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

[Pere Casals]

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!

Bob, I cannot access an S, and in my location it is not possible to hire that kind of glass. So I've to guess from my N and from technical info.

I examined such coverage, graphs say that, regarding resolving power, the N is a perfect lens for 810 jobs, with the S having 23mm larger specified circle. MTFs show that no difference will be seen in practical photography because resolving power.

In the other hand we have ED glass in the S. To me the Extra Low Dispersion has a particular footprint in a plasmat, and this has to be the only practical difference. I'm I wrong in that ?

An S in good hands: https://www.flickr.com/photos/peterd...qTKmtU-sfNRhD/

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, I cannot access an S, and in my location it is not possible to hire that kind of glass. So I've to guess from my N and from technical info.

I examined such coverage, graphs say that, regarding resolving power, the N is a perfect lens for 810 jobs, with the S having 23mm larger specified circle. MTFs show that no difference will be seen in practical photography because resolving power.

In the other hand we have ED glass in the S. To me the Extra Low Dispersion has a particular footprint in a plasmat, and this has to be the only practical difference. I'm I wrong in that ?

An S in good hands: https://www.flickr.com/photos/peterd...qTKmtU-sfNRhD/

Have you looked at the distortion curves, the fall off curves, the color curves? And I believe that you are misreading the MTF curves. Check the numbers for the coverage carefully on the curves.

[Leigh]

I had standardized on the APO-Sironar-N series of lenses for several years.
I had every focal length made in that series except the longest one.

Then I had a chance to pick up an APO-Sironar-S of 150mm (or 180mm, don't remember).

I ran some comparisons between -N and the -S of the same focal length.
My conclusion was that the -S was somewhat better, looking at the resulting prints.
Other folks could see the difference also.

So I ended up standardizing on the -S series.
I sold off my -N lenses and bought a full set of the -S lenses.
I've never regretted that choice. The -S lenses are superb.

- Leigh

[asf]

In every length I've used the Rodenstock N and S the S is better, especially for color
The 135, 180 and 240 S are very much worth the money

The 300 I can't say is worth the extra - the 300 Symmar S MC and Apo Symmars I've used in that length have been more to my liking
My guess is the relatively high used prices on the 300 Rodenstock S is a result of sellers pushing it as an 11x14/ULF lens

I don't like the way the Apo Symmar L renders images

My advice would be to get a good condition late 300 Symmar S MC and test it, they can be had for $500 or less if you look
8x10 contacts are very different from enlarged 4x5 prints

[ic-racer]

Just about any 300mm plasmat should be fine. You negative sharpness will be determined by selected f-stop, focal spread and your camera support platform.

[Bernice Loui]

Published MTF curves are often calculated, not from actual lens test with acceptable limits for individual production lens variations.

Keep in mind mural sized prints have been made by AA and many others in the past using non-Plasmat lenses with more than acceptable results. It might be good to simply purchase a 300mm or 12" lens of preference then run some test to determine performance under actual image making conditions. This will help reveal the performance of that individual lens under your image making conditions. IMO, Plasmats as a group are far more similar than different regardless of the marketing hype.

There are and always will be variations to individual lens performance. With modern lenses, these variations can be smaller, but still subject to the realities that can happen to any optic. This is why testing a specific individual lens under your image making conditions with a right of return for any lens of significant $ is important.

For 8x10, there will be more struggle with film flatness, taking aperture, camera stability and more. These factors will tend to reduce the significant of perceived lens differences. These are the very real problems that makes 8x10 a problem film format to achieve optimal imaging performance.


Bernice

[asf]

There are and always will be variations to individual lens performance. With modern lenses, these variations can be smaller, but still subject to the realities that can happen to any optic. This is why testing a specific individual lens under your image making conditions with a right of return for any lens of significant $ is important.

For 8x10, there will be more struggle with film flatness, taking aperture, camera stability and more. These factors will tend to reduce the significant of perceived lens differences. These are the very real problems that makes 8x10 a problem film format to achieve optimal imaging performance.

