Differences between 150mm Apo Sironar S and N

[DennisD]

I am considering a 150mm lens - either an Apo Sironar S or N.

In another thread, mention was made that w/r/t 135mm Apo Sironars, the Apo Sironar N would be better suited for work at infinity focus, whereas the Apo Sironar S is better suited for closer focusing. This difference is attributable to the inherent lens design (optimization) differences between the two versions.

I searched other threads but did not find an answer to this as far as 150mm Sironars is concerned. I'm wondering what experience others might have had with actual use of these lenses and if the same comment holds true.

Most of my work is landscape photography and does not involve closeup work. However, I prefer a lens that is as sharp as possible at infinity. Does that preclude the Apo Sironar S, which by reputation is considered a better lens ? Perhaps the S would not be a "better" choice for my purposes if the N is designed for optimum infinity focusing.

Thanks in advance for your input any any experience with the lenses mentioned.

[koh303]

The Apo Sironar S has more coverage, and incorporates ED glass elements. It does not have a better reputation, it is a better lens all around, and also considerably more expensive. Will it be noticeably sharper then any any other modern lens? I am not so sure, but perhaps if you test in LPM beyond what the naked eye can see in an 8X10 print..., maybe.

[vinny]

My 135 sironar-s is sharper than the nikkor, and symmar-s that I owned. That's in enlargements and viewing my drum scans at 100%. I haven't used the 150mm but the sironar-s series produce wicked sharp results (the extra coverage is nice too) and everyone I know who has used them also sold off their other lenses of matching focal length. They aren't cheap.

[DennisD]

Thanks for your responses KOH303 and Vinny.

My question regards sharpness of the Apo Sironars when focused at infinity.

The quote below is from another current thread discussing 135mm Nikor and ApoSironar lenses. I did not want to hijack that thread with my question so I started a new thread.


I own both of those lenses as well as a 135mm Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S.

I don't find technical differences between the Nikon and others "very minor." My sample is consistent with the one Kerry and Christopher tested, namely its edge performance is substantially worse than in the center or middle of a 4x5 frame, even without movements. Between the Rodenstock N and S versions, at infinity my N sample is sharper. The S series is computed for 1:10, while the N was designed for 1:20. It shows in my negatives. Since my work is mostly at infinity, I prefer the N. If a substantial portion of my shooting were of closeups, I'd go for the S.


I'm thinking the same design considerations must apply to the 150mm Apo Sironars, making the N version a better choice for landscape and the S version a better choice for close-up work.

I'd enjoy hearing from anyone who has had experience with both of these lenses with respect to this question.

[Alan Gales]

I started a thread a while back asking how sharp the APO Sironar S lenses really are. The consensus on the forum is that the APO Sironar S lenses are some of the sharpest lenses you can buy, that is if you can afford them.

The photographers on here that own them highly recommend them for landscape work.

[vinny]

This is the first time I've ever heard the comment in regards to infinity. I shoot at infinity (and beyond:) frequently so my comparison took that into account. My results with the 135 were obvious even with my flatbed scanner.

[Dan Fromm]

Interesting discussion. You can find Apo-Sironar-N and Apo-Sironar-S brochures, complete with MTF charts, here: http://1drv.ms/12OFqc2

Neither specifies the distance for which the MTF curves were calculated or measured. I suspect, can't prove, that it is infinity.

The big difference between -N and -S is coverage. 225 and 250 mm, respectively. MTF falls off near the edge in much the same way for both lenses.

[jeroldharter]

I can't answer your question but will give you my 2 cents. The Sironar N is a fine lens. I had the 135. But the Apo-Sironar S/W are really something. I had an Apo Sironar W that was outstanding. Very sharp and good coverage. It really boils down to budget. If you have the money this is an easy decision in favor of the S.

[e]

I heard the N was sharper..just with less coverage..I have a 300 N..and its really really beautiful..

[Sal Santamaura]

Interesting discussion. You can find Apo-Sironar-N and Apo-Sironar-S brochures, complete with MTF charts, here: http://1drv.ms/12OFqc2

Neither specifies the distance for which the MTF curves were calculated or measured. I suspect, can't prove, that it is infinity...Your suspicion is unfounded. :) The magnifications specified are consistent with Rodenstock's design parameters, namely, the N series at 1:20 and S series at 1:10.

[Jim Becia]

I am considering a 150mm lens - either an Apo Sironar S or N.

In another thread, mention was made that w/r/t 135mm Apo Sironars, the Apo Sironar N would be better suited for work at infinity focus, whereas the Apo Sironar S is better suited for closer focusing. This difference is attributable to the inherent lens design (optimization) differences between the two versions.

I searched other threads but did not find an answer to this as far as 150mm Sironars is concerned. I'm wondering what experience others might have had with actual use of these lenses and if the same comment holds true.

Most of my work is landscape photography and does not involve closeup work. However, I prefer a lens that is as sharp as possible at infinity. Does that preclude the Apo Sironar S, which by reputation is considered a better lens ? Perhaps the S would not be a "better" choice for my purposes if the N is designed for optimum infinity focusing.

Thanks in advance for your input any any experience with the lenses mentioned.

Dennis,

I have the 150S and it is incredibly sharp. It is a lens that Kerry Thalmann has on his "future classic" list. I have used it at all distances, and have never noticed any problems. Of course, this is just my opinion without doing any so called testing. But my images from the 150 Sironar S are tack sharp at all distances, including infinity. I sold my 150N to get the S and never regretted the move. For 4x5 it is a tremendous lens.

[Dan Fromm]

Your suspicion is unfounded. :) The magnifications specified are consistent with Rodenstock's design parameters, namely, the N series at 1:20 and S series at 1:10.

Thanks, Sal. Please point out what I missed in the brochures.

[Taija71A]

Please point out what I missed in the brochures.

MTF at ratio 0.05x (apo-sironar-n).
MTF at ratio 0.1x (apo-sironar-s).

Best regards, -Tim.

[Dan Fromm]

Thanks, Tim. For some reason I was blind to the charts' headings.

[Sal Santamaura]

Thanks, Tim...Yes, thanks Tim for answering while I was away from the forum.

[richardman]

I make 20x24 prints a lot. Some even got printed 32x40", and these are scanned using a lowly V700. I have never found lack of sharpness being a Thing.

[Taija71A]

Thanks, Tim. For some reason I was blind to the charts' headings.


Yes, thanks Tim for answering while I was away from the forum.

No problem, Dan and Sal.
You are both more than welcome!

[DennisD]

Thanks to everyone who replied:
Alan Gales, Vinny, Jeroldharter, Dan Fromm, e, Sal Santamaura, Jim Becia, Taija71A, richardman.

I appreciate your comments, especially from those who have had hands on experience with the Sironar N & S versions.

The question of sharpness at infinity focus for the S is really seems to be a non issue, based on observations in this thread.

In comparing the specs, the image circle on the S is substantially larger. In addition, the amount of shift is almost 25% more on the S - great for architectural which I do frequently. Perhaps the greater covering and added flexibility (greater movement) of the S accounts for comments in the other thread that the S is the lens for close up work. Regardless, it's clearly an excellent choice for landscape and architectural.

Thanks to all for your help and advice.

Dennis

[Sal Santamaura]

Thanks to everyone who replied...You're most welcome.


...The question of sharpness at infinity focus for the S is really seems to be a non issue, based on observations in this thread...For most purposes, probably, but at least my samples of the 135 N and S are discernibly different, even in 1.75X prints.


...In comparing the specs, the image circle on the S is substantially larger. In addition, the amount of shift is almost 25% more on the S - great for architectural which I do frequently...Image circle and available shift are two ways of stating the same characteristic. For architectural work, I agree that coverage (i.e. image circle) should be your predominant criterion when selecting between the two lenses.


...Perhaps the greater covering and added flexibility (greater movement) of the S accounts for comments in the other thread that the S is the lens for close up work...Image circle is greater when working closer. At 1:1, it's twice the infinity value that Rodenstock specifies for each lens. This was no factor in my comment about the S being a better performer for closeup work. That observation was based on the fact that Rodenstock computed its N series for 1:20 and S series for 1:10.

[richardman]

Ah, if this is for architectural purpose, then the criteria would definitely be different. Get the most expensive lens you can buy then :-)

[Marco Gilardetti]

Your suspicion is unfounded. :) The magnifications specified are consistent with Rodenstock's design parameters, namely, the N series at 1:20 and S series at 1:10.
So, in simple words (correct me if I'm wrong), one can't simply put the MTF graphs of the S and the N side by side and compare, correct? Actually, just by looking at the curves and ignoring the 1:20 1:10 thing, the N would seem to be slightly better than the S, which I don't think it may really be as it is described in the foreword as a "good option on a budget".

