PDA

View Full Version : Rodenstock APO-Sironar S or Schneider APO-Symmar L 5.6/150mm



mihag
5-Jun-2013, 06:40
I'm about to move to LF, hence my first post in this forum - so hello to all!

I'm geting a Linhof and need to decide between the two lenses. I understand I'm splitting hairs here, but since neither lens is inexpensive (Rodenstock about 15% more than the Schneider here in Europe) I'm looking for some user experience regarding the quality of the out-of-focus areas and distortion.

All I need is to purchase a good lens and forget about it so that I can put my energy towards picture making. The reason I want a LF camera is to be able to make small (but still big enough) contct prints and keep the process simple. I doubt I will ever get another lens. Or an enlarger than can handle 4x5.

Please do not suggest alternatives, I know there are a lot of them but I'm sticking to the lenses mentioned.

Thanks in advance.

Miha

Ken Lee
5-Jun-2013, 07:14
The reason I want a LF camera is to be able to make small (but still big enough) contct prints

If you're making 4x5 contact prints, then image quality will be indistinguishable. What differences remain are image circle (coverage), size, filter size, weight, etc.

Peter Gomena
5-Jun-2013, 07:20
Ditto what Ken says. Save the money on the lens and spend it on film, paper and chemicals!

Leigh
5-Jun-2013, 07:37
The Apo-Sironar-S 150/5.6 is a superb lens. I use it frequently on 4x5.
I have most of the focal lengths in that series, because I think they're the best lenses available.

As Ken said, for contact prints (and even for enlargements), I doubt you would see any difference unless
you're doing extremely critical work.

I do not like Schneider lenses because of the Schneideritis problem (degradation of the internal finish)
that has existed forever and which Schneider refuses to correct.
In my opinion that shows a lack of regard for their customers.

- Leigh

Leigh
5-Jun-2013, 08:03
Ditto what Leigh says...and Peter :cool:)
The last time I bought a Schneider lens was 1971 and would be very reluctant to get another, for that reason.
That has always been a concern with me.

Nobody (that I know of) has ever reported any performance degradation as a consequence of Schneideritis except for
one report of possibly diminished contrast. I don't know how accurate that assessment was.

What bothers me is that the problem has persisted for decades and Schneider ignores it.

- Leigh

mihag
5-Jun-2013, 08:40
Thanks for the replies so far gents. As indicated I'm not interested in sharpness difference (if there is any) but want to know if there is a difference in distortion and in the quality in the out-of focus areas between the lenses - these can be seen in contacts.

Peter York
5-Jun-2013, 08:45
I'd suggest finding a 150mm that has out of focus characteristics that you find pleasing. With a 4x5 contact print, sharpness differences between 150mm lenses will be minimal. If I were choosing, it would probably be a heliar.

Leigh
5-Jun-2013, 08:49
In re: out-of-focus areas...
Sounds like you're referring to "bokeh".

I remember a street scene posted on an MF forum where you could read an "OPEN" sign in a store window.
It was pleasantly out of focus, but easily recognizable and readable.

That concept is not commonly applied to LF work because of the longer lens focal lengths involved.
DoF is more shallow, and OOF areas go out much faster and more dramatically than with shorter lenses.

- Leigh

Daniel Stone
5-Jun-2013, 08:50
Both lenses are SUPERB optics. I highly doubt you'll see any difference in a 4x5 contact print between the two.

-however-

I personally believe that your "out of focus areas" will be primarily affected by how many APERTURE blades there are in your shutter. MORE BLADES(more circular aperture opening) = SMOOTHER "bokeh". The modern Copal/Compur shutter have about 1/2 the amount of blades that many shutters did. If you want the smoothest renderings of OOF areas, I'd look at lenses mounted in older Synchro-Compur, Compur(flat faced black ones), or COMPOUND(best option I.M.O.) shutters.

but since you mentioned you are not interested in alternatives to these two lenses, I'd go with either.

-Dan

here are some comparison images to show what I'm referring to:

modern copal(as would be included with your lens choices):

http://mpex.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/325x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/i/m/image_370.jpg

older synchro compur:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5089/5242124394_a6c5b8866d.jpg

much older compound shutter(this is a bigger one, but almost identical to smaller ones):

http://www.skgrimes.com/images/compound/cd21b.jpg

Leigh
5-Jun-2013, 08:52
Daniel is correct in the general case.

However, the two lenses under consideration use the same Copal #0 shutter, so no difference in blades.

