Schneider Symmar 150 vs. Rodenstock Sironar-S 135 for B/W Landscapes

[Roger Haynes]

I am currently shooting with a Schneider Symmar 150mm f5.6 convertible lense and I am considering purchasing a Rodenstock Sironar-S 135mm. I shoot black & whit e landscapes and would like to get opinions on the type of image quality differe nce between these two lenses. The first question is, all things considered equa l, will their be a quite noticeable difference in image sharpness / contrast / q uality between the two lenses? I shoot most of my shots in low light at the end of the day with my camera very seldom aimed at the sun. The second question is, would the change in lense be worth the expense for the quality improvement?

[Doug Paramore]

Roger: What kind of quality are you getting now? I have found the Schneider convertable to be good lenses when used at their prime focal length. I don't see where you would get a noticable improvement, but there will probably be someone who will take exception. Shooting in low light, which is softer, you will not get the contrast and apparent sharpness you will get in bright sun. However, for scenics, the slightly wider angle of the 135 may be of benefit. It depends upon what type of scenic you are shooting. I would keep the convertable, as it can make acceptable negatives at its converted length in a pinch, especially when filtered. Both the Schneider and Rodenstock are good lenses and both are the plasmat formula.

Regards,

[Dave_958]

The Rodenstock Apo-Sironar S f/5.6 and Schneider Apo-Symmar 135 mm and 150 mm lenses are reputedly among the sharpest lenses available for landscape photography. You can look at published data provided by the lens manufacturers to verify this. Possibly a local dealer has someone on its staff who knows how to interpret and explain this data. I would guess that the 150 mm focal length lens may be more popular than the 135 mm lens. They are about equal in price. The 150 mm lens is equivalent to a 50 mm lens in the 35 mm format, while the 135 mm lens is equivalent to about a 45 mm lens in the smaller format. The Rodenstock 135 Apo-Sironar lens has more coverage than the Schneider 135 mm lens Apo-Symmar and allows about an additional 1 cm rise. I do not know how their coverage compares to that of their predecessors, the non-Apo series. The non-Apo Rodenstock and Schneider lenses mentioned by you are still available and usually sold and resold at lesser prices (several hundreds of dollars less). Check out images taken by Craig Wells at TranquilityImages.com taken with a 135 mm lens. The 135 mm lens serves as a mild wide angle and sells in the USA for about $1200-1400 less and is more compact than the 110 XL wide angle HM-lens made by Schneider. Rodenstock's Apo-Sironar S 135 mm lens takes a 49 mm filter and weighs only 240 grams (about a 1/2 lb). Virtually all field cameras can use the 135 mm lens without changing from a normal to a wide angle bellows. Some cameras require a wide angle bellows for a 110-115 focal length lens. I do not know about the filter size for the Schneider 135 mm lens but I suspect it takes a 49 mm filter. Nikon's 135 lens takes a 52 mm filter. If you use step rings, it may not matter to you what size is the filter. I suspect that you would might see a difference in sharpness/contrast/ quality, because the 135 mm lens allows greater depth of field compared to the 150 mm lens and there are mathematical formulas for calculating lens resolution which seem to favor the 135 mm over the 150 mm lens, all other things being equal. However, I have not compared the 150 with the 135 mm lenses, and my opinion is really speculation. For 6 x 7 cm format, the 150 mm lens might better serve as a head and shoulder portrait lens, when your objectve is to have the background out of focus. I suggest that you contact a Rodenstock or Schneider product representative and see if

[Dennis Paterson]

Hi Roger,

based on years of fooling around comparing lenses, I'd assert the only practical "$-on-the-counter" LPM or colour difference you'll see between good examples of these lenses, is under Lab style repeatability testing, not so much with mellow lit landscapes. Personally, I prefer Rodenstock lenses. And I prefer 135mm as a GP landscape length, there's an immediate difference in the look between 135mm and 150mm, a lot more than the 10% difference would seem to imply. The perspective change by itself maybe worth the money to you.

Borrow the one you don't have and do your own comparsion, but a word of Warning, Lens testing can be addictive ...

Kind regards.

[Lloyd Chamber]

The 135mm Apo-Sironar S was my first 4X5 lens. It takes 49mm filters, and is very compact and light. Every photo I've shot with it exhibits high contrast and sharpness, even under adverse conditions.

[Bob Salomon - HP Marketing]

Doug,

" I have found the Schneider convertable to be good lenses when used at their prime focal length. I don't see where you would get a noticable improvement"

This is easy to say. But have YOU actually gone out to see if you can improve?

Or is it your feeling that you would not see a difference?

There is a big difference.

[turtle]

Doug,

" I have found the Schneider convertable to be good lenses when used at their prime focal length. I don't see where you would get a noticable improvement"

This is easy to say. But have YOU actually gone out to see if you can improve?

Or is it your feeling that you would not see a difference?

There is a big difference.

Bob,

For monochrome use I would disagree. in my admittedly subjective experience (which is all that matters..when we are talking about looking at prints not MTFs!) My Schneider 135 convertible used at 135mm (I never used it separated) was pretty well indistinguishable from any of my modern offerings printed to say 16x12 or 20x16. It held up well against:

Nikkor 90 f8 SW MC
150 5.6 Xenar (late model - SC but very simple design and very contrasty, albeit with limited coverage.)
210 Rodenstock Sironar N MC

I used the convertible in varying light, from very very bright back-lit lake scenes to overcast forests. It might have lost a tiny weeny bit of contrast compared to my MC lenses, but nothing that 1/2 a grade in the darkroom would not take care of. Resolution was very good indeed and I could see no practical differences from lens to lens looking at final prints. I would also go on to say that my 203 7.7 Ektar was astoundingly sharp and at f16-22 was every bit as good as the Sironar N. It may have been slower but opticlly was brilliant and half the weight.

