135 or 150 sironar S ???

[chris6869]

I have read good reviews about the sironar S 135 and 150.
My problem is (money is solved) which one to choose ?

135 is a good focal length, but the image circle seems to be a little bit small for some applications.
The 150 is great, has a larger image circle, but 150 might be not as versatile as 135.

I am sure that some have had the same dilemma.

Can anyone help me ?


Nota : I already have a 90mm, 125mm, 200mm

Christian

[Steve Goldstein]

The 135's image circle at infinitiy is 208mm at f/22, the 150 is 231mm. The 135 can just about cover 5x7 straight-on at infinity. Assuming you're using 4x5, you'll need a lot of movement to run into trouble.

There's not much difference between 125mm and 135mm. Do you plan to keep and use the 125? If so, buy the 150. If you plan to sell the 125, get the 135 - sometimes it can be really difficult to step back, but it's always easy to crop!

Oh, and the 135 is 10 grams lighter. That could make a real difference some day ;)

[Bob Salomon]

Far and away the 150S is the more popular lens. For every 135 Apo Sironar S we sell to dealers we sell 6 of the 150mm Apo Sironar S.

[David Karp]

125 and 150 is a good combination - almost like 35mm and 50mm in 35mm film camera terms, only I think the 125 is even more usable in 4x5 than the 35mm lens is in the small camera world. 135mm and 125mm are going to be too close, in my opinion.

[chris6869]

Thank you Steve and Bob.

My 125 is a fuji NW which is great, but its image circle is smaller than those of the 135 Sironar S.
I think there will be a great difference of sharpness and tonality between these two lenses.

I understand, the 135 will probably kill my 125. If I want to keep the fuji, i buy the 150.


Christian

[David de Gruyl]

based on your existing lenses, I would choose the 150.

[Larry Gebhardt]

I love the 135mm Sironar S. I'm surprised that the 150mm is so much more popular. I think the 90, 135 and 200 set is just about perfect, and is what I use if I just want to take three lenses. Frequently I go out with the 135 and 200 since they are used for 80% of my images.

[Bob Salomon]

I love the 135mm Sironar S. I'm surprised that the 150mm is so much more popular. I think the 90, 135 and 200 set is just about perfect, and is what I use if I just want to take three lenses. Frequently I go out with the 135 and 200 since they are used for 80% of my images.

The most popular set is the 90, 150 and 210mm.

[memorris]

I found the 135 to have little movement. It was a 135mm Sironar S and at f/22 there was little room for movements. I sold it an am buying a Schneider Super-Symmar XL 150 to use on the 4X5 (very good coverage) and 8X10, adequate coverage but very wide.

[Bob Salomon]

Let's get specific:

The 135mm Apo Sironar S covers a 208mm circle at infinity at f22. This means that there will be 37mm of rise and 32mm of shift in landscape position on 4x5.

The 150mm Apo Sironar S covers a 231mm circle at infinity at f22. This means that there will be 59mm of rise and 51mm of shift in landscape position on 4x5. Using this lens on 5x7 you would have 17mm of rise and 13mm of shift.

There are very few 4x5 cameras with more movement then the 150 S has on 4x5.

[David Karp]

If you dump the 125 for the 135S you get 10mm more image circle. I have and like the 125mm / 150mm combo (mine are both Fuji NW, so the 150 has nearly as large an image circle as the 150S).

Sometimes you really need the extra image circle that the 150 gives you. Personally, for that reason I would rather keep the 125 and get the 150.

[mdm]

I started with a 150mm but found it just a little too tight for me, now I have a 135mm Sironar S and find that it fits my point of view in the same way as a 50mm on 35mm film does (I think that is because 4x5 is a boxier format than 35mm). I use it almost exclusivly. If you were to confine yourself to one lens, say for trekking or travel, then the 135mm is very hard to beat. I really do not understand people who drag an infinite selection of focal lengths around. In my opinion it comes down to which focal length you like to use the most, 135 or 150, because the sironar s will be your best lens and you will use it a lot. If you are not going to use it a lot, why bother? As for coverage and movements, IMHO less is more. If you run out of coverage, move the camera to a better spot and try again.

[chris6869]

Thanks to yours answers, I have a lot of informations to make my choice.
I won't say : "I didn't know..."

Your experiences are very helpful.


