PDA

View Full Version : Sinaron S 360mm 72 MC?



ChrisH
4-Jun-2012, 18:46
Hello, I have been a lurker for quite a while and decided to finally join the dialog. I recently purchased a Sinaron S 360mm 72, #10719654. It was listed as a Sironar S 360mm. I have scoured the web trying to find info on this lens which according to everything I have found, and even a phone call to Sinar US, it shouldn't exist. Hears what I think I know;
Rodenstock, vintage 1986-9, the Sinaron S should equate to Sironar N

The problem is that the Sironar N series is 64 and even the Sironar S is 68, this lens clearly marked on the barrel @ 72. I read Kerry Thalmans excellent piece on the history of Rodenstock lenses in View Camera Magazine's archives and it was not identified in there either. There was mention of an Apo Sironar (no suffix) during the late eighties that was the precursor to the Sironar W, however this only existed as a 210mm, 240mm, and 300mm & not a 360mm. I love a good detective chase , but this is driving me batty. I was going for the Sironar S in hopes that it would give me the sharpness and color saturation that I get from my Hasselbad 250mm Superachromat. I have not felt that the Sironar N's are quite as rich, and was thinking the ED glass might help. Anyways, I need to determine wether or not to return it, I have a short window which does not allow for comprehensive field testing, and I have not come across any 360mm Sironar S' or Sinaron SE's they seem to be very rare. Any expertise would be greatly appreciated.

Songyun
4-Jun-2012, 18:55
The lens should be 64degree. Does the 72 degree marked on the barrel of the lens? Can you take a photo?

Leigh
4-Jun-2012, 20:24
It's a Sironar-N, not a Sironar-S (there is no such thing). There is an Apo-Sironar-S (much later design).

The 1982 Rodenstock Sironar-N brochure from Berkey Marketing shows most of the lenses in that series
have an AoV of 72 @ f/22, except for the 360mm which is 64 @ f/22.

All of the Sironar-N lenses are shown as 65 wide open except for the 360mm, which is 60.

It's possible that a later re-design of the lens brought it up to the same specs as the other Sironar-N lenses.

- Leigh

B.S.Kumar
4-Jun-2012, 20:47
http://www.sinar.ch/en/products/lenses-large-format/168-sinaron-db-objektive

Kumar

Oren Grad
4-Jun-2012, 21:10
Yes, something is odd here. The Sinaron S is indeed the (Apo-)Sironar-N, and the 360mm focal length is specified as having 64 degrees of coverage in both the Rodenstock- and Sinar-labeled versions. Is it marked clearly as a 360, rather than a 300?

As Songyun said, can you show us a picture?

ChrisH
4-Jun-2012, 21:44
7472974729 Thanks for the quick responses. Here's the pic, as far as the sinaron link, the question is not wether the lens is 72 it is printed on it. It is regarding the fact that the sinaron s 360mm should in fact be a Rodenstock OEM lens equal to the Sironar N. Therefore if neither the Sironar N 64 or the apo sironar s 68 is the same AoV, how can the lens in fact be a Rodenstock, although the serial # is clearly in the Rodenstock range.
Thanks
Chris

Leigh
4-Jun-2012, 21:48
Did you read my post #3?

- Leigh

Oren Grad
4-Jun-2012, 22:27
The plot thickens... Could you show the other side of the labeling as well, please? EDIT: Also, what is the filter size?

I'll attach Sinar's spec sheet.

Oren Grad
4-Jun-2012, 22:32
Did you read my post #3?

FWIW, the serial number dates the lens to about 1985. Sinar was using the spec sheet above at least as late as 2000-2001, and my Rodenstock catalog dated 9/93 also retains the 64 degree spec.

That doesn't mean it's impossible, only that I've never seen any evidence that there was another version of the lens. Perhaps a query to Sinar is in order to resolve this definitively.

Songyun
5-Jun-2012, 07:15
What is the diameter of the rear cell? if the OD of the rear cell is 80mm, then I doubt it can cover 72 degree. I think the coverage down to 64 degree must have something to do with the mechanical vignette. Apo Symmar 360mm has better coverage, however it has a bigger rear OD. All Sinar/Rodenstock lens are limited to 80mm OD on the rear cell probably due to the fit of sinar shutter. Above are just my observation.

