Super Symmar XL 110 / Apo Sironar S 135

[Jon Warwick]

I'm looking for a first lens to use on a 4x5 camera (likely camera = the Ebony RSW that is exclusive to Robert White in the UK, and which has usable lens in the 45-180mm range as standard; rise = 65mm, fall 25mm, centre tilt 30 degree + 30 degree). Most of my photos will be landscape, and city-shots that I will take in the street. ie, I am not interested in taking photos in tight spaces, such as indoor architecture.

I've used medium format extensively, but am looking at large format as a way to achieve the very sharpest prints (probably sized up to around 40"x50") that I can attain in a reasonably light set-up. I would get the -- mainly B&W prints -- printed via drum-scanning and digitial printing.

The bottom-line is that for the type of photographs I tend to take (outdoor architecture & landscape), I am looking for the very sharpest image possible -- both in the centre and at the edges of the image.

Hence, I believe I have narrowed down my potential lens choice to either the Super Symmar XL 110 or the Apo Sironar S 135.

I was wondering if anyone has direct experience of these 2 lens?? If so, is either of them genuinely sharper over the other?? Also, for the camera I discuss above (and for the type of photography subject I will be taking), do I need a lens with the extensive coverage of the Symmar XL? Or is this overkill for my needs and for the camera's spec? Clearly, the Symmar XL is more expensive, but that is a price I'd be willing to pay if it is sharper and more useable than the Apo Sironar S.

Many thanks for your kind advice.

[Bruce Watson]

I was wondering if anyone has direct experience of these 2 lens?? If so, is either of them genuinely sharper over the other?? Also, for the camera I discuss above (and for the type of photography subject I will be taking), do I need a lens with the extensive coverage of the Symmar XL? Or is this overkill for my needs and for the camera's spec?

My kit contains both a 110mm SS-XL and a 150mm Apo Sironar-S (same design as the 135mm version). Both lenses are razor sharp. Maybe under just the right circumstances the 150mm is barely noticeably sharper.

As to coverage, IMHO one needs sufficient coverage so that one never runs out. How much coverage that actually is depends a lot on how the individual uses the equipment, and the subjects one chooses. So all I can tell you is my experiences -- you'll have to extrapolate from there.

For what I do I've never run out of coverage with either lens. I've done some light architectural work, sometimes from constrained positions that have forced me to turn my camera into a pretzel. As a result, I've been bellows limited a couple of times, but never lens coverage limited. Here's an example of a Japanese rock garden (http://www.achromaticarts.com/big_image.php?path=japan&img_num=2) made using the 110mm SS-XL. The monks wouldn't let me leave the raised wooden walkway but would let my tripod touch the steps down to the ground (but not the ground itself). Used a lot of rise and both front and back shift (opposite directions) with the back level and plumb. Best position I could use without becoming a Monk (with my cultural background that would be next to impossible anyway ;-) but camera movements let it serve. And it's still not lens limited, but I was happy to have all that coverage there when I needed it.

[Henry Ambrose]

What lens in your medium format outfit worked best for you? A similar angle of view on your 4x5 might be appropriate.

Both the lenses you mention are excellent. The 110 will cover all your camera can move, the 135 a bit less.

If you used an 80 on your 6X6 camera you might find the 110 a bit wide and the 135 more like what you're used to. If you used a 50 on 6X6 a lot then the 110 may feel right.

[Jack Flesher]

I've owned both of them and for medium format you will not see any difference in image sharpness with these two excellent lenses; both are at the top of the performance heap. The 110 has more usable IC, but for MF it is unlkikely you will run out of room with the 135 -- 4x5 might be a different story if you imarpt a lot of rise or shift. I would also add the Schneider 120 APO Symmar L version to this list -- the most current L version has more usable IC than the earlier APO Symmar S version and it is just as sharp as the other two.

Cheers,

[Ron Marshall]

I own the 110 and a 150S, similar to the 135S. I agree with what Bruce has said.

I often use lots of front rise and so the 110 has allowed me to get images that would not have been possible with the 135.

[Robert Hall]

The 110mm has a fabulous angle of view. Many (including myself, and some famous others) love the lens. When I shoot 4x5, I use it quite a bit. My 90 is just a bit too wide for some shots.

I have a 135 as well, I usually find myself going to the 150 however.