Christian

[aduncanson]

After performing some calculations, it seems to me that going to a longer lens just to get more image circle is self-defeating in many situations. At the same time that the image circle gets larger with the longer lens, so does the required shift.

Assuming that your 125mm Fujinon performs to your satisfaction out to its specified 76 deg. coverage angle, then you would be just able to include the top of a 68 foot tall tower from a distance of 100 feet with its maximum rise of 25mm. With the 75 deg coverage of the 135mm Sironar-S you can use a rise of 32mm but still can just include the same tower from the same distance. Of course the image size is larger with the larger lens and you might end up cropping a little more from the 125mm shot. But if cropping is allowed, you can essentially take the same photo.

The 150mm Sironar-S gets you just a little more elevation. You could just include the top of a 70 foot tall tower from 100 feet.

[These calculations assume that you are photographing the tower with a portrait rather than a landscape film orientation. If you were using landscape then the 135mm Sironar-S has a slight advantage, covering a 62 foot tower versus 61 foot for the 125mm Fujinon, while the 150 Sironar-S would just reach the top of a 65 foot tower.]

These examples have to do with rise (and apply equally to shift), but a similar phenomenon takes place with lens swing and tilt. The longer lens requires more swing to bring the subject plane to intersect the film plane at a given distance from the film's center. In terms of having the coverage required to set up the shot, the actual angle of coverage seems to be a good "figure of merit" for comparison.

The upshot - I would not highly weight the larger image circle of the longer lens in considering which of these lenses to buy.

[Martin Aislabie]

I have the 135 Sironar S and find it an absolutely stunning lens.

Compact and very sharp

I shoot 5x4 landscapes and find the image circle large enough to cover most of my needs.

I'm sure if you are used to the image circle size of a Super Symmar XL, then image circle of a Sironar S will seem small in comparison - but if your not, then its probably more than adequate

To me the combination of a 90mm and a 135mm lens go well together

Martin

[Ken Neely]

I replaced the Rodenstock/Optar 135/4.7 in a Graphex 1000 shutter on my Super Speed with a 135 Apo Sironar S. I like the 135 focal length, and in the bargain the 135 tracks the rangefinder cam in the camera so closely that I'm able to use it and the sports finder instead of the GG... So nice for press type usage - The Optar is a lovely lens, but the 1000 shutter still works and I want to keep it for "the archives"

KN

[Don Dudenbostel]

Thank you Steve and Bob.

My 125 is a fuji NW which is great, but its image circle is smaller than those of the 135 Sironar S.
I think there will be a great difference of sharpness and tonality between these two lenses.

I understand, the 135 will probably kill my 125. If I want to keep the fuji, i buy the 150.


Christian

I think you're going to be surprised when you compare them. My guess is you'll not see any difference other than a slight color difference. My experience has been only very minor differences with the most obvious being slight color differences. I've not used many rodenstock lenses but have a great deal of experience with the other brands,modern and vintage, having used them in the field and studio in commercial applications.
Steve Hamley one of the forum members has a 135 sironar s and borrowed my 1st generation 125 Fuji to compare. Hopefully he'll chime in but commented that the Sironar S has ghosting and the Fuji has less. He just ordered a 1st generation 135 Fuji but I haven't heard the results. He also shot color to compare.

[Steve Hamley]

I am doing some comparison testing for color balance, flare, and iris ghosting with the 135mm Apo-Sironar S, 135mm Fujinon-W, and Don's 125mm Fujinon-W. Attached is a jpeg of the 4x5 image done with the 135mm Rodenstock Apo-Sironar S that started my quest for a 135mm lens with less iris ghosting.

I've found that all lenses will produce a bad iris ghost under the right conditions, but some are much better behaved than others. For example, the Schneider 110mm Super Symmar XL is a lens I routinely use for sunrise and sunset shots on 4x5 and the flare and iris ghosting is minimal in spite of the lens having about 100 pieces of glass in it. I've also been unable to reproduce that 135mm Rodenstock iris ghosting with a 180mm Apo-Sironar S, one of my very favorite 4x5 lenses. I also spoke with Bob Salomon at HP Marketing and he said that he believed there was nothing wrong with the 135mm lens, and that using a different shutter (like the Compur that my 135mm Xenar is in) would not help - but I haven't tried that yet.

