Sironar-S vs Sironar-N

[jasonjoo]

Hey folks,

While I patiently wait for my first LF camera (a Chamonix 45N-1!), I've slowly been gathering a few things to get me started. So far I picked up a few film holders and a Super Angulon 90mm f/8 lens. I've also been looking for a Sironar-S 150mm lens, but after a few other purchases, my budget seems to be shrinking.

So my question is, other than the image circle coverage difference, is there anything else that is different between a Sironar-S and Sironar-N lens? I'm also unsure how much coverage I will actually need from a lens, seeing as I have never used a LF camera before. I'm sure that I will use camera movements, but by how much, I have no idea! Also, I feel that 90mm maybe a bit too wide for portraits (I mainly shoot landscapes and portraits). A 150mm lens is not much longer, but I think it will serve well as a double-duty lens and I've heard that the 150mm Sironar-S is one of the top lenses out there in that focal length.

Has anyone used both lenses and could you please share the most notable differences?

Thanks,

Jason

[jasonjoo]

Just saw this site:

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

These are all just numbers to me and I do not know how they translate in "real-life" shooting, but it seems like the Sironar-S is just sharp all across the board and the Sironar-N seems to suffer in the corners/edges.

I may or may not have answered my own question, but I would love to hear some of your own insights!

Thanks,

Jason

[Oren Grad]

I have several focal lengths in both the S and N series, and for some focal lengths I have both S and N.

The S series, in addition to the extra coverage, tends to be just a bit more refined all around. BUT, the N's are fine lenses too, the 150 N has ample coverage for 4x5, and the 150 N will be *much* cheaper than the 150 S. Note that you can find the N under the Apo-Sironar-N, Sironar-N and Caltar II-N labels, with the older Sironar-N and the Caltar II-N typically being a bit cheaper still. (Actually, under the Sinaron S label as well, but that will usually be *more* expensive.)

For getting started, and especially if you're on a tight budget, the 150 N should be just fine. Spend the extra money on film, developing and printing, go take lots of pictures, and learn a lot - that will do much more for the quality of your work at this stage. Eventually, you'll know enough to figure out for yourself whether you need to trade up. Even then you may find that it's not necessary.

[Eric Leppanen]

http://photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/00Pw5F

[Matus Kalisky]

Or just get the multicoated (lens data from the outer side of the lens barrel) version of the Fujinon W 150/5.6 and save even more bucks. If you decide to go for the Apo Sironar N - have a look at the Caltar II-N lenses - these are the same Rodenstock lenses sold under Caltar brand name.

For portraits I would go for 210 - 300 mm lenses with 4x5 - but it depends what kind of potratis you have in mind.

Getting cheaper lenses (but of course clean and in working shutter) and saving money for the film and all other stuff makes sense. Do not forget about a good tripod and a head.

good luck

[Lachlan 717]

As a cheaper option, perhaps look at either a Fujinon NSW 150mm f5.6 or even a Fujinon A 180mm? Even the Nikkor M-Series 200mm could be of interest?

Also, search for threads on best focal length for portraits. You'll get an idea on what is best for tight head shots, waist-up and full length portraits. Keep in mind the distance that you'll be able to shoot from in any given location...

Lachlan.

[jasonjoo]

Thanks guys.

The link from photo.net was especially helpful. While I'd rather get it right the first time, meaning the Sironar-S, it seems like it won't fit in my budget just yet. I'll settle with the Sironar-N or another derivative.

Jason

[Blueberrydesk]

Jason, I hope that Chamonix shows up for you soon! :) I had the Sironar 150-N which I sold with my Osaka. I loved that lens. Razor sharp, plenty of IC for movements (at least for the Osaka field camera) and nice and lightweight, in a reliable Copal-0 shutter. I would say that you'd be more than happy with the -N and as has been stated earlier, spend the extra money of film.

[Joseph O'Neil]

I think the sironar-N line has gotten a bad, undeserved rap on the internet. Perception, more than real world use, IMO, has driven people away from them.

For what it is worth, I use a 135mm Sironar N and a 180mm plain old Sironar, no N or S. I love them both, and both are great lenses.

Let me put it to you this way - I used to own one of those "legendary" lenses - the Kodak 135mm Wide Field Ektar. Wonderful lens, insane coverage, but i gave it up for a brand new 135mm Sironar N.

Why? although the image circle was smaller on the Sirnoar N, the lens was considerably sharper. Also, what you can sell a 135mm WF Ektar for used and at that time buy a 135mm N for new, didn't cost me a lot to "upgrade" to the new lens.

