Difference between Apo Sironar-W and Sironar-S

[PaulSchneider]

Hi guys,

I have a small question with regards to LF lenses. I'm pretty new to this subject matter, so bear with me...

I gathered that the Sironar-S line of lenses represents the pinnacle of LF lens design. This in terms of sharpness and chromatic aberration control - all by employing ed glass and aspheric production processes.

Now I read about those sironar-w lenses. They have an 80 degree image circle and were multicoated. According to the 8x10 lens guide on this site, their used value is more than that of sironar-s lenses.

My question: Is the Sironar-S superior when shifts are to be neglected in terms of sharpness? Is the Sironar-W more akin to the older N-design or is it a wider S-design?

Why has it been discontinued, and why does badger sell those for almost 5k?

Kind regards for explaining to me the lens hiearchy!!

Paul

[Frank Petronio]

The W- came before the S-series. I don't know why they discontinued the W-series but perhaps because the S- did nearly as much coverage and was less expensive?

In practical use, the sharpness of the W-, S-, and even the less expensive N-series, Sironars are all more than sufficient -- there are probably "weaker links in the chain" of your workflow that mitigate the almost indecipherable, microscopic differences in resolution.

The reason you would want an S or W lens - besides bragging rights - is because you need the extra coverage. Perhaps for situations that call for several inches of front rise. Or stepping up to a larger format. But for most 4x5 traditional type photographers, a $300 used 150mm Sironar-N will make as great a picture as a S- or W-series lens. You would probably want a 150mm Sironar-S for 5x7 however.

[PaulSchneider]

Hello Frank,

thank you for your quick answer. So a 300mm Sironar-W lens is mainly that expensive because of its usefulness for larger formats? If you could choose between a Sironar-S and a -W, which one would you pick?

How do the Sironars compare to Schneider's Apo Symmars (not L, because I see many used 300mm apo symmars on ebay)?

Thank you

Paul

[Oren Grad]

First, before Bob Salomon gets to it, there was never a lens series called "Sironar-S", only "Apo-Sironar-S". By comparison, the distinction between "Sironar-N" and "Apo-Sironar-N" actually does mean something, in terms of production vintage if nothing else.

The S and W are both very fine lenses. If you want to do the utmost in hair-splitting within a smaller range of movement, you want the S. If maximum coverage is the primary requirement, you want the W.

The W isn't "more akin" to either the N or the S - it's a distinctive design.

The W was discontinued quite a few years ago because demand evaporated. Badger is selling from a limited special run of the W which was made more recently. It's expensive because that's what a modern plasmat with monster coverage costs these days. The Apo-Sironar-S itself is somewhere around $3000 at retail now.

Be forewarned, if you've never seen either of these lenses before, the 300 Apo-Sironar-S is very big and heavy, and the W is bigger and heavier still. The main reason for getting the W would be either if you need extreme movements for studio setups, or want to use the lens on a ULF format such as 11x14 or 7x17. Coverage of the W is way overkill for routine use on 8x10. Even the N has more than ample coverage for 8x10.

[Oren Grad]

If you could choose between a Sironar-S and a -W, which one would you pick?

Paul, for routine use on 8x10, the S will be the better choice for virtually all users. If you don't already know a specific reason why you need a W, you don't need one.


How do the Sironars compare to Schneider's Apo Symmars (not L, because I see many used 300mm apo symmars on ebay)?

In terms of coverage, the Apo-Symmar corresponds to the (Apo-)Sironar-N. The S has more coverage. Any of them has ample coverage for 8x10.

Beyond that, there are very subtle differences in rendering between the two brands. If you don't have enough experience to already know whether you can see those differences and whether they matter to you, you shouldn't worry about them.

[Frank Petronio]

It really depends what format you are shooting. If it is 4x5, I would probably opt for the N-series because they are smaller, lighter, and less expensive.

(But... the 135 and 150 Sironar-S are still desirable if you can afford them, since their extra coverage is nice to have for 4x5. But the 210mm and longer S-series have so much extra coverage that using them for 4x5 is overkill.)

It gets trickier when the lens coverage is on the edge of covering the format, like the 210mm lenses used on 8x10. I think the S- will barely cover it (the N- will not) and the W- does better, but then there are other options from other manufacturers and even wide-angle designs from the same manufacturer, like the Rodenstock Grandagon.

Rodenstock and Schneider lenses coming from the same time period are very "competitive" with each other. If you compare an early 1980s example to a early 2000s example you'll see improved coatings and perhaps a very slight increase in sharpness, but you might not either.

I think the Schneider timeline went Symmar to Symmar-S to APO-Symmar to APO Symmar-L.

Sometimes the easiest way to tell the relative age is from the cosmetics of the shutter, so long as it is orginal. The most recent Copals are all black, from the mid-1990s on. You should be more than safe with anything that new.

I suspect that at that point, getting the ultimate lens quality has more to do with sample variation -- some will always be slightly better than others -- and you have to test them individually to really know for sure. But in most cases you can safely buy either a late Schneider or Rodenstock (or Fuji or Nikkor) and know that you're getting a very good lens no matter what.

Most large-format photographers don't worry about it since the big film gives us a larger margin of error. You see much more angst over lenses on small format digital since the enlargement ratio is so much larger. It isn't until you get into the crazy large prints, 40x60s and such, that you might start to (truly need to) get anal about it.

And by that point you'll probably want a vintage soft-focus brass lens anyways ;-)

[PaulSchneider]

Wow, thank you, Oren and Frank. So much knowledge in this forum! I think nowhere else I could've gotten this kind of information! I think I'll try to find a Sironar-S then!

Regards

Paul

[Frank Petronio]

Well Oren actually knows ;-)

What format are you shooting?

[PaulSchneider]

... I'm just starting out and I'm gathering information at the moment, the most I can ... I intend to shoot 8x10 and I think i'll aim for a 300mm and a 450mm lens to begin with ... What triggered this desire is that I saw Thomas Struth's photographs here in Zurich a few weeks back and was amazed at the quality and tonality of the large scale prints. It's truly amazing to see a properly scanned, printed and framed 8x10 at 6 by 8 feet in size. I guess a stitched medium format digital image can get in a comparable realm but there's something to the quality of film that struck me immediately when seeing that exposition.

I guess it also has something to do with acquaintance, since I hadn't seen a color film print of a properly scanned 8x10 before in real-life and the color, grain and dof was just something new to see when coming from a canon 35mm digital upbringing

:)

...

[Oren Grad]

Well Oren actually knows ;-)

What I know is that the 300 W requires a forklift. ;)

What I use for 300 on 8x10 is a Caltar II-N. Or a Geronar, when I'm in full-wimp mode.

[Oren Grad]

Paul, 8x10 is wonderful, and for sure it's a whole different world from a Canon DSLR, both in the experience of using it and in the results.

It's a big leap. Take it one step at a time - get a camera and one lens that you can afford, make lots of pictures and learn. Soon enough you'll start to know whether it's right for you and where you want to go next with it.

Good luck and enjoy!