I've concluded that flare and Iris ghosting are as much caused by internal baffling, shutter, glass, and glass shape as coating. In my search for a 135mm substitute that would shoot into light more satisfactorily, I've tried several lenses but none were any better than the 135mm Apo-Sironar S. Until I was talking with Don, I had forgotten about the single coated 80 degree lenses Fuji made although most of us are familiar with the highly regarded 250mm f/6.7.

My preliminary tests with the 135mm Fuji in Seiko shutter showed a bad iris ghost at wide apertures (say f/5.6 - f/8) that got very much better as the lens was stopped down, and at f/22 appeared to be better than the Rodenstock. I tested it by observing the GG as I hand held the camera and pointed it into and around the sun at different apertures, and I would not call that conclusive. I've also not done any tests about how color is rendered although I have exposed film and have some more to do with Don's 125mm and my own lenses.

As a side note, I also looked for a small light lens shorter than 120mm and longer than 90mm with flare and iris ghost resistance to "replace" the 110mm Schneider Super Symmar XL for long or difficult hikes, and the only credible contender I found was the 4-3/8" (111mm) WA Dagor. I would not call the Dagor a replacement for the superb Schneider lens, but it is very nearly the same focal length, is pretty flare resistant, and it has good coverage. Usually I just suck it up and carry the Schneider.

Cheers, Steve

[Steve Goldstein]

How about the 100WF Ektar? I don't think you'll get as much coverage as with your Wolly, but it's smaller and lighter than the 110SSXL...

[Steve Hamley]

Steve,

Are you talking to me re: Wolly? I did try a 135mm WF Ektar and the into-the-light flare was one of the worst I tested so I did not acquire a 100mm WFE to test against the 110 SS XL. Also, the Supermatic is a relatively heavy shutter, so any weight advantage of the glass is almost negated by the shutter weight.

Cheers, Steve

[mdm]

I must admit, I have noticed this myself, but I do not have a lens shade and thought that was the cause. Stray light from outside the image area banging around in there. Are you using a lens shade in your testing? Somewhere in recent months there was a thread on the importance of an efficient lens shade to image quality, I was convinced but have not got there yet. Aparrently you can make a barn door shade using a step up ring and a little ingenuity.

David

[Steve Hamley]

I usually use a dark slide, hat or hand to keep direct light off the lens and that helps a lot, but of course when the sun is in the image as in a sunrise or sunset a lens shade won't help. Also, I've found that a shade only helps a little with the iris ghost if at all.

Cheers, Steve

[Ivan J. Eberle]

So many factors can induce flair. If it's internal stray light a compendium shade necked down to only the image area might be needed for a lens with excess IC. In this comparison, are these lenses all new, or used?(internal dust and scratches matter, shooting into the sun). All on the same board or at least with flat black paint? All shot with the same camera and film holders?

[Steve Hamley]

For me, the Apo Sironar-S was new. The 135mm WFE was of course not. All the used glass was clean, no scratches or haze. I'm a stickler about old lens haze. I believe the old lens haze cuts contrast and apparent sharpness, but I doubt haze or dust is going to have an effect on a pronounced iris ghost. All on Technika IV boards in good shape, either Wista, Toyo or Nikon. Camera was the same.

Cheers, Steve

[Frank Petronio]

That Supermatic is a better shutter than a modern Copal construction-wise and I bet that Kodak WFE has a nice bokeh.

To the original poster, I'd swap the 125 for a 135 Sironar-S and keep it simple, either S lens will be great.

[chris6869]

Thank you all of you for the answers.

I will get a 135 S, just because I think this length is closer to the way I do my photos.

I am aware that it is a personal choice and not an absolute answer.


Christian

[Steve Hamley]

Christian,

Excellent choice. This past week, I tested a Fuji 125 W version 1 (single coated 80-degree), a 135mm Fuji W version 1 I just bought from KEH, a Fuji 135 W version 2 (multicoated) and a 135mm Apo-Sironar S. The target was a distant brick wall in sun.

I'd have to give the nod to the Apo-Sironar S followed VERY closely by the 135 Fuji version 2. Both these lenses resolved detail in the bricks and mortar joints at distance. The third was the Fuji 125 W version 1 which did well, but was obviously less contrasty and did not seem to do quite as well at resolving detail (although contrast may have had a role). The 135mm Fuji W version 1 went back to KEH. The negatives were clearly less detailed than the other lenses, even the supposedly equivalent 125mm Version 1.