So, how does the performance of the two lenses (and the two MTF set of curves) compare? Does the 1:20 vs 1:10 thing mean that the S is almost on another planet, or just slightly better than the N?

[Bob Salomon]

So, in simple words (correct me if I'm wrong), one can't simply put the MTF graphs of the S and the N side by side and compare, correct? Actually, just by looking at the curves and ignoring the 1:20 1:10 thing, the N would seem to be slightly better than the S, which I don't think it may really be as it is described in the foreword as a "good option on a budget".

So, how does the performance of the two lenses (and the two MTF set of curves) compare? Does the 1:20 vs 1:10 thing mean that the S is almost on another planet, or just slightly better than the N?

Are you comparing the total curve or just the curves for the same coverage? Since the S covers a larger circle then the N.

[Ken Lee]

If you search this forum, you'll see that Bob has tirelessly addressed this question (in its many variations) for years.

His patience is to be admired. :)

[Marco Gilardetti]

I trust his patience on your word, but if someone has to explain with great patience the same thing over and over again, this is usually not because people is stupid but because there is something which is made very confusing and very counter-intuitive in the matter. The same lens brand that uses the same lens name and shows their respective performance on two graphs that looks the same with the same dimensions on page BUT have a hidden rescale (or whatever it is) on one of their axis is what I call something more or less intentionally done to confuse people. So no surprise that a lot of people is confused.

I tried to read the mentioned lot of past posts concerning this matter but I can't even figure how this matter is named, I'm afraid. I tried a search with the keywords "MTF ratio" but came up with nothing, at least reading the threads' titles.

Yes, I'm comparing what seems to be the same line at what seems to be the same point at what seems to be the same aperture for the same focal length. Or, at least, that's what numbers seem to say.

http://s15.postimg.org/e45302rob/Sironar_N.pnghttp://s15.postimg.org/fbnm6176j/Sironar_S.png

At an image circle of seemingly 51mm, the N seems to score 70% while the S seems to score less than 60%. In MTF graphs usually a 60% performance is considered worse than a 70% performance, or at least this is what I've always believed. The more you're close to 100%, the better it is.

Same things happens - more or less - at 30mm.

So if it wasn't for the above discussion, I would straightly deduce that the S is sensibly worse than the N. Gently, where's the mistake?

[Taija71A]

... I tried to read the mentioned lot of past posts concerning this matter but I can't even figure how this matter is named, I'm afraid. I tried a search with the keywords "MTF ratio" but came up with nothing, at least reading the threads' titles.

Marco, nobody ever said that this particular 'topic' would be easy to understand.
BTW... MTF stands for “Modulation Transfer Function”.

How to Read MTF Charts.
https://photographylife.com/how-to-read-mtf-charts

How to Read MTF Curves.
http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/cln_archiv/cln30_en_web_special_mtf_01.pdf

Regards, -Tim.

[Oren Grad]

So, in simple words (correct me if I'm wrong), one can't simply put the MTF graphs of the S and the N side by side and compare, correct?

Correct.

[Harley Goldman]

I owned the 150 S for a while. Great lens. But I shot 4x5 images side by side with the S and a Nikkor 150 and with an 8x loupe, I could not see any noticeable difference in sharpness. So I sold the S and pocketed the cash. As always, YMMV.

[Bruce Watson]

I'm thinking the same design considerations must apply to the 150mm Apo Sironars, making the N version a better choice for landscape and the S version a better choice for close-up work.

I don't know why you think that. I've got a pristine copy of the 150 Sironar S, and it's hard to image what you could possibly think is going to be sharper about the N. The damn thing makes my fingers bleed when I touch it. Will the N do that? IDK and IDC.

What I think is that yer barking up a tree that doesn't contain a squirrel.

Working with a view camera in the field is different than working with a lens on a lens bench. Once you have a lens that's "sharp enough" the limit on sharpness ceases to be the lens, and becomes about everything else, and that includes you and in particular, your technique. We use view cameras largely for the movements, and the movements themselves and their adjustments, can take the edge off the sharpest lens. And this is a good thing (as you'll figure out if you make enough photographs) because there's way more to a good photograph than simple sharpness. Way more.