Bernice

This exactly

Camera stability is extremely important - proper head and tripod are essential
Also film holders can make a difference

I've never liked how any Sironar N series lens has rendered images, I've liked how all Apo Sironar S series lenses have, some more than others
For 8x10, except for the 240 S, I decided the Apo Sironar S line wasn't worth it and have used Schneiders instead (for 300 and 360, Apo Ronar for 480)

*Nothing wrong with any Sironar N lens I've tried, they just weren't for me, completely subjective opinion

[Eric Leppanen]

During my 8x10 shooting days, I used a wide variety of plasmats including the 240, 300 and 360 Sironar-S; 300 Sironar-W; 360 APO Symmar; and 210 and 480 APO Symmar L. I've also used a variety of f/9 lenses including the 240, 300 and 360 Fuji A; 240 Germinar W; and 300 Nikon M.

Since my 8x10 landscape and external architecture field work was almost all shot at diffraction limited apertures, differences in sharpness and resolution among all these lenses were minimal within rated image circles. There were some contrast and rendering differences but these usually had little impact following post-processing in Photoshop. In their own way these are all fine lenses. I did prefer f/5.6 lenses when feasible for the way images snapped into focus on the ground glass, and for use in low light.

For my 8x10 normal lens I standardized on the 300 Sironar-S, because it had the largest image circle of the 300mm plasmats (aside from the huge 300 Sironar-W, which I also briefly used), and also its rear element was small enough so that the lens could be mounted on a Technika lens board (making storage a bit easier). When the light is changing quickly in the field and you are applying movements and hustling to get the shot, the last thing I want to worry about is coverage vignetting. The Sironar-S worked great both at close range (3-4 feet) and infinity. It was my workhorse 8x10 lens and I was very happy with it.

Regarding pricing differences, I think the Sironar-S line is generally regarded as LF best-in-class among plasmats (large coverage; performance at open apertures; Kerry Thalmann "Future Classic"; etc.), and as such is commanding (rightfully or wrongfully) a massive premium. Also 8x10 pricing for sought-after lenses has skyrocketed in recent years; at one point a decent 300 Sironar-S could be purchased for around $1,300 on Ebay, now the prices are over $3,000.

If you don't need a lot of coverage and expect to shoot at diffraction limited apertures, you have many more options. If I were shopping for a 300mm 8x10 lens today, I would give a good look at a Fuji 300 CM/W (even though I have never shot one), because Fuji lenses in generally are very sharp, and the CM/W is a modern top-of-the-line design that costs a fraction of the Sironar-S.

But if you have a varied number of shooting scenarios and want the lens that provides the most capability over the most circumstances, then you are left with the Sironar-S. That is why it costs so much.

[Pere Casals]

Have you looked at the distortion curves, the fall off curves, the color curves? And I believe that you are misreading the MTF curves. Check the numbers for the coverage carefully on the curves.

Well, from the curves we have nearly the same. These curves do not explain any practical difference in the images, beyond the slightly larger circle of the S. Practically same fall off, same resolving power, same distorsion amount, 0.5% max both, in one case it's barrel type and pincushion in the other.

I don't say that we cannot see a difference in a side by side shot, but specified technical performance is matching.



At 20 lp/mm the S has an slightly higher modulation transfer, but IMHO this cannot be perceived by human sight, some difference should be there, as perceived by experienced users, but this is not told by the curves.

IMHO that slightly better transfer in high lppmm could be because the Extra Low Dispersion

[Bob Salomon]

Well, from the curves we have nearly the same. These curves do not explain any practical difference in the images, beyond the slightly larger circle of the S. Practically same fall off, same resolving power, same distorsion amount, 0.5% max both, in one case it's barrel type and pincushion in the other.

I don't say that we cannot see a difference in a side by side shot, but specified technical performance is matching.



At 20 lp/mm the S has an slightly higher modulation transfer, but IMHO this cannot be perceived by human sight, some difference should be there, as perceived by experienced users, but this is not told by the curves.

IMHO that slightly better transfer in high lppmm could be because the Extra Low Dispersion

You really need to learn how to read the curves! They are different!