Well I have a Sironar S 135mm and it is my favorite lens. I would buy it again if I lost it, so there's my recommendation.
Well I have a Sironar S 135mm and it is my favorite lens. I would buy it again if I lost it, so there's my recommendation.
You liked that Fuji, so you might want to consider a Fuji CM-W. If those are a bit expensive, the prior series (NW) is small, light, also has Fuji EBC coating, and are usually available at good prices. These lenses are not marked "NW." They have lettering on the outside of the barrel, and say "Fujinon W." I have two of these (125mm and 150mm) and both are outstanding. The 125 is my favorite 4x5 lens.
The "standard" Sironar N is a Plasmat that's very sharp. I have the bargain-priced Caltar IIN version of the same exact lens. It has very good coverage and costs much much less used than the S version. It's not quite as terrific for architecture as my 210mm Caltar IIN, with it's more modest image circle, but I'm not in any hurry to run out to find the S version in 135mm.
That all said the 135mm f/4.7 Wollensak Raptar may be a touch sharper on center. For the price (both mine came along for the ride old Meridians) they're tough to equal. Not being apochromatic, they do have some CA if you go pixel peeping on horizon edges toward the corners.
The condition of the shutter may have a lot to do with your final cost of ownership. The Wollensak Rapaxi have been known to be recalcitant until they've been swished around in several changes of Ronsonol-- and, like many/most 60 year old shutters, they time about 1/2 to a full stop slow on all speeds.
I've owned two 135s, a Nikon W and a Sironar S. Both were excellent lenses but I didn't see any real difference in image quality between the two and the Sironar cost a lot more than the Nikon. I believe the Sironar has a little more coverage though. The only 150 I've owned was a G Claron. Very nice lens, small, light weight, plenty sharp, f9 is not problem at this focal length, and G Clarons are usually inexpensive.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
Charlie,
In case you missed it check your private messages.
Alan
Brian, you will find a difference between APO Sironar S and a Nikon W lens by viewing the negative with a loupe that is 9x or higher. An 8x loupe doesn't cut it.
By the way, I recommend the gentleman save up and treat himself to a brand new Nikon 120mm SW f8 lens from B&H at $799. Indredibly sharp, built like a tank, and image circle large enough for 5x7 and 8x10.
I'm using a Schneider Symmar 150 5.6 convertible that is extremely sharp above f8. Really beautiful lens.
The 150 G Claron is a delightful lens, as is the 135 WF Ektar.
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
Andre, your comment made me wonder at the utility of an Apo Sironar S vs a Nikon W in the 135mm focal for contact printing??Originally Posted by Andre Noble
If you need an 9x magnification to see any difference, can I conclude that on a contact print from a 4x5' neg, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference? Am I right?
Thanks
Test, test, test. Interesting statement from Catshaver and Mr. Hughes. I have a 135mm Schneider Xenar from a Crown Graphic. Same thing as the Wolly. This lens is so sharp that it kicked the snot out of a 135 Sironar N.
The bad news is the movement is somewhere between nil to none. But then the N did not have much either.
Architecture calls for more movement than most 135's give. That advise on a f/8 120mm is solid.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks