300mm APO Sironar-N versus 300mm Sironar-S

[J. P. Mose]

Well the Wollensak Triple Convertible I was suppose to get fell through. It looks like I will end up with a 300mm APO Sironar-N because I can get one for a steal. The size and weight doesn't bother me. I know it is a fine lens on its own merit but I am always curious about lens performance (more for the sake of interest than any practical application). So, here is my question...how much better would a Sironar-S be as far as image quality over the Sironar-N? The lens will be used on an 8x10 camera; shots will mainly be pictorial so the larger image circle of an -S does not matter; enlargement will not exceed 30" X 40" but rarely beyond 20"x24"; mostly black and white. If I placed a 20x24 print from a 300mm APO Sironar-N next to one from a 300mm Sironar-S, enlarged from 8x10 film, would I even see any difference? This wouldn't alter my decision as I can't afford the -S anyway....I am just curious about actual image quality differences (size, weight, filters, cost, etc. do not matter)!

Thanks for the information!

[Donald Hutton]

At 20X24 on 8X10 I am 100% certain that you will not be able to discern any difference. At 30X40, I am 99% certain too. The only time it may make a very slight difference is if you are using the extremes of the image circle on both lenses - I would expect the S to hold better as it has a larger image circle. A 30X40 from an 8X10 negative is only a very moderate enlargement. I have just spent some time testing all sorts of 150mm lenses. Between most modern lenses there is so little difference in resolution at normal working apertures that you really cannot discern any difference in normal size prints (4X enlargements). You need a 30-40X microscope on the negative to start to discern small differences in resolution, which appears to be all there is between modern lenses. That equates to a pretty big enlargement before you can see any visible differences in prints.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Hi J.P.,

I have the Apo-Sironar S 300mm- I was able to get a real good deal on a slightly used one, back before they raised the price. (Now it goes for the princely sum of $2499 new at B&H, well out of my budget!) Although it's one hell of a kick-ass optic, I imagine that it's Sironar-N brother would be just as good. The main differences are that the "S" is better corrected for close-ups, has a larger image circle (it will cover 11X14), and is made from ED glass. At the enlargements you're talking about, especially from black and white, I find it hard to believe that there would be any noticeable differences. I mainly got the "S" since I work in color, and eventually want to do very large enlargements, and happened to stumble across a great deal.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi J.P.

If you get a bad S it will be not as good as an good or very good N version. Some years ago I spook to the mister Ludwig from Gigabitfilm he is a sharpness guru here in EU and he recomandet the N version for best sharpness, if somebody does not table top things!
So I hope you can sleep better now, bud I know it is very seldom the lens the weekest point in the chain it is more like film flatness in the holder, the groundglass not exactly there where it should be, the holders not very exact and more like this!
Good light and a very good N I wish for you!

[Bob Salomon]

" If I placed a 20x24 print from a 300mm APO Sironar-N next to one from a 300mm Sironar-S, enlarged from 8x10 film, would I even see any difference? "

Yes.

[Donald Hutton]

Bob - shot on 8X10 film? I seriously challenge that contention.

[Bob Salomon]

Then you should try it head to head and see for yourself. All the answers here are supposition - not fact.

[Donald Hutton]

Sorry Bob, but the limiting factor on a 2.5X enlargement is just always going to be the print (it may come as news to you, but prints cannot resolve 70-80lpm). So there is no way in the world that even your great eyes will be able to discern a difference from a printed 2.5X enlargement. I actually do try a lot of this stuff myself - I am not too busy selling lenses and other gear. The last time I actually used a large format camera was yesterday...

[Bob Salomon]

Then shoot them side by side and compare negatives or chromes at the same apeture. There is a difference.

[Donald Hutton]

Thanks Bob - he was comparing prints and that is the point - on a 2.5X enlargement PRINT you will not be able to discern a difference. The question was not about comparing chromes or negatives. Why can you never admit error?

[Bob Salomon]

Because the difference will also be on the print - unless he has an awful enlarging lens and does not use a glass carrier. ANY DIFFERENCE VISIBLE ON THE NEG/SLIDE IS EXPECTED TO BE ON THE PRINT.

[Donald Hutton]

Bob

You are wrong. Plain and simple. Not only that, but in being so, you are presenting incorrect information to someone who asked a question relating to a product supported by you organisation. AT 2.5 magnification, there will never be any difference visible on the negative - NEVER. Therefore, IT WILL NOT BE VISIBLE ON THE PRINT. I am not attempting to get into a shouting match with anyone, but it really annoys me when someone who's very presence on this forum is entirely commercial offers incorrect and obviously wrong information.

Try it - look at a negative with a 2.5 magnification loupe - it's not nearly powerful enough to be splitting hairs with two very good modern lenses. You may discern some tiny differences at about 15X.

[Bob Salomon]

Tell me Don,

Have you actually used an Apo Sironar S and compared it to the Apo Sironar N or are you talking from a complete lack of inexperience about the actual lens?

[Donald Hutton]

I have actually extensively tested quite a few modern 150mm lenses, including an APO Sironar-S and an APO Sironar-N. I shot a real world target from the same location as well as a test chart layout (all on Tmax100, identically processed with a Jobo). I then examined the negatives at 40X under a microscope, with a 22X loupe and 4X loupe. I then made an 8X20 print from each (a central crop edge to edge - a 4X magnification print - I did 8X20 to save a little on paper). A 4X magnification print examined with a loupe reveals no differences. In fact on seven of the nine lenses I tested, there was no difference on the print. With a 22X loupe on the negatives, quite a bit of difference is revealed. With the microscope, it's all pretty clear.

So in answer to your question, I have actually used an APO Sironar-S and an APO Sironar-N lens and compared the results from the two quite objectively. While I have not actually used a 300 APO Sironar-S nor N, I am certain that what I learned from my tests with 150mm lenses can very safely be extrapolated to 8X10 film and 300mm lenses. So I am "talking" from some experience.