I suspect for colour use the older symmar convertable would struggle and the colour balance would be 'off'. For mono, if his sample is as good as mine, it is more than up to the task unles enlarging the 5x4 negs to 50" when maybe there would be a difference.

Maybe the latest sironar S lenses and APO Ls do offer a touch over and above the Sironar Ns and APO Symmars. Personally, I found my older lenses matched the new offerings in resolution at the sizes I printed. I mainly shoot at landscape apertures and it may be that at the wider end the newer lenses are much better as diffraction is less of a limiting factor.

I am a firm believer in looking at prints. When I tried out a super cheap ebay purchase in the form of a 300 f9 Geronar, I found that at f22 (I know it gets soft wider open) and shot on 10x8 I got fabulous sharpness on a 40" print (sectioned to 10x8) and over 1.5 inches of useable rise at f32. The print looked as good as a 20x16 shot on 5x4 using the modern Sironar N plasmat. At f11 I am sure it would have been very different.

[Bob Salomon - HP Marketing]

[QUOTE=turtle;247922]Bob,

My Schneider 135 convertible used at 135mm (I never used it separated) was pretty well indistinguishable from any of my modern offerings

I take it you have never shot it in direct comparison to an S on black and white in a scene with very fine detail at the edges of the frasme? Or in a high contrast situation with strong spectrals that want to halo?

There is a great deal of difference, black and white or color with any modern multi coated quality lens and a 1950/60 version like the old convertibles. All you need to do is do a direct comparison at the SAME time on the SAME film and with the SAME processing.

A shot made last year compared to a shot made this year under similar conditions is not a valid comparison so you can not tell if there is a difference short of a head to head test.

[turtle]

[QUOTE=Bob Salomon - HP Marketing;247939]

Bob,

My Schneider 135 convertible used at 135mm (I never used it separated) was pretty well indistinguishable from any of my modern offerings

I take it you have never shot it in direct comparison to an S on black and white in a scene with very fine detail at the edges of the frasme? Or in a high contrast situation with strong spectrals that want to halo?

There is a great deal of difference, black and white or color with any modern multi coated quality lens and a 1950/60 version like the old convertibles. All you need to do is do a direct comparison at the SAME time on the SAME film and with the SAME processing.

A shot made last year compared to a shot made this year under similar conditions is not a valid comparison so you can not tell if there is a difference short of a head to head test.

Bob,

I take you point and but only in part agree. I think one also needs to be able to look at an image shot on an older lens and see deficiencies. If you cannot and think the result fantastic then the lens you are using is to all intents and purposes good enough, assuming your aim is creative rather than simply to demonstrate technical perfection. I agree that in direct side by side the newer lenses might be better when exactly identical frames are compared. However, the production of work never requires side by sides. Ever. I never hang a 20x16 shot with an X lens next to the same frame on a Y. Unless the X has noticeable deficiencies, whats the worry? I am sure you know where I am coming from. I am not saying that newer lenses do not have benefits in terms of contrast, flare control, sharp coverage etc...only that in most cases older lenses allow the photographer to produce prints that to all intents and purposes take some beaing (in mono)...where the advantages of newer glass is often only visible under extreme conditions and where direct like for like comparisons can be made.

Understand that I have invested in some wonderful new glass which I have had little chance to use as I have spent the last 3+ years overseas:

72XL
110XL

However, I bought these because I needed to coverage for 5x4 architectural (colour) or 5x7 mono (personal work). I will almost certainly add a 180 plasmat to this which may well be a newish Nikkor/Rodenstock/Schneider to cover 5x7 and provide a just longer than standard of fast aperture for, well,anything in 5x4.

I just think the differences between the best older glass (coated) and modern glass is not that great for mono 99% of the time. As you say it is there I am sure, but just not enough that when looking at a given print, you think....I wish I had used the Shneidernikkerstock XLSW. For critical purposes I totally agree that the newest large IC lenses make ALL the difference for architecture or where lots of movements are required and absolutely critical assessment (product photography). Theres no denying that the 72XL is going to open a lot of shots up to possibility where the Nikkor 65 or Rodenstock 75 is lacking in coverage and going south FAST at the edges. I have been there....ditto for the 150XL....or 150 Sironar S vs the Xenar or oldie symmar in a compur. Without extreme movements, in mono, the differences are very minor indeed unless very extreme lighting circumstances occur. Even then I horribly abused my 203 Ektar and found that the results were just great. I was simply flabbergasted at how darned sharp and flare resistant this lens was. I have not owned a lens that in mono and landscape application that meaningfully bettered it.

Perhaps what I am talking about is not fair. I am talking mono landscapes, printed in your own darkroom (where one has control) and where artistry is the aim rather than the minutiae of technical perfection. For colour architecture even the latest crop of lenses offer a lot more that the previous generation, I agree.

[Ole Tjugen]

... All you need to do is do a direct comparison at the SAME time on the SAME film and with the SAME processing...

That's exactly what I did. Same camera, same camera position, same subject, same aperture and shutter time, same film (13x18cm Ektachrome E100SW), eveloped together in the same JOBO tank at the same time.

The Fujinon was very slightly darker and contrastier, but that could just as well be the old Compur shutter on the Symmar running slow. without placing the slides side by side there is no way to tell which is which.