Rodenstock 180

[I M Russ]

35 shooter for many years just now stepping up to LF. Found an entry level Omega 45e with a Rodenstock Sironar 180. The lens does not say Sironar-N. Does that mean it is an earlier Sironar-S by default or are there other versions of Sironars out there I don't know about? Should not be a problem for me one way or the other - just curious. Thanks.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Could just be a plain jane Sironar, previous to the multicoated N, S, or W versions.

[I M Russ]

Thanks, Jason. As I have always favored Nikkor glass I'll probably replace the Rodenstock someday but for now it should be a good learning tool. Thanks again.

[Keith Fleming]

You might want to do some checking before getting rid of that 180mm Sironar. If I remember correctly (and I haven't double-checked this myself), older Sironars were convertible lenses, with the rear element alone being about double the length of the combined cells. The older Sironars also may have been the same formula as Dagor lenses. Yes, go ahead and buy a Nikkor lens when you are ready, but you may want to keep that Sironar too.

Keith

[Chuck Pere]

You can look up the lens age here: http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/Serien-Nummern_von_Rodenstock_Objektiven_10470.pdf

[Dan Fromm]

You might want to do some checking before getting rid of that 180mm Sironar. If I remember correctly (and I haven't double-checked this myself), older Sironars were convertible lenses, with the rear element alone being about double the length of the combined cells. The older Sironars also may have been the same formula as Dagor lenses. Yes, go ahead and buy a Nikkor lens when you are ready, but you may want to keep that Sironar too.

KeithKeith, you might be thinking of convertible Symmars (plasmat type) and of the dagor type Symmars that preceded them.

[E. von Hoegh]

Keith, you might be thinking of convertible Symmars (plasmat type) and of the dagor type Symmars that preceded them.

Plus, the convertible Sironars used the front element only when converted. AFAIK they were Plasmats.

Edit - The Dagor type Symmars came in two varieties, a single focal length (earlier) and a triple convertible introduced in the late 30s and made at least into the late 40s, or whenever the Plasmat Symmar was introduced.

[Bob Salomon]

There was never a Sironar-S. Only the Apo Sironar-S.

It sounds like the old, plain Jane Sironar. One way to easily tell, if it is in the original shutter, would be the two sets of apertures on the aperture scale. One for the complete lens and one in green for when it is converted by removing the rear group of elements from the shutter. The Sironar-N and later lenses were not convertible and did not have the dual scales.

[Keith Fleming]

Sorry, but I did confuse Sironars with Symmars. I regret introducing some bum scoop into this good discussion.


Keith

[winterclock]

I hadn't heard this before, so I just pulled out my 180 Sironar from about 1967. The rear cell alone gives about 240mm, while the front cell scales out to slightly over 720mm, but gives a much softer image. I almost wish my camera had ehough extension to try it. I can't measure the image circle, but this might make for an inexpensive ULF lens choice.

[E. von Hoegh]

I hadn't heard this before, so I just pulled out my 180 Sironar from about 1967. The rear cell alone gives about 240mm, while the front cell scales out to slightly over 720mm, but gives a much softer image. I almost wish my camera had ehough extension to try it. I can't measure the image circle, but this might make for an inexpensive ULF lens choice.

Does your lens have two aperture scales? If not, it's not intended as a convertible.

[winterclock]

It does not, but it isn't in the original shutter.