This quest for the sharpest lens is related to the endless arguments on this forum about diffraction.

"That way madness lies." -- Shakespeare, King Lear, Act 3, Scene 4

[Dan Fromm]

Correct.

Why not? The coverage difference leaps out of the two charts posted. The -N's contrast at f/5.6 and 20 lp/mm goes to 0 at ~ 90 mm off-axis, the -S's at approximately 114 mm off-axis. At f/22 and 20 lp/mm the -S is farther ahead of the -N at ~ 90 mm off-axis. If you're going to shoot 4x5 without movements the two lenses are about equal, otherwise you should want the -S.

[Oren Grad]

Why not? The coverage difference leaps out of the two charts posted. The -N's contrast at f/5.6 and 20 lp/mm goes to 0 at ~ 90 mm off-axis, the -S's at approximately 114 mm off-axis. At f/22 and 20 lp/mm the -S is farther ahead of the -N at ~ 90 mm off-axis. If you're going to shoot 4x5 without movements the two lenses are about equal, otherwise you should want the -S.

Remember that the two charts are showing MTF at different magnifications. They are not directly comparable because the curves will shift with changes in magnification. In particular, the N will gain coverage at 0.1x relative to what is shown in the existing curve at 0.05x - or, conversely, the S wlll lose coverage as you move it out to 0.05x from 0.1x. There may also be changes in the shape of the modulation curve beyond a simple stretching with magnification, because of the effects of different mixes of corrections chosen to optimize the two designs for different magnifications. In such well-behaved designs these changes are likely to be incremental over this magnification range, but if one's point in looking at MTF's to begin with is to split hairs between two excellent lenses, extrapolation is arguably invalid. We also know nothing about sample variation from these charts.

If one must have the absolute best performance for a given application, there is no substitute for obtaining the lenses that are under consideration and conducting comparative tests in the required use. Yes, this can be costly and inconvenient.

PS: FWIW, I own both N- and S-series lenses. I happily use both types, but the S lenses do have more usable coverage and the way they render focus transitions is just a bit more refined. I learned this latter attribute from using them - it's not anything I could read off of the MTF's.

[pdmoylan]

One question not asked is whether the S is better corrected then the N for chromatic aberrations, or whether they have a slightly different color bias ( I would doubt it from the same manufacturer). Also whether an improvement in CR actually translates to better B&W images. Contrast and color bias are more prominent differences in my experience when comparing modern lenses. There are significant color differences between Nikkor and Schneiders for instance. I haven't noted significant "sharpness" differences. I am much more concerned about how a modern lens renders colors vs. what is likely an inconsequential difference in actual resolution.

My two cents.

PDM

[Oren Grad]

One question not asked is whether the S is better corrected then the N for chromatic aberrations...

The Rodenstock data sheets include charts for longitudinal CA. But again, hair-splitting comparison is problematic because the data are shown for different magnifications (again, 0.05x vs 0.1x) and the chart scales are different to boot.

[ruilourosa]

what about the W, i´ve got one and i never really bother to see if there were any differences between the lenses i own under a microscope, should i trash it in favour of the S or N? :) i sold a fungusy apo-symmar (excellent by the way) and bought the Sironar W, but i havent photographed extensively with it.

[Marco Gilardetti]

Marco, nobody ever said that this particular 'topic' would be easy to understand.
BTW... MTF stands for “Modulation Transfer Function”.

How to Read MTF Charts.
https://photographylife.com/how-to-read-mtf-charts

How to Read MTF Curves.
http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/cln_archiv/cln30_en_web_special_mtf_01.pdf

Regards, -Tim.

Thanks for the second link (the first was for beginners) but I couldn't seem to find any paragraph about how a different ratio has to be interpreted in side-by-side comparison of MTF charts.

MTF charts, as far as I remember, were introduced to help customers compare lenses and see at a glance if a specific lens will fit their needs and budget. I *might* understand, with some effort, why different makes would print MTF charts that can't be compared with each other (although a serious brand should still want to show that his lenses surpass other makes' lenses in quality or in quality/cost ratio, in my opinion). But it is completely beyond my comprehension why a single make would publish MTF charts for their own lenses that can't be compared with each other because of the different ratio. It sounds as a complete nonsense on the premises.

