480mm Symmar-S/APO Versus 480mm Sironar-N

[J. P. Mose]

I would like to know which one of these two lenses is your favorite? I have compared specs. and notice that the Sironar-N is much heaver? Why? All specs. seem to be the same otherwise.

I don't want to hear about similar lenses. I am ONLY interested in a comparison between these two optics (or three if the comparison is between 480mm APO Symmar, 480mm Symmar-S and 480 Sironar-N).

Thanks!

[Oren Grad]

Yes, that 480 Apo-Sironar-N was pretty... < g >

I added a 480 Sironar-N to my kit not too long ago. But while I've mounted it on a couple of my cameras and oohed and aahed at the view on the ground glass, I haven't had a chance to make any exposures with it yet.

The reason I went for the Rodenstock lens, despite the extra weight, is that from my experience with shorter focal lengths I prefer the Rodenstock "look". If you don't already have a strong preference in that respect, I'd expect that any of the Schneiders from the Symmar-S onward would also be a very fine lens. As you point out, the Schneiders do have a weight advantage.

The 480 plasmats aren't discussed all that frequently here - they're such a bear to lug into the field that most of the folks here who use longer focal lengths work with more compact lenses. I can't recall anyone ever mentioning having tested the Rodenstock and Schneider 480 against each other.

BTW, with a bit of patience, you should be able to pick up either a Sironar-N or a Symmar-S for under $1000 on the famous auction site, especially if you're willing to live with some modest cosmetic defects. I paid less than that for my Sironar-N, which was in mint condition save for a single, pinprick defect at the far edge of the front element.

[Bob Salomon]

The 480mm is not and was not available as an Apo Sironar S. 360mm is the longest S.

[J. P. Mose]

Oren,

Please elaborate on your statement, "the Rodenstock look". Thanks.

JP Mose

[Oren Grad]

JP -

Among recent plasmat designs, the aspect of optical character where differences across brands matter most to me is the way they render out-of-focus areas. I could live with an Apo-Symmar (and in fact do, for certain specific purposes), but I happen to prefer the OOF look that's characteristic of the (Apo) Sironar-N and -S designs from Rodenstock. (Fuji and Nikon are another story - I intensely dislike both, but since neither has a horse in this particular race, it's not something to worry about here.)

I hesitate to try to describe the differences in detail, because it's a very subjective thing and we don't have a very good language for it. Also, OOF behavior of a lens can be complex, with appearance varying between foreground and background blur, and with aperture and subject configuration. (For example, to my eye Fujinons often do a good job of rendering OOF backgrounds in confined settings indoors, with backgrounds at very close range. It's when the backgrounds fall off into medium to long distances outdoors that they start to look obnoxious to me.) I will say that at its best, the Rodenstock OOF look is ultra-smooth and coherent. The Apo-Symmar isn't bad in this respect either, but in my experience it doesn't have quite the same silky smoothness in as wide a range of situations. I haven't seen enough of the Symmar-S design to be confident in saying whether it's as close to the Apo-Symmar in character as the (Apo) Sironar-N is to the Apo-Sironar-S.

It may be a little while yet before I'll be able to exercise the 480 Sironar-N extensively, but I am eager to see what it will do, since at that focal length, any subject short of infinity is likely to have plenty of OOF stuff to look at.

This topic is not without controversy - check this site for other threads on the topic of "bokeh". In the end, if you haven't paid attention to this before, the only way to find out whether the differences matter to you - and if so, which rendering you prefer - is to do your own comparison of the way different lens types of interest render subjects that are typical of what you like to photograph.