Have you ever personally tested them side by side? Or do we need to sift through a lot of marketing conjecture?

[Bob Salomon]

Yes we regularly shoot side by side comparisons and the S has better contrast, better tonal quality, better color saturation, reaches optimal aperture sooner - one stop down - and held it for a longer range. Better bookah and more pleasing toniality. Also much better edge definition when doing movements due to the larger circle.

Of course I don't shoot test charts. These were three dimensional objects from tabletop range to infinity.

We frequently shoot lenses side by side when they are returned to us for service or when we are coupling a lens to a Linhof rangefinder.

[Donald Hutton]

Bob

Perhaps "real world target" was misleading - is real world "subject" a bit clearer for you - i.e. 3-dimensional (in fact the view from outside my front door of the house across the road)? At extremes, I am sure the "S" lenses are a little better, but that is not actually what this thread is about. Nor is this thread about whether or not the "S" lenses reach optimal aperture sooner or later. "Bokeh" (I hope that is the correct spelling) is typically not a factor for most large format shooters either (obviously for portrait and product shooters it is) - in fact most landscape and architectural shooters spend a lot of time making sure that everything is in focus. I will be very happy to provide detailed scans from the two shots to anyone interested. Are you prepared to do the same (especially if you have all this "material" at your disposal, as well as far greater resources and a much greater financial interest in doing so)?

At a paltry 2.5X magnification , not you nor anyone on this planet will be able to tell two prints apart from an "S" and an "N".

[Bob Salomon]

Be happy to send you a scan of comparisons done by the factory. We would never share images done by someone else or with someone elses lens.

Just let me know where you want it emailed to.

[Donald Hutton]

donald_hutton@ameritech.net

[J. P. Mose]

Well I didn't mean to start WWIII!

Bob...out of curiousity...how do rate the 300mm APO Sironar N against lenses from the other big three companies? Does the Sironar N even compare with a Symmar S or APO Symmar?

Oh yes...by all means...please e-mail me with the same comparisons you are sending Don:

j.p.mose@lmco.com

[Brian Vuillemenot]

I'm interested in seeing these comparisons also, so I can decide for myself if my Apo-Sironar S was worth the extra money. Can we post them up to this thread?

[Donald Hutton]

Thanks Bob

Your literature (I was hoping you'd send a scan of some film, not a scan of a printed brochure) is quite clear on the subject: "The comparison of the two lenses shows a similar resolution and contrast in the area of the image circle". That's exactly what I found and suggested in my initial response to this posting.

The example is a 3.3X enlargement. It does go on to point out that at the edges of the image circle the "S" starts to perform quite a bit better. Most importantly, it's still not a direct comparison of two prints at 2.5X enlargement...

[Bob Salomon]

It also states " The imaging quality of the Apo Sironar S is equally high over the whole image circle.

It also states "A finer gradation of the colors can be noted.... The color saturation is slightly higher..the spatial depth and the plastic effect of the image looks more realistic with the Apo Sironar S... Total vignetting occurs much earlier with the older lens" (the N).

And yes it is not at 2.5X we don't have that specific magnification. But then can the OP be sure that he will never deviate from that magnification?

[Bob Salomon]

Brian I can email them.

[Donald Hutton]

Bob

As usual you're off on your own - you are ignoring the issue and the point of the thread: you will not be able to discern the difference between 2 prints; one shot with an "S" and one shot with the equivalent "N" at 2.5X magnification. VERY IMPORTANT: PRINTS!!!

[Donald Hutton]

I have just taken a pair of Polaroid type 55 negatives I shot with the two lenses when I did my tests (I did not want to chop up my original TMax negatives), chopped out a central section to fit on my Minolta medium format scanner and scanned them at 3200DPI. Please ignore any difference in contrast. On my original Tmax negatives there is almost no difference in contrast - this difference here can be attributed to a whole lot of reasons - the most likely is development times for the type 55 negative were probably not identical. In any case, this is quite moot - when printing, you would simply adjust the contrast to suit each particular negative.

To view, download the images onto you computer (don't try and view them on Pbase and make an objective decision - the magnification ratios will be all wrong) - right click and save them. Then open and view them at 100% on you computer, while attempting to ignore the contrast difference. You will observe that at a 5.4X magnification, there is just about nothing to choose between them. At 32X, it's all pretty clear. At 2.5X forget about telling them apart.

http://www.pbase.com/donaldh/inbox

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Hi Bob,

You can e-mail that info to me at: cleowolfe@yahoo.com

Thanks!

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi J.P.

Look on Paul Butzi's webside and make your own conclusions:
http://www.butzi.net/rodenstock/apo-sironar-s/300mm.htm
Of course the corners are better on the S but I think it will be not anymore a point at f 32 and 45 where the limiting factor of the diffraction will be.

[J. P. Mose]

Don: I looked over your pictures and can't even detect a difference at a high magnification. I also looked at Paul Butzi's website and can see more difference between a 300m and 360mm Sironar comparision (the 360mm being better on the MTF charts) than the two 300mm Sironars.

Symmar convertible, Symmar S, Commercial Ektar, Sironar, Nikkor, etc. They are all good! For 810 format, do image quality comparisions even matter?

I think Don nail it on the head in his first posting!

[J. P. Mose]

Well I ended up with a used APO Symmar 360mm (a big beast). From the MTF charts, the APO Symmar seems to be up to the standards of the 360mm Sironar-S or -N. I doubt I would ever see the difference anyway. I am more concerned about film flatness. I wonder how double sided tape would work if it was placed in the middle of the holder against the backside of the film? I may have to try this and see if it works!

Thanks for all of your inputs.