May someone be able to shed some light, I'd be very glad to read his/her post.

[Taija71A]

Hello Marco... No problem.
Glad, to be of assistance with the Zeiss URL Link!

Quick Answer:

Marco, if you need the 'extra' coverage of the Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S (and you can afford it)... Go for it!
However, if you don't need the extra coverage of the Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S (And/or it is perhaps not in your budget) -- No problem!

Just happily, purchase the Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-N Lens... Enjoy your savings, shoot with it and 'Have Fun!' (*They are both 'Highly Regarded' Lenses).
--
BTW Marco, the 'Ratios' for the two series of lenses are different... ONLY because the Manufacturer chose to 'Design/Optimize' these series of lenses -- For these specific Magnification Ratios.

Thus, the specific (but different Ratio) MTF Curves:

MTF at ratio 0.05x (1:20) for the apo-sironar-n and MTF at ratio 0.1x (1:10) for the apo-sironar-s.
--
After all, it only makes sense for the Manufacturer to publish MTF Curves...
That try to show their Products -- 'In the Very Best of Light!'

Nothing more and nothing less...

[Oren Grad]

For a while, Schneider was publishing data sheets that showed a nice matrix of MTF curves for multiple apertures and multiple magnifications. It was easy to see at a glance, for a given lens, the effect on MTF curve shape of changes in magnification and aperture. And it was at least somewhat easier to find apples-to-apples comparisons across different lenses.

On the other hand, to my knowledge, Fuji and Nikon never published MTF's at all. So it has never been possible to shop for LF lenses simply by comparing manufacturers' MTF data.

[Andre Noble]

I got lucky and took a chance on a bought a clearance sale 210 Rodentock Apo Sironar N lens from Calumet in L.A. for $250 two years ago. I am a fanatic of sharp lenses. This Sironar N is AMAZINGLY sharp. It blows the Nikon 210 W lens I used to own far away! I have 3 Rodenstock LF lenses 45, 55, 210. (and a fourth i recently bought on sale apo grand 65mm but have not tested). The 3 Rodenstocks are all top drawer performers, resolving down to the film grain. They are mechanically strong like the Nikons, but have consistently sharp glass. Rodenstock enlarging lenses are also top drawer.

Summary: Go for the 150 Sironar N!

PS I have the 150 Sironar S. The 210 Sironar N I have is as sharp, if not sharper.

[Bob Salomon]

I got lucky and took a chance on a bought a clearance sale 210 Rodentock Apo Sironar N lens from Calumet in L.A. for $250 two years ago. I am a fanatic of sharp lenses. This Sironar N is AMAZINGLY sharp. It blows the Nikon 210 W lens I used to own far away! I have 3 Rodenstock LF lenses 45, 55, 210. (and a fourth i recently bought on sale apo grand 65mm but have not tested). The 3 Rodenstocks are all top drawer performers, resolving down to the film grain. They are mechanically strong like the Nikons, but have consistently sharp glass. Rodenstock enlarging lenses are also top drawer.

Summary: Go for the 150 Sironar N!

PS I have the 150 Sironar S. The 210 Sironar N I have is as sharp, if not sharper.

Andre,

You might have a 65mm Grandagon or Grandagon N but you can not have a 65 mm Apo Grandagon since the Apo Grandagon was only made in 35, 45 and 55mm focal lengths.

[Andre Noble]

...with an 8x loupe

you need to go 10x and higher to start to see differences. All lenses look alike when their film viewed at 8x unless they are out and out dog lenses.


@Bob, I stand corrected. I haven't given the Rodenstock Grandagon 65 much attention yet (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/44456-USA/Rodenstock_160499_65mm_f_4_5_Grandagon_N_Lens.html). I have every faith it will be stunningly sharp.

[Marco Gilardetti]

This Sironar N is AMAZINGLY sharp.
(...)
Summary: Go for the 150 Sironar N!
(...)
PS I have the 150 Sironar S. The 210 Sironar N I have is as sharp, if not sharper.

Well I'm not surprised at all, since - if you had patience enough to read my posts - this is exactly what the MTF graphs seemed to suggest. ;)

[John Layton]

Being about to bite the bullet and bring my prints up to 30x40 inches, this discussion becomes important. Then again, I'm already quite happy with my three Rodenstock lenses - a 90 f/6.8 Grandagon, and 135 and 210 Sironar-N's, all three from the mid eighties. So I'll save my money for film, paper, and maybe an extra trip to the coast!