- Leigh

Bob Salomon
5-Jun-2013, 08:57
Daniel is correct in the general case.

However, the two lenses under consideration use the same Copal #0 shutter, so no difference in blades.

- Leigh

The Rodenstock is available in Copal 0, Rodenstock eShutter or a Rollei 01 shutter. The Schneider is available in Copal 0, Schneider Electronic or Rollei 01 shutter. So they are not necessarily always in the same shutter when new.

Daniel Stone
5-Jun-2013, 09:06
Bob,

How many aperture blades are there in the newer Rollei, Rodenstock and/or Horseman electronic shutter systems? More or less than a modern, mechanical copal or compur?

just wondering, was looking throug a pdf brochure of the horseman ISS shutter system the other night, then I saw prices online :eek:! I'll stick with my mechanical shutters for the time being ;)

thx,
Dan

Ken Lee
5-Jun-2013, 09:07
With respect to blur rendition (and distortion), both are f/5.6 plasmats and I'd be surprised if we could distinguish any differences.

If you want stronger blur rendition, you can get a something which opens wider, like a Heliar, Tessar, etc. or even a classic portrait lens. As Daniel points out, vintage lenses in vintage shutters have vintage apertures, which have many blades.

Also, to get more blur, get a longer lens: Greater length and width result in greater blur.

Corran
5-Jun-2013, 09:18
All of my Copal shutters save one, both #0 and #1, have 7-bladed apertures, not 5. I have no idea when they switched, or if it is inconsistent across brands/time.

The only 5-bladed shutters I've ever seen have been on Nikkor lenses, but that may be anecdotal at best. Both my Symmar-S and APO Symmar style lenses are 7-bladed, though I don't have the newer "L" one.

Leigh
5-Jun-2013, 09:25
The Copal 0 originally had five blades, as shown in Daniel's photo.
Nikon initiated a change to seven blades, identified by an N in a circle, to enhance the bokeh.
That became standard on the product, probably because Copal didn't want two versions of the same shutter.

So whether the specific shutter(s) under consideration are the five- or seven-blade version depends on vintage.

Larger shutters typically have more blades, as shown in your second and third photos.
These certainly give a more pleasing contour for OOF areas.

Bryan,
The Copal 1 shutters have always had seven diaphragm blades AFAIK.
It's only the Copal 0 that was introduced with five blades, then upgraded to seven.

- Leigh

Bob Salomon
5-Jun-2013, 09:38
Bob,

How many aperture blades are there in the newer Rollei, Rodenstock and/or Horseman electronic shutter systems? More or less than a modern, mechanical copal or compur?

just wondering, was looking throug a pdf brochure of the horseman ISS shutter system the other night, then I saw prices online :eek:! I'll stick with my mechanical shutters for the time being ;)

thx,
Dan

The ISS was just a motorized, everday Copal in Horseman clothes.

The eShutter has 7 blades so it has more blades then some Copals apparently.

There are no modern Compur shutters. Prontor Werke discontinued all shutters a couple of decades ago.

Oren Grad
5-Jun-2013, 09:39
With respect to blur rendition (and distortion), both are f/5.6 plasmats and I'd be surprised if we could distinguish any differences.

Ken, the Big Four have different house styles - in a given generation of plasmats, they've made somewhat different design tradeoffs - and apart from coverage, probably the main area in which that manifests itself is in the OOF rendering.

Miha: to my taste, the way the Apo-Sironar-S renders focus transitions and OOF backgrounds at middle apertures is sheer magic. The contact prints are just sublime. But I've never tried an Apo-Symmar L, only the older Apo-Symmar and Symmar-S series. So I don't know whether Schneider tweaked anything in the L series which might make those as pretty.

But this is really a matter of your taste. For something subjective like this you ultimately have to try and judge for yourself. And yes, that's very expensive now as far as these two particular lens series go. With a bit of patience you should be able to find a second-hand 150 Apo-Sironar-S at a good discount, though my impression is that used Apo-Symmar L's are pretty scarce.

Ian Greenhalgh
5-Jun-2013, 10:47
I have a chrome barrel Symmar 5.6/150 in a Synchro-Compur so plenty of blades in the aperture. I don't care for the bokeh at all, it's far too sterile for my tastes, so I second the recommendation to look at older lenses rather than a 5.6 plasmat if bokeh is one of the major considerations. A Heliar would be a good choice, or a 3.5 Tessar or Xenar.

