135mm f5.6 - Symmar-S MC or Apo-Sironar S for portraits?

[Jamie123]

I currently own a Schneider Symmar-S MC 135mm lens that I've had for ages and it's the lens I use most on my 4x5. Even though it was very cheap, it's served me well and I have never had any issues with it other than occasionally running out of image circle. I have the chance to get a Rodenstock Apo-Sironar S 135mm for around $600 which seems like a good price and, given that 135mm is my most used focal length, it seems that this would be a good investment. However, I'm wondering, could this lens be too sharp/harsh for portraits? If so, I would probably forgo it and stick with the Symmar-S.

[otto.f]

You can see that on flickr if you search for this lens. I don’t know what this would tell you exactly because scanning is an important intermediate step before it comes with on our screens

[Bob Salomon]

If you are doing head and shoulder or ¾ portraits it is too short and you will create a lot of foreshortening.
If you are doing environmental portraits or street portraits it should be fine.

[Jamie123]

Thanks, but I do know what the 135 focal length will give me as far as the perspective is concerned. I use it mainly for environmental portraits when I photograph people. What I'm not sure about is the rendering of the Apo-Sironar S and whether it might be a bit too harsh for portraits. What are your experiences?

[BrianShaw]

Like Bob said... to do closer portraits good you really need a longer focal length lens. If you like the results you are getting with the 135, get same/similar 210. They are quite affordable. If they are too sharp, there are soft focus filter options, etc or you could seek out other lens designs that “aren’t as sharp”. Don’t bother with another 135, especially if it purports to be “sharper” than what you already have.

[Jamie123]

Sorry, I might have been a bit unclear. I do have a 210mm lens, too, which I use for portraits a lot. I don't primarily use the 135mm for portraits. I use it mostly for landscape, still life, interior stuff but occasionally also for environmental portraits. It's very much an all-purpose focal length in my kit (90,135,210) but portraits are a large part of what I do so it's important that my 135mm be suited for it. I would not want to keep two 135mm lenses so if I get the Apo-Sironar S the Symmar-S has to go. So I'm wondering, is it worth it? I'm not overly obsessed with sharpness and I've never had any gripes with any of my lenses on 4x5. However, I do scan my work on a Flextight X1 and also print it in the darkroom (mostly color) so I'm getting quite a lot out of my negatives which is why I'm considering this "upgrade"

[BrianShaw]

Good clarification...

No, it’s not worth it. :). I have same range of lenses and found a 300 or so more worth getting.

[Tobias Key]

Unfortunately it's the sort of question you can only answer by testing the lenses side to side - a luxury that almost no one does anymore. By reputation I would have thought these lenses are very close in quality, so you may be paying mainly for improved image circle. I guess it wouldn't cost too much to buy the new lens, test it against what you have and keep the winner, it might only cost you the film and developing. Other than that you are asking for opinions from other photographers who may have different priorities to yours.

[Mark Sampson]

Remember that both of these choices were top-of-the-line lenses, made by leading optical companies for a demanding professional market. You'd be hard-pressed to see any difference between the Schneider and Rodenstock 135s unless you are an extremely critical worker, and searching to find any such differences. If you really want to know, buy the Rodenstock and do a careful A/B comparison against the Schneider. Then see if anyone else can notice a difference... then sell the one you don't like as much. Really, it's the only way to know.
Myself, I'd keep the Schneider and get a 300/9 Nikkor-M for portraits. Or any smaller 300... I find the perspective the 300 gives very pleasing. Best of luck in your search!

[BrianShaw]

The300 I’m loving for portraits... 12 inch Kodak Commercial Ekar. But it’s in aHUGEshutter that might be an issue for a lighter camera.

[Oren Grad]

Do your environmental portraits often have substantial out-of-focus areas, either in front of or behind the main subject or both, and does the rendering of those areas and of the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus matter to you?

If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then get the Apo-Sironar-S, run some controlled comparative tests with typical subject configurations at your typical working apertures, and keep the one you find more pleasing.

If the answer to either of the questions is no, then save the effort and expense and just stay with what you already have.

[Kevin Crisp]

If you are thinking spending that $600 will get you noticeably better performance in the 135mmm range, then I think you will be disappointed. Both 135s are terrific lenses. The MC Symmar-S lenses are outstanding, and I use the 135 version often and it never lets me down. Neither would come to mind as portrait lenses, I'd go with something longer. Like a 180 or a 240. If you have a 210 that should do it. It doesn't sound to me like you need anything you don't have.

[Tin Can]

Try this for fun
https://dofsimulator.net/en/

[Tin Can]

I use Nikon 135mm f2 lens on 35mm or Digi wide open

[Jamie123]

Thanks everyone for the reply! You actually convinced me to just stick with the lens I have and skip the other one. I've never actually had any issues with it quality-wise so there's no reason to change anything. Plus, I'm way too lazy to do any kind of systematic lens comparison.

[Bernice Loui]

Wise choice. IMO, the majority of modern plasmat lens designs are more similar than different. During the end of that view camera era, Schneider and Rodenstock got into a lens revision battle. Adding variations to what they have been producing for many years with the idea of getting LF image makers to purchase their new offerings.

That lens budget might be better spent on adding another focal length for your environmental portraits images. Consider a 125mm f8 Fujinon NSW. While this is not a small lens, it will produce a LOT larger image circle than any 135mm plasmat allowing ease of applying as much camera movement on 4x5 as needed. The 125mm focal length is close enough to 135mm producing similar perspective on 4x5.


Bernice


Thanks everyone for the reply! You actually convinced me to just stick with the lens I have and skip the other one. I've never actually had any issues with it quality-wise so there's no reason to change anything. Plus, I'm way too lazy to do any kind of systematic lens comparison.

[Kevin Crisp]

Back when I had more time on my hands I did a shoot off between my original Symmar 150mm (serial number in the 5's) and my APO modern Symmar in the same focal length. I shot the AF test target from across the yard. Both shutters were firing accurately, film developed at the same time in a tray. The difference in sharpness using a very strong B&L magnifier was essentially none, which was not what I expected. The newer lens had just a tiny bit more contrast, which created the impression of a little bit more sharpness, but in terms of how I could read the increasingly fine lines they were the same. I concluded that the major manufacturers have been making really great lenses for a long, long time. For whatever reason I have a lot more Schneider lenses than Rodenstock, but my only Rodenstock lens, a 75mm, is phenomenal.

There are some quite old designs like rapid rectilinears that be stunningly sharp too. Not bad for a lens introduced more than 150 years ago.

[otto.f]

In my former period of LF, in the nineties, I found the Sironar lenses in general a tiny bit softer in sharpness (and/or contrast?). But you are comparing a much more modern APO with a non-MC, non-APO Symmar. There I would certainly see a difference. The MC lenses of Schneider had well noticeable more clarity than the non-MC and that will probably more visible with APO. I’m not so sure though whether a quite wide lens like the 135 has any need for APO corrections. I’m not an optical expert but with wide angles this is said to be a commercial vignet with little physical ground; the color shifts in focus are dissolved in the depth of field.

[lenicolas]

Im late to the party but I would advise to get the apo Sironar-S ;)
The price is good, and you’d be at ease knowing you own the best lens.
Let’s face it, now you doubted your Symmar once, the seed has been planted, you may doubt it again...

You can always put something like a black pro mist 1/8 or 1/4 on a lens that’s too sharp.