135mm f5.6 Rodenstock Sironar N - any good?

[Meekyman]

Hi Folks,

First post on here so please be gentle with me!

I am considering starting out in 4x5 photography after several years of using digital and favour landscapes. Not rushing into it...bought a spotmeter and getting used to that, then doing an introductory workshop in September to see if I get along with it and will not abandon digital, just slim down my kit.

I have read lots on this forum and the internet in general and came across a good deal on the lens in the title. I currently use a Zeiss 35mm f2 on full frame digital as my go-to lens. I love the field of view and from this lens in particular, the vivacity and contrast it produces. I am thinking of a lens set up in large format like 90, 135, 200/210mm then something longer eventually. How does the 135mm f5.6 Rodenstock Sironar N perform especially with regard to contrast and flare control. How similar is it to my loved 35mm? Is there a "better" lens out there with a wide-normal view...fujinon 125mm f5.6, schneider super symmar 120 mm HM?

Thanks

Graham

[Steve Goldstein]

Welcome Graham!

The 135 Sironar-N (same as Apo-Sironar-N) is a fine lens. I have one mounted in a Copal Press shutter and it's extremely small and light, lighter than any of my other 135s (yes, I have too many). I suppose the APO-S would be a little better if you're shooting into the sun, but the N is multicoated and I've never had any trouble myself. Just be careful with movements; even though it has 198mm image circle at f/22, you can run out of coverage if you're not careful - BTDTMTO.

If you want more coverage, the APO-Sironar-S is 208mm and many more Benjamins. For even more you can get ~228mm by going to older single-coated lenses, either an old Fujinon with the "inside" lettering or a Wide-Field Ektar.

The angle of view with a 135 on 4x5 is very close to a 35 on a full-frame digital when both are printed up to 8x10.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have one as well and recommend it highly.

[lbenac]

I have the Sironar-N 135/5.6 in its Caltar disguise and I had the Fuji-NW 125/5.6.
I changed from the 125 to the 135 as I was thinging that it is a better spacing on my set 90/135/200/300.
The 135 is a very good lens but somewhat, somewhere if I could go back, I would have kept my 125 even if the 135 might, repeat, might be a tad sharper.
Just anecdotal. A line-up 125/180/240 or 300 would be perfectly good for me except that I really like the Nikkor 90/8, M-200/8 and love M-300/9.
I am not sure that there is a small 180 out there?
My two cents if you decide for such a line-up, I would stuck with small Fuji as the disposition of the aperture adjustment is opposite to other brands which always irritated me...

Cheers,

Luc

[Ivan J. Eberle]

The one I've got is a Caltar IiN branded version of the Rodenstock Sironar N. It's blazingly sharp and doesn't flare. For the minimal gains in coverage I wouldn't recommend a Sironar S at this particular focal length. But heck, in a good working shutter pretty much any Post WWII 135mm will be capable of great landscapes. The Tessar-design Optars and Raptars are wickedly sharp at f/22. At this normal working aperture performance differences between lenses will be subtle or non-existent. Shutter issues and overall condition may prove more critical.

[Meekyman]

Thanks everyone for your comments.

I guess generally with landscapes movements are not so excessive such that the image circle is prohibitive?

I'll chat more to the seller of the lens.

Cheers and thanks,

Graham

[JBAphoto]

The Rodenstock/Schneider/Nikon f5.6 Gauss lenses will give negatives it will be almost impossible to separate from looking at big pirnts, all that matters

As well as the a first series Symmar I have a back up 135mm Rodenstock Ysarex 4 elephant Cooke triplet derivative which is good in the middle but allows no movement, so stay with the symmetrical lenses

I am looking for a second early 135mm Symmar as mine is off for repair at the moment and normally does 97.3248% of my landscape work

John

[Dan Fromm]

The Rodenstock/Schneider/Nikon f5.6 Gauss lenses will give negatives it will be almost impossible to separate from looking at big pirnts, all that matters

Plasmats. 6/4 double Gauss types do well to cover their focal lengths, 6/4 plasmats typically cover much more.


As well as the a first series Symmar I have a back up 135mm Rodenstock Ysarex 4 elephant Cooke triplet derivative which is good in the middle but allows no movement, so stay with the symmetrical lenses

Tessar, and not derived from a Cooke triplet. f/4.5 tessars do well to cover 110% of their focal lengths, and that stopped well down. Symmetry -- or sort of maybe perhaps symmetry -- has nothing to do with coverage.

I take it that you usually shoot near wide open.

[Bob Salomon]

"so stay with the symmetrical lenses"

Sironar-N, Sironar-N MC, Apo Sironar-N, Apo Sironar-S, Apo Sironar, Apo Sironar-W are not symettrical lenses. The Sironar was.

[Leigh]

Sironar-N, Sironar-N MC, Apo Sironar-N, Apo Sironar-S, Apo Sironar, Apo Sironar-W are not symettrical lenses.
The 6/4 Apo-N and Apo-S (not the apo-W) sure look symmetrical to me,
with dimensions of the front elements just slightly larger than the rear.

Interesting that the current Rodenstock literature does not include cutaway views of the lenses.

- Leigh

[Bob Salomon]

If they were symmetrical they would also be convertible. None of these: Sironar-N, Sironar-N MC, Apo Sironar-N, Apo Sironar-S, Apo Sironar, Apo Sironar-W, are convertible and non are symmetrical.