Best of luck.

[paulr]

They're both great lenses, but it's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. 110 and 135 are fairly different focal lengths. Also the 110 is a wide angle design, and the 135 is a plasmat.

You could expect the 135 to be a bit sharper center to edge than the 110, as would any modern plasmat.

Have you compared the image circle of the two lenses? A lot of this depends on how much you need. If you don't need much, you might want to look at a used 120mm super symmar hm, which is the sharpest lens ever made at that focal length. Beware that it's gigantic!

[naturephoto1]

They're both great lenses, but it's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. 110 and 135 are fairly different focal lengths. Also the 110 is a wide angle design, and the 135 is a plasmat.

You could expect the 135 to be a bit sharper center to edge than the 110, as would any modern plasmat.

Have you compared the image circle of the two lenses? A lot of this depends on how much you need. If you don't need much, you might want to look at a used 120mm super symmar hm, which is the sharpest lens ever made at that focal length. Beware that it's gigantic!

Paul,

The Schneider Super Symmar HM f5.6 120mm lens is not really gigantic. It only takes a 67mm filter is 370g, 80.3mm long, 211mm IC. It is extraordinarily sharp. My much smaller, much lighter, more portable Schneider Apo Symmar L f5.6 120mm lens (52mm filter, 210g, 42.3mm long, 189mm IC) is close to the sharpness to my Super Symmar HM.

Rich

[paulr]

Paul,

The Schneider Super Symmar HM f5.6 120mm lens is not really gigantic. It only takes a 67mm filter is 370g, 80.3mm long, 211mm IC. It is extraordinarily sharp. My much smaller, much lighter, more portable Schneider Apo Symmar L f5.6 120mm lens (52mm filter, 210g, 42.3mm long, 189mm IC) is close to the sharpness to my Super Symmar HM.

Rich

Ahh, good to know. I might have been confusing it with the 210 super symmar, which is a beast.

120 apo symmar is blazing sharp, although if I remember right it barely allows any movements at all with 4x5. Do you have issues with this?

The 120 super angulon is also a great lens. An older design than these others. But if anything it's a bit sharper than the 110 XL when used at infinity and at f22, and it's much cheaper.

Drawbacks are hugeness, tiny maximum aperture, and poorer performance at wider apertures or bigger magnifications.

[naturephoto1]

Hi Paul,

I haven't used the Schneider Apo Symmar L f 5.6 120mm that frequently yet. I think that the lens probably has closer to about 195 or 196 or mm of IC (maybe more) rather than the specs of 189mm. When I have used it, it is really really sharp. I purchased the lens for more usage with my Toho Shimo FC-45X for long hikes and backpacking. It could certainly be used with my Linhof Technikardan 45S as well. Closer to the vehicle if both were with me, I may opt to use the Super Symmar for greater image circle.

Many of us here at LF Forum have purchased the 120mm Apo Symmar L due to its sharpness, size, and weight. If you do not need the IC of the 110, want something much smaller and lighter, the Apo Symmar L is a great lens. I know that Jack Flesher has opted for the 120mm and has been pleased.

Rich

[paulr]

I think that the lens probably has closer to about 195 or 196 or mm of IC (maybe more) rather than the specs of 189mm.


Schneider often gives conservative image circle specs ... the number they give reflects the area of what they consider to deliver acceptable performance. There's image beyond that, but they don't make any promises about its sharpness.

Maybe for marketing reasons it looks better to have a relatively flat MTF curve rather than one that drops off precipitously, with the benefit of just a few more milimeters of image circle.

[Carsten Wolff]

A combination of the 110 XL and a 210 Sironar or similar would be a great set. That may well be all you need. Or get a 150, too. I agree with other posters: 135 is a bit close to 110; imaging quality of both a Sironar-S and a S-Symmar XL is both excellent (and an apples with oranges question). With a kit like that, you can then even move up to 5x7 one day without the need for new lenses....

[Sheldon N]

Ditto on the 120mm APO Symmar-L. It's a wonderfully sharp little lens, and an ideal focal length. I have used moderate rise/tilt movements on it and haven't run out of image circle, so it is certainly a useable lens for 4x5. I can't say that I can tell a difference between the transparencies shot with it and my 150mm APO Sironar-S.