135 or 150 sironar S ???

[David Karp]

If you dump the 125 for the 135S you get 10mm more image circle. I have and like the 125mm / 150mm combo (mine are both Fuji NW, so the 150 has nearly as large an image circle as the 150S).

Sometimes you really need the extra image circle that the 150 gives you. Personally, for that reason I would rather keep the 125 and get the 150.

[mdm]

I started with a 150mm but found it just a little too tight for me, now I have a 135mm Sironar S and find that it fits my point of view in the same way as a 50mm on 35mm film does (I think that is because 4x5 is a boxier format than 35mm). I use it almost exclusivly. If you were to confine yourself to one lens, say for trekking or travel, then the 135mm is very hard to beat. I really do not understand people who drag an infinite selection of focal lengths around. In my opinion it comes down to which focal length you like to use the most, 135 or 150, because the sironar s will be your best lens and you will use it a lot. If you are not going to use it a lot, why bother? As for coverage and movements, IMHO less is more. If you run out of coverage, move the camera to a better spot and try again.

[chris6869]

Thanks to yours answers, I have a lot of informations to make my choice.
I won't say : "I didn't know..."

Your experiences are very helpful.


Christian

[aduncanson]

After performing some calculations, it seems to me that going to a longer lens just to get more image circle is self-defeating in many situations. At the same time that the image circle gets larger with the longer lens, so does the required shift.

Assuming that your 125mm Fujinon performs to your satisfaction out to its specified 76 deg. coverage angle, then you would be just able to include the top of a 68 foot tall tower from a distance of 100 feet with its maximum rise of 25mm. With the 75 deg coverage of the 135mm Sironar-S you can use a rise of 32mm but still can just include the same tower from the same distance. Of course the image size is larger with the larger lens and you might end up cropping a little more from the 125mm shot. But if cropping is allowed, you can essentially take the same photo.

The 150mm Sironar-S gets you just a little more elevation. You could just include the top of a 70 foot tall tower from 100 feet.

[These calculations assume that you are photographing the tower with a portrait rather than a landscape film orientation. If you were using landscape then the 135mm Sironar-S has a slight advantage, covering a 62 foot tower versus 61 foot for the 125mm Fujinon, while the 150 Sironar-S would just reach the top of a 65 foot tower.]

These examples have to do with rise (and apply equally to shift), but a similar phenomenon takes place with lens swing and tilt. The longer lens requires more swing to bring the subject plane to intersect the film plane at a given distance from the film's center. In terms of having the coverage required to set up the shot, the actual angle of coverage seems to be a good "figure of merit" for comparison.

The upshot - I would not highly weight the larger image circle of the longer lens in considering which of these lenses to buy.

[Martin Aislabie]

I have the 135 Sironar S and find it an absolutely stunning lens.

Compact and very sharp

I shoot 5x4 landscapes and find the image circle large enough to cover most of my needs.

I'm sure if you are used to the image circle size of a Super Symmar XL, then image circle of a Sironar S will seem small in comparison - but if your not, then its probably more than adequate

To me the combination of a 90mm and a 135mm lens go well together

Martin

[Ken Neely]

I replaced the Rodenstock/Optar 135/4.7 in a Graphex 1000 shutter on my Super Speed with a 135 Apo Sironar S. I like the 135 focal length, and in the bargain the 135 tracks the rangefinder cam in the camera so closely that I'm able to use it and the sports finder instead of the GG... So nice for press type usage - The Optar is a lovely lens, but the 1000 shutter still works and I want to keep it for "the archives"

KN

[Don Dudenbostel]

Thank you Steve and Bob.

My 125 is a fuji NW which is great, but its image circle is smaller than those of the 135 Sironar S.
I think there will be a great difference of sharpness and tonality between these two lenses.

I understand, the 135 will probably kill my 125. If I want to keep the fuji, i buy the 150.


Christian

I think you're going to be surprised when you compare them. My guess is you'll not see any difference other than a slight color difference. My experience has been only very minor differences with the most obvious being slight color differences. I've not used many rodenstock lenses but have a great deal of experience with the other brands,modern and vintage, having used them in the field and studio in commercial applications.
Steve Hamley one of the forum members has a 135 sironar s and borrowed my 1st generation 125 Fuji to compare. Hopefully he'll chime in but commented that the Sironar S has ghosting and the Fuji has less. He just ordered a 1st generation 135 Fuji but I haven't heard the results. He also shot color to compare.

[Steve Hamley]

I am doing some comparison testing for color balance, flare, and iris ghosting with the 135mm Apo-Sironar S, 135mm Fujinon-W, and Don's 125mm Fujinon-W. Attached is a jpeg of the 4x5 image done with the 135mm Rodenstock Apo-Sironar S that started my quest for a 135mm lens with less iris ghosting.

I've found that all lenses will produce a bad iris ghost under the right conditions, but some are much better behaved than others. For example, the Schneider 110mm Super Symmar XL is a lens I routinely use for sunrise and sunset shots on 4x5 and the flare and iris ghosting is minimal in spite of the lens having about 100 pieces of glass in it. I've also been unable to reproduce that 135mm Rodenstock iris ghosting with a 180mm Apo-Sironar S, one of my very favorite 4x5 lenses. I also spoke with Bob Salomon at HP Marketing and he said that he believed there was nothing wrong with the 135mm lens, and that using a different shutter (like the Compur that my 135mm Xenar is in) would not help - but I haven't tried that yet.

I've concluded that flare and Iris ghosting are as much caused by internal baffling, shutter, glass, and glass shape as coating. In my search for a 135mm substitute that would shoot into light more satisfactorily, I've tried several lenses but none were any better than the 135mm Apo-Sironar S. Until I was talking with Don, I had forgotten about the single coated 80 degree lenses Fuji made although most of us are familiar with the highly regarded 250mm f/6.7.

My preliminary tests with the 135mm Fuji in Seiko shutter showed a bad iris ghost at wide apertures (say f/5.6 - f/8) that got very much better as the lens was stopped down, and at f/22 appeared to be better than the Rodenstock. I tested it by observing the GG as I hand held the camera and pointed it into and around the sun at different apertures, and I would not call that conclusive. I've also not done any tests about how color is rendered although I have exposed film and have some more to do with Don's 125mm and my own lenses.

As a side note, I also looked for a small light lens shorter than 120mm and longer than 90mm with flare and iris ghost resistance to "replace" the 110mm Schneider Super Symmar XL for long or difficult hikes, and the only credible contender I found was the 4-3/8" (111mm) WA Dagor. I would not call the Dagor a replacement for the superb Schneider lens, but it is very nearly the same focal length, is pretty flare resistant, and it has good coverage. Usually I just suck it up and carry the Schneider.

Cheers, Steve

[Steve Goldstein]

How about the 100WF Ektar? I don't think you'll get as much coverage as with your Wolly, but it's smaller and lighter than the 110SSXL...

[Steve Hamley]

Steve,

Are you talking to me re: Wolly? I did try a 135mm WF Ektar and the into-the-light flare was one of the worst I tested so I did not acquire a 100mm WFE to test against the 110 SS XL. Also, the Supermatic is a relatively heavy shutter, so any weight advantage of the glass is almost negated by the shutter weight.

Cheers, Steve