So my personal advice is feel very, very , very comfortable with the Sironar N line. The image circle is almost always smaller than the "S" counterpart, but they are IMO, still superb lenses.

joe

[IanG]

Have to agree Joe, the Sironar N's are superb lenses, for 5x4 I doubt you'd be able to see a difference in image quality between an S & an N. Probably on 5x7 the extra coverage of the S would come into it's own.

I have Sironar N's S's and unmarked older versions and they are all great lenses.

Ian

[Brian K]

The biggest difference between the N and S's is in regards to close work. The S's are very good at near macro shooting distances, the N's just won't cut it.

[Blueberrydesk]

The biggest difference between the N and S's is in regards to close work. The S's are very good at near macro shooting distances, the N's just won't cut it.

This surprises me. The very first lest I got, on the first LF camera I got (a CC400 monorail) was the 150 -N. I did this shot with it, and on the chrome you can count the scratch marks on the smallest of the coins. Razor sharp.

http://sundownis.com/images/PassportBySilent.jpg

pls. note, the elongation of the coin or two at bottom right is because of fairly extreme rear tilt. Not a function of the lens.

[IanG]

Have to agree with Blueberrydesk, I've used my 150mm Sironar N for close up work and its razor sharp.

Ian

[darr]

I own the 65-N, 90/f4.5-N, 135-N, 180-N and would not consider upgrading to -S versions.

[Bob Salomon]

I own the 65-N, 90/f4.5-N, 135-N, 180-N and would not consider upgrading to -S versions.

There is no 65mm or 90mm Sironar N. Those are Grandagon-N lenses and there is no S version of them.

[darr]

There is no 65mm or 90mm Sironar N. Those are Grandagon-N lenses and there is no S version of them.

Thank you for the correction Bob, sorry about that. Just naming them off the top of my head. They are great lenses!

Darr

[Harley Goldman]

My first 150mm was a Nikkor. I got caught up in the Sironar S hype and bought one and sold the Nikkor. I looked at chromes shot with both and they were so close that any differences were insignificant. Save your cash and buy any modern multi-coated lens and you will be quite happy with whatever it is. I wish I still had my Nikkor and the cash. :)

[Brad Rippe]

Harveys right, we can drive ourselves crazy looking for the most amazing lenses, and not realize how good the one we have is. I have a 150 Sironar-N and its extremely sharp, even close up. The only difference is the coverage and the N is plenty for me
for 4 by 5.

-Brad

[jasonjoo]

Geez, I had completely forgotten about this thread! My apologies.

I wish I had seen this just an hour earlier, but I just sent a payment for a 150mm Sironar-S that is very minty. I went a little (OK, maybe more than I wanted to) over budget, but the Chamonix won't be here until August and that will give me a few more weeks to pick up a lens board, dark cloth, and loupe. Otherwise, I should be set!

Now that I have my 90mm and 150mm, I think the last lens that I am looking to put in my bag is the Fujinon A 240mm f9 lens. This probably won't happen for another year or so, but one can hope. All of my 35mm gear has been sold, so LF, here I come!

Jason

[Frank Petronio]

The S is simply the best, you can easily run out of coverage with a 150N. It might not be worth getting a S in the longer lengths if you stick to 4x5, but with the 150 you can really use the extra image circle.

[jasonjoo]

Thanks Frank! Excellent work on your site!

Jason

[Brian K]

I made my living for 25 years as a still life shooter, for 15 of those years I used Sironar-N lenses, as well as some macro lenses. When I switched to the sironar-s lenses the difference in the image quality of close focus subject matter was startling. So while you may be happy with the image quality of a Sironar-N when it comes to close focus, unless you go head to head with a sironar-S you won't know just how much you're missing.

If I recall correctly and I think that Bob S can correct me, the Sironar-N lenses are optimized for 1:20 reproduction, while the S lenses are optimized for 1:10 or 1:5 repro.

[Oren Grad]

If I recall correctly and I think that Bob S can correct me, the Sironar-N lenses are optimized for 1:20 reproduction, while the S lenses are optimized for 1:10 or 1:5 repro.

The Rodenstock product literature shows MTFs for the N series at 1:20 but the S series at 1:10. FWIW, the W series is also stated as being optimized for 1:10.

[8x10 user]

Rodenstock made a 300mm Macro Sironar N, it is convertible from being optimized from 3:1 to 1:3. They are no longer produced and very rare but if you find one I am sure you will be happy with it. The new price was similar to the 300-W, in the sinar section of the old BH catalog they are actually asking for more then the 300-W.