ChrisH
5-Jun-2012, 08:10
Thanks for the help trying to solve this mystery these kind of things drive me nuts, what a great forum this is!
Yes, Leigh I checked out your post number 3 which seems to be consistent with my question, all the other lenses are 72 except the 360mm. Checked that Sinar spec sheet as well as the one for Rodenstock no 72. I did in fact lift the phone at one point in this quest and talk to Sinar New Jersey, it turns out they do not have a digital record of the older lenses so the poor fellow thumbed through catalogs back to the late eighties which was the extent of the archive. To no avail, all their records show a 360mm in 64 and 68. I think this lens is older than their records. Not sure if Sinar Europe would be any different?

Bob from HP responded to a PM and said it was a labeling mistake that didn't get pulled. I am sending him back the question that why then would the lens be listed in this post from earlier, and I have seen other samples for sale: http://www.sinar.ch/en/products/lens...n-db-objektive

I am will post more shots and back measurements later. The lens has he normal Sinaron S marking though nothing special, and the front is a 105mm consistent with a Sironar N
Thanks for the interest.
Chris

E. von Hoegh
5-Jun-2012, 08:29
Thanks for the help trying to solve this mystery these kind of things drive me nuts, what a great forum this is!
Yes, Leigh I checked out your post number 3 which seems to be consistent with my question, all the other lenses are 72 except the 360mm. Checked that Sinar spec sheet as well as the one for Rodenstock no 72. I did in fact lift the phone at one point in this quest and talk to Sinar New Jersey, it turns out they do not have a digital record of the older lenses so the poor fellow thumbed through catalogs back to the late eighties which was the extent of the archive. To no avail, all their records show a 360mm in 64 and 68. I think this lens is older than their records. Not sure if Sinar Europe would be any different?

Bob from HP responded to a PM and said it was a labeling mistake that didn't get pulled. I am sending him back the question that why then would the lens be listed in this post from earlier, and I have seen other samples for sale: http://www.sinar.ch/en/products/lens...n-db-objektive

I am will post more shots and back measurements later. The lens has he normal Sinaron S marking though nothing special, and the front is a 105mm consistent with a Sironar N
Thanks for the interest.
Chris

Probably, more than one lens was mislabeled. Perhaps a whole run was mislabeled, and then given immortality by the internet.

Bob Salomon
5-Jun-2012, 08:35
No, a Sinaron S would not be older then Sinar Bron's records. It is a lens that was introduced during their lifetime as a company in the USA.

There is one avenue that could possibly result in this. Many Sinaron labeled lenses were mounted in Sinar DB boards rather then Copal/Compur or Prontor shutters. All of the coverage circles you have checked and been given are for the 360mm in leaf shutter. I do not have any Sinar catalogs but it might be worth checking if the coverage for the 360mm was increased when mounted into the DB mount. Of course, if it had and someone re-mounted it into a shutter you would be back to 64 wide open and 68 stopped down.

Then again, it could just be an overlooked mis-print on the lens itself. I once had a company car. It was a Plymouth. Whenever I parked it on the street I usually always walked past it when I was ready to leave. Never could figure out why till one day I noticed that the badge on the back said Dodge while the badge on the front said Plymouth!

i thought I was really on to something unique and possibly worth some money. So out of curiosity I called Chrysler's main office and told them what I have. They said: "you have one too"!

Was recently at a camera store that had two brand new 50mm Summilux Leica lenses, in their original boxes, with all of their documentation and each had the same serial number. We have a dealer in Long Island who has a penney he received from a customer. The penny has only half of one side printed.

Mistakes happen!

And your link returns this message:


Error 404: File Not Found
The requested page is not found. This may happen due to the following reasons:

Page or file is outdated, renamed, moved, or does not exist.
You typed the address incorrectly, like http://www.example.com/pgae.html instead of http://www.example.com/page.html
Please contact your webmaster if you are not sure what goes wrong.

Oren Grad
5-Jun-2012, 08:36
At this point my bet would be on mislabeling, because that is by far the simplest explanation. The definitive test would be to put it on a camera and verify the focal length and the coverage. 64 degrees is different enough from 72 degrees that, even with ambiguity in judgment of where "coverage" runs out, it should be straightforward to tell whether this is really an "N" or something genuinely different. But to do that conveniently would require either an ULF camera or at least an 8x10 with lots of room for movement.

That Sinar link doesn't tell us anything about what Sinar actually has/had for sale. It's just an oversimplification - their catalog is the same way, with the relevant text page talking in general terms about 72 and 75 degree lens series while the detailed spec sheet includes the exceptions within those series. See the attached page, which comes from the same catalog as the spec sheet posted above.

Anyway, an interesting conundrum!