If you can find any of the earlier factory brochures on the above lenses they did include a cutaway of at least one lens in each series. Today they only do that with the digital lenses.

[Leigh]

If you can find any of the earlier factory brochures on the above lenses they did include a cutaway of at least one lens in each series.
That's what I was going by. I have a couple of brochures that include the cutaways.

I didn't know anybody made, or even mentioned, convertible lenses any more.
Convertibles require multi-row aperture scales, so it's not just matter of unscrewing one cell.
I thought that was strictly last-century, or the previous.

Perhaps your definition of "symmetrical" and mine differ.
I always thought a lens was symmetrical if the optical designs of the two cells were the same,
although one might be scaled relative to the other.

- Leigh

[Bob Salomon]

We do have a cut-away of a 210mm Apo Sironar-N that we use to take to shows when they were still current. Here is a picture I just took of it.
Couple of very obvious differences when you have it in your hand. First the glass to air spacing between the front and rear is different. The front has a much larger space. Second the rear cemented pair have a very different color then the front pair. Third the front air spaced element is thinner then the rear one. And lastly the front elements are all larger then the rear ones. And the picture is upside down.
76699

[Leigh]

OK. Thanks.

- Leigh

[JBAphoto]

Tessar, and not derived from a Cooke triplet. f/4.5 tessars do well to cover 110% of their focal lengths, and that stopped well down. Symmetry -- or sort of maybe perhaps symmetry -- has nothing to do with coverage.

My understanding is that Rudolph adapted the Cooke Triplet to design his Tessar


I take it that you usually shoot near wide open.

No, I stop down a fair bit for landscapes, unless there is water moving when I go for shutter speed - I don't like misty water, when I want mist I use mist - The lens which surprises me for lack of coverage is my 150 Apo-Lanthar, which I only keep as a spare and that it was the lens that came with its cam with my Technika

John

[Dan Fromm]

My understanding is that Rudolph adapted the Cooke Triplet to design his Tessar

His starting point is generally understood to have been the Protar. See the VM, which isn't always right; it says that Zeiss claimed the Tessar was derived from the Anastigmat (= Protar) and Unar designs. Kingslake, who's sometimes mistaken, but not often, says that it was derived from the Protar. I'd trust Zeiss, who paid for the work and to whom the patent was assigned, over after-the-fact tale spinners. And among the after-the-fact tale spinners, I'd trust Kingslake, who looked things up.



The lens which surprises me for lack of coverage is my 150 Apo-Lanthar, which I only keep as a spare and that it was the lens that came with its cam with my Technika

This doesn't surprise me. It is a Heliar type and they don't have large coverage. See, e.g., www.dioptrique.info for calculated coverage of several heliar types, with prescriptions usually taken from patents.

I've tested most of the standard issue normal lenses for 2x3 Graphics. USAF 1951 target, measured distances, ... The top of the line of those lenses, everyone says, is the 105/3.7 Ektar, a heliar type. It is the most expensive. But it isn't as sharp in the corners, at the same aperture, as a 101/4.5 Ektar, a tessar type.

[rdenney]

To the OP: The APO Sironar-N was a state-of-the-art general lens of the middle focal lengths less than 20 years ago. It would take experience, extreme care, an appropriate subject, and superlative technique to demonstrate any advantage to the newer Sironar-S, in all respects other than coverage. My 210mm Sinaron-S (which is a Sironar-N) is perhaps the newest lens in my bag, and I have collected lenses to make sharp images, not fuzzy ones, for the most part.

And the plasmat design, being an air-spaced Dagor derivative, is a wide-field design with good coverage at this focal length. You won't run out of coverage for most landscapes, though you might with architectural applications and in close-up photography.

Dan is right that both Zeiss and Kingslake insisted that the Tessar was derived from the Zeiss Anastigmat (which Zeiss subsequently branded as the Protar). Kingslake also provides enough back-story to make it compelling. The Sonnar, on the other hand, was indeed derived from a triplet design.

All the large-format plasmats (which include Sironars, Symmars, Fujinon-W, and Nikkor-W) are approximately symmetrical, compared to designs that are not, such as the tessar, Sonnar, several varieties of double-gauss lenses (including the post-war Planar, Xenotar, and Biometar, which were five-element lenses), and any modern telephoto design whether or not reversed to make a wide-angle lens.

They are not quite symmetrical enough to be optimal at 1:1, or to be convertible without reservation from the time when their designs were optimized for longer working distances. Those newer variations, for example, included the Sironar-N and the Symmar-S. But they are symmetrical enough to mostly eliminate geometric distortions and coma, which are artifacts of unsymmetrical lenses that usually require additional elements and sophistication to correct. Eliminating distortion and coma was the point of the symmetry in the first such lenses (the Rapid Rectilinear was one) and is still true for modern plasmats and wide-field designs (like the Super Angulon and the Grandagon). It's what distinguishes the most common modern large-format designs from lenses for reflex cameras, even though the latest examples have given up a bit of symmetry in pursuit of other optimalities. They also have the advantage of being easy to center on a lens board which facilitates movements.

There, I think I've stuck my unwelcome nose into every minor argument topic in this short thread, heh.

Rick "who's work here is done" Denney

[Meekyman]

Thanks everyone who contributed and I must admit I got lost with some of the detailed conversations!

Well, I bought the lens....better hope I get along with the cameras on the introductory workshop otherwise I will have a lens and no camera!!

Cheers

Graham