[Bob Salomon]

Marco, there is no mistake. People who pay the extra for the Sironar-S are getting a measure of extra useable coverage. Of course, many want to believe that their lens is sharper over the whole field and superior in other ways too. It is just another example of a self fulfilling lens myth that has little actual basis in reality, much like the Heliar bokeh myth and so many others. If you don't need the extra coverage, and I really doubt you ever will, you will likely be very happy with image quality of the Sironar-N.

Marco,
These two lenses are optimized for F22, not 11. Why not look at the curves at optimal aperture? And, while you are at it, also the distortion, fall off and CA curves for the lenses.

[Marco Gilardetti]

Bob, gently, if there's something I might not have grasped, please expand. Otherwise, the curves at f:22 seem only to confirm that the N is sharper. Looking again at the graphs for the 150 mm focal lenghts, the 20 Lp/mm curve for the N is almost linear and stays well between 70% and 65% up to 72 mm of image circle radius, where it begins to fall rapidly. The same curve for the S is never really up to 70%, then falls below 65% at around 45mm and at 63mm it is already around 60%.

The only real thing that the graphs seem to say in favour of the S is that it has a bit more coverage. Not a "huge amount" of extra coverage: a "bit" more coverage. This is confirmed by data tables: it's 75° for the S against 72° for the N, which means 5 cm of vertical shift for the S versus 4 cm of vertical shift for the N at 4x5'' format (again 150mm focal length). Wether this achievement is a huge difference or a negligible difference it's up to the end user.

But that the S is sharper than the N, I really wouldnt' say so by looking at the graphs.

[Drew Wiley]

Am I missing something in all the foregoing? The S was specifically marketed to provide better performance toward the margins of the image circle, therefore
with respect to wider usable f-stops without compromising the image. Or you could state that, at more typical stops like f/22, you'd get more potential movement from it. And they get more dollars. So "sharper" depends where you mean, in terms of how the lens is used. Hard to go wrong either way; but if you've got the
bucks, might as well get the best.

[Drew Wiley]

John... Heck, I've got 30x40 Cibachromes made from old-school Symmar S and 4x5 Ektachrome 64. Sure, I can tell the difference in a 30x40 print made from 8x10 E100G, with for example, with a Rock N Roll Cat's Meow Fuji A, or from that kind of lens even with later 4x5 film. But it ain't something the public is going to notice quickly. I doubt inkjet can even resolve those kinds of differences on that scale. I optically print color, some am a bit nitpicky, I must admit. But really, this whole subject get a bit overblown, esp when the subject is large-format-this vs large-format-that, all relatively modern. It's kinda really good lenses versus really,really good lenses. And sometimes out in the elements or salt spray or whatever I might not want to risk my very best lens when another one will give me just as good practical results.

[ruilourosa]

Hey! What about the 150 apo sironar W? anyone has any info about it?

THanks


RUi Lourosa

[Marco Gilardetti]

Rui, that's quite a different lens, a way between a "normal" and a "wide angle". To achieve the wider angle of view (a whooping 80° for the 150mm!!!) one more group has been added. It's actually a front single positive meniscus with a very very narrow separation volume from the inner group: the two groups almost touch each other in the centre. As a consequence, there are two more air-glass separation surfaces, and as a side effect the added lens turns an almost ideal symmetric design into an asymmetric one. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing (some of the all times' greatest lenses have an inherently asymmetric design; they generally have less lenses and more contrast than their symmetric counterparts and personally I like them very much!) but, as it is well known, some (not all) aberrations are hard to correct in asymmetric designs while they are automatically corrected by symmetry in symmetric designs. More precisely, the W looks middle way between a symmetric and asymmetric design: a genuine symmetric design that has been asymmetrized retrospectively. A very interesting design approach.

As usual in optics (as usual in whole physics, actually) you gain some, you loose some. What you loose to gain in angle of view is - exactly as expected - a bit of resolution, contrast, and linearity of performance across the field. "A bit", I say. So, if you think that the extra angle is an interesting feature that matches your photography, and most of all if you like the pictures that you take with this lens, hold it tight and never let it go, and forget the charts that say that the S and the N are a bit sharper: it's true on papers but probably it's not even discernible in the final prints or it is overshadowed by other factors.

