APO-Sironar-S ?

[Alan Gales]

I have read where several members on here just go on and on about the sharpness of the Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S 150mm lens. Isn't Kerry Thalmann going to be buried with his? :cool:

Anyway, I was just curious about how the Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S 135mm, 180mm and 210mm lenses compare to the 150mm in sharpness? I figured they would be the same but I just hear so much about the 150mm.

[onnect17]

It's about the best recommendation I ever got in this forum. I currently own the 150, 210 and 300. All are in the same league.
The apo-symmar are not bad but at 4000 dpi in the drum scanner you could see some difference.
The 135/180/210 is the same design so they should perform in similar way.

[Alan Gales]

It's about the best recommendation I ever got in this forum. I currently own the 150, 210 and 300. All are in the same league.
The apo-symmar are not bad but at 4000 dpi in the drum scanner you could see some difference.
The 135/180/210 is the same design so they should perform in similar way.

Thanks! That's what I figured.

[vinny]

It'll be sharper than the sironar-n or symmars. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't own one.

[Alan Gales]

Thanks, Vinny!

[Rollinhofuji]

It's about the best recommendation I ever got in this forum. I currently own the 150, 210 and 300. All are in the same league.
The apo-symmar are not bad but at 4000 dpi in the drum scanner you could see some difference.
The 135/180/210 is the same design so they should perform in similar way.
Really? I recently talked to my LF gear dealer, and asked him how they compare.
I considered selling my APO-Symmar 150 and getting an APO-Sironar S instead, but he said the difference would be negligible...
He had the Rodenstocks in stock, so it would have been easy money for him, hehe.

Man, now you got me thinking again... ;-)

[Kodachrome25]

I have some 6x12 images on Technical Pan film shot with the 135 S that are critically sharp. All my LF lenses are more than up to the task of sharpness but the 135 S is simply in another league, it has a depth and contrast that I can not quite put into words.

That being said, I am not sure how much sharper the 135 S is than the N version, I was blown away by that one too when I had it.

[Leigh]

I was just curious about how the Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S 135mm, 180mm and 210mm lenses compare to the 150mm in sharpness? I figured they would be the same but I just hear so much about the 150mm.
I have all four of those in my primary kit, and use them frequently.

They're all superb lenses, sharp and contrasty. It's hard to tell which is "best".
I expect that would vary with the actual subject, composition, etc.

You probably hear more about the 150 because it's the "normal" FL for 4x5.

- Leigh

[Alan Gales]

Thanks Kodachrome25 and Leigh!

[Alan Gales]

You probably hear more about the 150 because it's the "normal" FL for 4x5.

- Leigh


Yeah, that makes sense.

[EdSawyer]

They are good (Sironar-S), but the apo symmar is basically as-good, at least going by MTFs.

[vinny]

They are good (Sironar-S), but the apo symmar is basically as-good, at least going by MTFs.
I don't have any MTF's hanging on my walls and I've never sold any either. The 150 apo symmar I had (the only LF lens I've ever purchased new) was a dud so I can't compare to that.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

at least going by MTFs.

It is cheaper to acquire a complete collection of MTF's than a complete collection of all Apo Sironar S in all focal lengths.

Hence it is my pleasure to offer you for free this home-made compilation of the official MTF curves@f22 @20CY/MM for the 150 mm Apo-Sironar N, Apo-Sironar S and Apo-Sironar W. (http://cjoint.com/?DAyr2NENCRU)

As you can see, in principle the Apo-Sironar N is a tad sharper than the others at 60 mm of the optical axis, the Apo Sironar W covers more than the others at some (small) expense of the sharpness and the Apo Sironar S being just in between, and probably offering the best compromise among the 3 legendary Rodenstock lenses.

Hence you need to have all 3 : the N, the S, and the W, otherwise you are at risk to suffer from eternal regrets to have missed something important in a LF photographer's life ;)

[Vick Ko]

ha ha ha, thanks Emmanuel.

You hit the nail on the head.

It is the thinking that has fueled my buying habits for years. Fortunately, this year, I think I am cured.

And, same principle for Leica lenses. Must have each variant of a particular focal length, to cover each potential shooting situation, even though I may never encounter that particular situation.

.... tongue firmly pressed to cheek and many many :-) :-)

[Taija71A]

Hence it is my pleasure to offer you for free this home-made compilation of the official MTF curves@f22 @20CY/MM for the 150 mm Apo-Sironar N, Apo-Sironar S and Apo-Sironar W. (http://cjoint.com/?DAyr2NENCRU)

____

You can 'throw' this Graph out the window... Because it doesn't tell us at what 'Image Magnification' these Lens MTF's were performed at.

Although... It does look very pretty! ;)
--
Best regards,

-Tim.
_________

[Nathan Potter]

Emmanual. a very useful lesson! I must scout around for all the variants of my few LF lenses. ;)

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Bernice Loui]

These MFT curves computed or measured from actual production lenses?
If computed, what is Rodenstock's production tolerances?

Some of the Schneider published MTF curve note the reproduction ratio or magnification.


Bernice

[Arne Croell]

These MFT curves computed or measured from actual production lenses?
If computed, what is Rodenstock's production tolerances?

Some of the Schneider published MTF curve note the reproduction ratio or magnification.


Bernice
They are computed. AFAIK only Zeiss claims their MTF curves are measured, so everybody else's are usually computed. Rodenstock's published Apo-Sironar N curves are for 1:20, both the -S and -W are for 1:10.

Even if they are measured, it doesn't tell you the tolerances.

[Leigh]

When discussing top-drawer offerings from any of the major manufacturers, you'll find more difference between specific examples of one lens than you will between product lines, even at the same focal length.

I believe this is true of modern designs because of the extremely accurate computer modeling that's available to lens designers now, as opposed to the extremely labor-intensive methods of fifty years ago.

I remember seeing a documentary many years ago about the design group at Nikon.
They had three rooms full of people doing calculations by hand.
If all three results did not match, they went back and did it again.

- Leigh

[john borrelli]

I have used a Rodenstock 150mm apo sironar n lens for a while. Sharpness is not a problem. You may see some fall off around the edges even with minimal movements, but it is a "pleasing" kind of fall-off, if you will. I once purchased a used mint condition Rodenstock 150mm apo sironar S version from B&H. When I received the lens I noticed a small bubble in one of the front elements which I thought was big enough to affect resale value so I planned to return it.

However before I did, I shot three identical photographs with my N and my S on color slide film with my Arca Swiss. Two were of a wall with bricks in my house the other was of the back of my house with wooden siding, and a few heavy objects leaned against the house including one object with large print. There was no test of bokeh, lens flare or other nuanced things. In one of the pictures I used a small amount of shift.

I included an N or S with blue carpenters tape in the scenes and a + sign for the images with shifts. Hard to see any differences under a 10X loupe, I thought overall the N was a little sharper in the center than the S, which surprised me. With the small amount of shift images, I could not see any real differences in sharpness. However with larger magnifications or more movement I am sure there would have been an advantage to the S version, as I do see visible fall off with my N version around the edges on some images when printing minimally cropped images to 11X14.

Again just a quick informal comparison of two fine lenses for what it's worth.