, and since then have not really felt the need for different lenses in that focal length (the 210 Sironar S was just to try...I was going to sell whichever I liked less, it was not really out of dissatisfaction with the Schneider). My goal here is to get a similarly great lens that I just don't need to think about.

[Pere Casals]

So you are assuming with no experience! You do know what assume means?

Bob, in what I'm wrong ?

The resolving power of both is well specified by Rodenstock in the MTF charts. Rodenstock provided very accurate information about that, allowing the sample to sample variation as always...

Hasn't the S (slightly) less secondary chromatic aberration because the ED?

Any other technical S vs N difference that can be seen in the image?

General contrast has to be the same, but microcontrast of the S has to be slightly higher. True or not ?

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, in what I'm wrong ?

The resolving power of both is well specified by Rodenstock in the MTF charts. Rodenstock provided very accurate information about that, allowing the sample to sample variation as always...

Hasn't the S (slightly) less secondary chromatic aberration because the ED?

Any other technical S vs N difference that can be seen in the image?

General contrast has to be the same, but microcontrast of the S has to be slightly higher. True or not ?

I suggest that you examine the coverage in the MTF curves and go out and actually shoot with one. Then you can actually speak from experience rather then from assumptions!