[ruilourosa]

Well I have noticed an increase of sharpness (and a much more pleasing general rendition of tones) in the 150 Sironar W comparing to the 150 apo symmar ... that was already a very very good lens!!

[VictoriaPerelet]

Since about 2000 when LF moved from professional to hobby equipment I never cared about resolution or sharpness of lf lenses(digital beats on all tecnical params) . Most that I cared were movements, selective focus and film borders with no no crops. IMHO the only thing that keeps LF unique.

I mostly used Nikkor SW 150mm in stidio on Sinar P2, I published many editorial pics from that setup. Later when I switched to Sinar F2 and Arca Nikkor SW became problem on weaker/lighter cameras because of weight.

I switched to Sinar Sinaron 150mm WS 80deg and pretty happy with it. It has enough of coverage for movements. IMHO 150mm lens straight on is most boring 4x5 lens, but movemets make it pretty unique.

Also, I had this table saved from old days - a bit of demystifying of rodenstock namings, maybe somebody can add this missing info to largeformatphotography.info/lenses tables

Sinaron-S = Apo-Sironar-N f/5,6 - 6 elements - 72°
Sinaron SE = Apo-Sironar-S f/5,6 - 6 elements - 75°
Sinaron WS = Apo-Sironar-W f/5,6 - 7 elements - 80°
Sinaron-W = Grandagon-N f/6,8 - 6 elements or f/4,5 - 8 elements - 102° or 105°
Apo-Sinaron = Apo-Ronar f/9 4 elements - 42 ° to 48°
Sinaron-WE = Apo Grandagon f/4,5 - 8 elements - 110° to 120°

[dave_whatever]

Rather than speculating on performance based on charts, how about looking at some tests? Thought all tests have caveats, Chris perez and Kerry Thalmann tested the two types of lenses:

http://ww.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

[ruilourosa]

These discussions tend to be boring, yes... "my mercedes is bigger than yours... bla bla bla..." but there is always something that we can draw out of it. Resolution although measurable and very scientific is a very vague concept when looked through: visual perception, then we reach to: aparent sharpness, that has a lot to do with who is seeing. But good lenses are good lenses and i always liked more rodenstock than scheneider... but i don´t think it´s sharpness it´s more the general "tone" of the lenses. Large format because borders and movements and selective focus... well that´s no excuse, you can do it easly with digital, either you don´t like computers (like me) or you like the LF process (like me). LF is a way of doing things, not better, not worse, just different and in my case the way.

[VictoriaPerelet]

Oh also one should understand that MTF charts are created on precise optical benches.

Typical LF introduces at least folowing "incorrections":

1.Focusing gear on most LF cameras is far from precise, backlash on Sinar and Arca is about 0.5mm, most of woodies are way worse.

2.Standard planes are rarely parallel on any camera.

3.Fresnel/GG geometry usually introduces optical error.

4.Is diopter correction on your loupe set? Is plastic loupe extension exact? Oh, some do not even use loupes:)

5. Film flatness in holder.

Add all of that - typical LF shot is way far from MTF produced on optical bench. MTF is common "shopping" comparison catch. Also MTF's and "sharpness" topics are usually madly debated by people who rarely take pics:)


Sent from my iPad

[Sal Santamaura]

Hey! What about the 150 apo sironar W? anyone has any info about it?...I own neither a 150mm Apo Sironar N nor S, so can't comment on how a 150mm Apo Sironar W compares to either of them. However, since a quote of mine was apparently what inspired this thread, and I do have a 150mm Apo Sironar W, I'll offer the following observation.

Recently I tested my sample of the 150mm Apo Sironar W under identical conditions (scene, lighting, aperture, film, development, examination loupe) that lead to my post describing my sample of the 135mm Apo Sironar N as sharper (near infinity) than my sample of the Apo Sironar S. The 150mm Apo Sironar W was less sharp than even the 135mm Apo Sironar S.

That's a lot of "my sample" qualification, but the caveat is very important. I've no idea what the results might be were a large number of each lens design tested under these real world, outdoor, distant-scene conditions. Unfortunately, it's several decades too late and I'm orders of magnitude too unknown for a stocking dealer to provide multiple copies of each for comparison. The best anyone can do today is "buy and try" what is affordable to them. :(