EdSawyer
5-Jun-2013, 11:07
Agreed with everything above. I have owned both these lenses at the same time. Both are excellent, but you will pay probably 2-3x as much for an Apo Sironar S (used) vs. a used Apo Symmar. (In fact I have an Apo Symmar for sale for $250 in a sinar DB board). The Apo Symmar L is not really any different than regular Apo Symmar, the main reason they rebadged it is they had to switch to non-leaded glass (and hence slightly less performance).

Other good choices might be the Fuji NW 150/5.6, or any of the faster/interesting lenses. Frankly, for bokeh in a 150, the Xenotar is the one to beat in that realm.

-Ed

mihag
5-Jun-2013, 11:43
Leigh - Yes, I'm reffering to boke(h); a word I don't particularly like.

Daniel - thahks for taking the time for sharing the photos of different shutte types. Although I don't necessary agree about the effects of the blades.

Ken - I'm not interested in the strongest blur rendition per se, but I do expect the out-of-focus areas, especially those in the foreground, to look nice to the eye. By nice I mean not 'nervous'.

Oren - Thanks for sharing your personal experience with the Rodenstock.

Ed - which lens did you prefer?

As I said, I'm not interested in alternatives.

I would still like to hear about distortion.

Thanks a lot.

Daniel Stone
5-Jun-2013, 12:10
...

I would still like to hear about distortion.

Thanks a lot.

On 4x5 you shouldn't be seeing ANY distortion, unless you create it using movements. Well at least (I) haven't seen any with in my experience with multiple 150mm APO-Symmar(non-L) lenses over the past few years. Great lenses, great glass, great all around.

BOTH lenses offer IC's that will allow for healthy movement capability on a 4x5 sheet of film, and both are capable of covering 5x7 as well.

-Dan

Oren Grad
5-Jun-2013, 12:20
I'm not interested in the strongest blur rendition per se, but I do expect the out-of-focus areas, especially those in the foreground, to look nice to the eye. By nice I mean not 'nervous'.

That's a very important clarification. The Apo-Sironar-S is at its best *behind* the plane of focus, not in front of it. The foreground OOF rendering isn't what I'd call "nervous" - a term that people sometimes attach specifically to double-line ("ni-sen") rendering. But it doesn't have the coherence that makes the OOF backgrounds so elegant. Afraid I have no idea what the Apo-Symmar L will do in that respect.

As for distortion, assuming you're referring to geometric distortion (e.g., barrel, pincushion) you can find that in the manufacturers' data sheets, at least for Schneider and Rodenstock.

Corran
5-Jun-2013, 12:27
The Copal 0 originally had five blades, as shown in Daniel's photo.
Nikon initiated a change to seven blades, identified by an N in a circle, to enhance the bokeh.
That became standard on the product, probably because Copal didn't want two versions of the same shutter.

So whether the specific shutter(s) under consideration are the five- or seven-blade version depends on vintage.

Larger shutters typically have more blades, as shown in your second and third photos.
These certainly give a more pleasing contour for OOF areas.

Bryan,
The Copal 1 shutters have always had seven diaphragm blades AFAIK.
It's only the Copal 0 that was introduced with five blades, then upgraded to seven.

- Leigh

Thanks for the clarification Leigh.

mihag
5-Jun-2013, 12:31
Thanks Daniel.

Oren, I wish I knew how to read and interpret the graps on geometric distortion :(
Re OOF: Interesting!

Oren Grad
5-Jun-2013, 12:47
Oren, I wish I knew how to read and interpret the graps on geometric distortion :(

Over most of the image circle, specified distortion for both Apo-Sironar-S and Apo-Symmar L is so close to zero that it's effectively nonexistent. Even if you push your movements out to the limits of the usable image circle, both have specified distortion of well under 0.5%, which is still very, very low, and outstanding compared to what people take for granted in lenses for 35mm and DSLR camera systems.

I've never encountered visible geometric distortion in any picture I've made with any late-model plasmat from any manufacturer.

Leigh
5-Jun-2013, 12:53
I've never encountered visible geometric distortion in any picture I've made with any late-model plasmat from any manufacturer.
Nor have I (although I have no experience with Schneider).

- Leigh

mihag
5-Jun-2013, 12:57
Thanks for looking up for me Oren.

Oren Grad
5-Jun-2013, 13:07
Thanks for looking up for me Oren.

No problem, happy to help. :) Good luck in your search!