Oren Grad
5-Jun-2012, 08:40
I do not have any Sinar catalogs but it might be worth checking if the coverage for the 360mm was increased when mounted into the DB mount.

Bob, I've been searching for this, but so far I can't find any document either in my own collection or on the web that gives optical specifications separately for DB-mounted lenses. Again, that doesn't prove anything, but it at least suggests that the specs are the same.

Leigh
5-Jun-2012, 08:43
My bet would be on a simple error in manufacturing.

It's easy to envision the engraving machine operator finishing a batch of rings for the 300mm, then changing the digits to 360mm for that lens not realizing that the angle of view needed to be changed also.

- Leigh

Songyun
5-Jun-2012, 08:53
Mislabel is the best explanation here.

E. von Hoegh
5-Jun-2012, 08:53
My bet would be on a simple error in manufacturing.

It's easy to envision the engraving machine operator finishing a batch of rings for the 300mm, then changing the digits to 360mm for that lens not realizing that the angle of view needed to be changed also.

- Leigh

That explanation fulfills the requirements of Occam's razor. Too bad some insist on a drawer full of cutlery.

ChrisH
5-Jun-2012, 12:52
Interesting, even though the catalogue has it clearly listed here http://www.sinar.ch/en/products/lens...n-db-objektive and there have been multiple samples in the wild, it seems as though the consensus is mis-label. I was leaning that way to since the filter diameter is 105mm same as the N. With a slim chance of ED glass, I guess a return is in order. Thank you all for the diligence, and if anyone has a lead on the 360mm sironar s or the sinaron se shoot me a PM.
Thanks
Chris

Oren Grad
5-Jun-2012, 14:09
Interesting, even though the catalogue has it clearly listed here http://www.sinar.ch/en/products/lens...n-db-objektive

Chris, after all this discussion I'm really curious as to what that document shows, but the link doesn't work for me - looks as though the URL is not fully spelled out. May I impose on you to type out the full URL? Thanks...

ChrisH
5-Jun-2012, 16:52
Sure, it's the same one Kumar pasted on the first page. For some reason my link pasting skills are no good.

http://www.sinar.ch/en/products/lenses-large-format/168-sinaron-db-objektive
on case that didn't work
www.sinar.ch en products lenses-large-format 168-sinaron-db-objektive (double space where the should be forward slash)

Basically it shows the Sinar lens line up and mentions the 72 360mm. I get that mislabels happen however find it hard to understand that Sinar would not only mislabel but call it out in their sales material as well. That's just to many coincidences for a mega corp. My suspicion is that it's a Schneider in disguise. I have a 300mm Sinar lens that is in the same serial range as this one, not the normal Schneider sequence, but it is marked Sinar with the normal Schneider K... stuff around it. I'm relatively certain the Schneider 360mm was a 72. Alas, this one has the standard Sinaron/Rodie style markings. I have confidence from all the learned opinions here that it is not the special Roden-beast I am after. So it will be on it's way back to its' fatherland shortly.
Chris

ChrisH
5-Jun-2012, 17:23
Someone asked so here a pic of the other side & the rear element is 80mm.
74791

Oren Grad
5-Jun-2012, 18:56
Sure, it's the same one Kumar pasted on the first page. For some reason my link pasting skills are no good.

http://www.sinar.ch/en/products/lenses-large-format/168-sinaron-db-objektive
on case that didn't work
www.sinar.ch en products lenses-large-format 168-sinaron-db-objektive (double space where the should be forward slash)

Basically it shows the Sinar lens line up and mentions the 72 360mm. I get that mislabels happen however find it hard to understand that Sinar would not only mislabel but call it out in their sales material as well. That's just to many coincidences for a mega corp. My suspicion is that it's a Schneider in disguise. I have a 300mm Sinar lens that is in the same serial range as this one, not the normal Schneider sequence, but it is marked Sinar with the normal Schneider K... stuff around it. I'm relatively certain the Schneider 360mm was a 72. Alas, this one has the standard Sinaron/Rodie style markings. I have confidence from all the learned opinions here that it is not the special Roden-beast I am after. So it will be on it's way back to its' fatherland shortly.
Chris

Thanks, I can see it now. I'd wager that that web page simply represents someone in the marketing department being sloppy.

FWIW, the 360 Schneider Symmar-S and Apo-Symmar are both specified for 70 degrees of coverage. Filter size is 120 for the Symmar-S and 112 for the Apo-Symmar.

Good luck in your search!

Roger Hesketh
29-Dec-2012, 15:58
Here is another one marked 72 degrees
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190776195286&clk_rvr_id=432552266368