Sort of surprising since the lens was very clean and showed no signs of abuse or impact. We also tested it visually on the GG by unscrewing the front cell to see if it was spaced incorrectly in that direction, but it did not help. The Fuji 135 W was visibly softer on the GG to my eye when focusing which is what prompted the test and the second opinion from an experienced photographer.

Cheers, Steve

[chris6869]

Thank you steve for this testimony.

Christian

[Don Dudenbostel]

Steve and I ran the test at my home this week we shot my neighbors back of their house at roughly 100-125 feet. The house was in full sun. I did the test with my Ebony SV45TE with their excellent GG and fresnel. I used a high power lens for focus and just guessing I would say it was around 8X. The film was Efke 50 and I used an old commercial photo trick for test negs and rsn it in 1:2 LPD for 2 minutes. This produces a neg of sufficient quality for our test. Exposures were all per my Sekonic incident meter @ 1/250 - f5.6. Remember all were shot wide open. The Sironar S had more apparent contrast and resolution on the GG but on film there was almost no difference between it and the Fujinon v2 135. If I he
Had to assign percentage values for performance with the Apo Sironar S being the standard @100% I would say the Fuji v2 was 97-98%. We didn't shoot stopped down but I would guess at 1/2-1 stop down you could not tell any difference. The v1 125 Fuji was very good but clearly had some slight halation or blooming in the mortar between the bricks. My guess is this I due to single coatings vs multi with a little stray light in the lens. The blooming was minor but there. I've used this lens for several years and never shot wide open but at working apertures a couple of stops down its a superb lens. I would assign this lens a rating of 90%. The v1 Fiji 135 was quite soft so I would rate it at 65-70%. Again we didn't test themstipped down but Steve noted it visually improved when stopped down. My guess is one element or group was improperly spaced. This can happen with any lens. I mentioned to Steve that I had a new Leica 50 asph Summilux 50 that had an improperly machined mount be elements improperly mounted. The lens would not focus to infinity and would not track focus per the RF of four known to be accurate bodies.

I have very little experience with Rodenstock lenses but have extensive experience with the other major brands. Having read the praise for the Apo Sironar S I was more than delighted to see how well my Fuji v2 performed. My lens kit is a mixed bag. In my commercial work when film was king I used mainly Schneider lenses for 4x5 over the past forty plus years and Goerz and Kodak for 8x10 and feel the Schneider to be equal to the Fuji. Now I have a full mix of Schneider, Fuji, Nikkor, Rodenstock Caltar and a few Goerz and Kodak lenses. With the exception of the Dagors I don't think there's any
real difference. My feeling regarding magic bullets is there are none. If one lens or maker had any clear advantage in performance then there would only be one brand and all of us would use only that brand.

[antinapple]

the image circle seems to be a little bit small for some applications.

[Sal Santamaura]

...This past week, I tested a Fuji 125 W version 1 (single coated 80-degree), a 135mm Fuji W version 1 I just bought from KEH, a Fuji 135 W version 2 (multicoated) and a 135mm Apo-Sironar S. The target was a distant brick wall in sun...


Steve and I ran the test at my home this week we shot my neighbors back of their house at roughly 100-125 feet. The house was in full sun...all were shot wide open...While I understand there are people shooting at f/5.6, all those lenses were optimized for f/22, except the Apo-Sironar S, which was optimized for f/16. Your work is appreciated, and would be even more so if you repeated the comparison at typical taking apertures. With a specified 228mm diameter image circle, that 135mm Fuji W version 1 would be very attractive where substantial movements are required. Thanks in advance!

[Steve Hamley]

Hi Sal,

I "instigated" the test because I'd noticed that the 135mm Fuji I had just bought was noticeably more difficult to focus wide open than the 135mm Apo-Sironar S, or the 125mm Version 1 Fuji I borrowed from Don as a better comparison.

I agree with your comments about testing, but the reason we did the comparison wide open was to try and determine if something was wrong, or probably wrong, with the 135mm Fuji. I had a limited time to return it, and the wide-open "go/no go" test made me believe that this lens was not what it should be.

The generous coverage is attractive, and I'll probably end up with one, but this particular lens is not the one.

Cheers, Steve