135mm f5.6 Rodenstock Sironar N - any good?

[Meekyman]

Hi Folks,

First post on here so please be gentle with me!

I am considering starting out in 4x5 photography after several years of using digital and favour landscapes. Not rushing into it...bought a spotmeter and getting used to that, then doing an introductory workshop in September to see if I get along with it and will not abandon digital, just slim down my kit.

I have read lots on this forum and the internet in general and came across a good deal on the lens in the title. I currently use a Zeiss 35mm f2 on full frame digital as my go-to lens. I love the field of view and from this lens in particular, the vivacity and contrast it produces. I am thinking of a lens set up in large format like 90, 135, 200/210mm then something longer eventually. How does the 135mm f5.6 Rodenstock Sironar N perform especially with regard to contrast and flare control. How similar is it to my loved 35mm? Is there a "better" lens out there with a wide-normal view...fujinon 125mm f5.6, schneider super symmar 120 mm HM?

Thanks

Graham

[Steve Goldstein]

Welcome Graham!

The 135 Sironar-N (same as Apo-Sironar-N) is a fine lens. I have one mounted in a Copal Press shutter and it's extremely small and light, lighter than any of my other 135s (yes, I have too many). I suppose the APO-S would be a little better if you're shooting into the sun, but the N is multicoated and I've never had any trouble myself. Just be careful with movements; even though it has 198mm image circle at f/22, you can run out of coverage if you're not careful - BTDTMTO.

If you want more coverage, the APO-Sironar-S is 208mm and many more Benjamins. For even more you can get ~228mm by going to older single-coated lenses, either an old Fujinon with the "inside" lettering or a Wide-Field Ektar.

The angle of view with a 135 on 4x5 is very close to a 35 on a full-frame digital when both are printed up to 8x10.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have one as well and recommend it highly.

[lbenac]

I have the Sironar-N 135/5.6 in its Caltar disguise and I had the Fuji-NW 125/5.6.
I changed from the 125 to the 135 as I was thinging that it is a better spacing on my set 90/135/200/300.
The 135 is a very good lens but somewhat, somewhere if I could go back, I would have kept my 125 even if the 135 might, repeat, might be a tad sharper.
Just anecdotal. A line-up 125/180/240 or 300 would be perfectly good for me except that I really like the Nikkor 90/8, M-200/8 and love M-300/9.
I am not sure that there is a small 180 out there?
My two cents if you decide for such a line-up, I would stuck with small Fuji as the disposition of the aperture adjustment is opposite to other brands which always irritated me...

Cheers,

Luc

[Ivan J. Eberle]

The one I've got is a Caltar IiN branded version of the Rodenstock Sironar N. It's blazingly sharp and doesn't flare. For the minimal gains in coverage I wouldn't recommend a Sironar S at this particular focal length. But heck, in a good working shutter pretty much any Post WWII 135mm will be capable of great landscapes. The Tessar-design Optars and Raptars are wickedly sharp at f/22. At this normal working aperture performance differences between lenses will be subtle or non-existent. Shutter issues and overall condition may prove more critical.

[Meekyman]

Thanks everyone for your comments.

I guess generally with landscapes movements are not so excessive such that the image circle is prohibitive?

I'll chat more to the seller of the lens.

Cheers and thanks,

Graham

[JBAphoto]

The Rodenstock/Schneider/Nikon f5.6 Gauss lenses will give negatives it will be almost impossible to separate from looking at big pirnts, all that matters

As well as the a first series Symmar I have a back up 135mm Rodenstock Ysarex 4 elephant Cooke triplet derivative which is good in the middle but allows no movement, so stay with the symmetrical lenses

I am looking for a second early 135mm Symmar as mine is off for repair at the moment and normally does 97.3248% of my landscape work

John

[Dan Fromm]

The Rodenstock/Schneider/Nikon f5.6 Gauss lenses will give negatives it will be almost impossible to separate from looking at big pirnts, all that matters

Plasmats. 6/4 double Gauss types do well to cover their focal lengths, 6/4 plasmats typically cover much more.

As well as the a first series Symmar I have a back up 135mm Rodenstock Ysarex 4 elephant Cooke triplet derivative which is good in the middle but allows no movement, so stay with the symmetrical lenses

Tessar, and not derived from a Cooke triplet. f/4.5 tessars do well to cover 110% of their focal lengths, and that stopped well down. Symmetry -- or sort of maybe perhaps symmetry -- has nothing to do with coverage.

I take it that you usually shoot near wide open.

[Bob Salomon]

"so stay with the symmetrical lenses"

Sironar-N, Sironar-N MC, Apo Sironar-N, Apo Sironar-S, Apo Sironar, Apo Sironar-W are not symettrical lenses. The Sironar was.

[Leigh]

Sironar-N, Sironar-N MC, Apo Sironar-N, Apo Sironar-S, Apo Sironar, Apo Sironar-W are not symettrical lenses.

The 6/4 Apo-N and Apo-S (not the apo-W) sure look symmetrical to me,
with dimensions of the front elements just slightly larger than the rear.

Interesting that the current Rodenstock literature does not include cutaway views of the lenses.

- Leigh