nikon W 135mm 5.6 VS Rodenstock Sironar N 135mm 5.6

[koh303]

I have been reading alot about the Sironar N, and considering to replace my trusty Nikon or the past 14 years, with this Sironar N (Sinaron S branded) lens of the same focal length.

Aside from very minor technical differences can anyone comment about the differences in real life?

[BradS]

I've had both. They are both excellent....I ended up selling the Nikon and keeping the Sironar-N simply because of the filter size. Other than the notable difference in size and the slightly modified copal shutter that the nikon sits in, there really is not much difference between these two. I definitely cannot recommend selling the Nikon to get the Sironar-N - unless it is for some trivial reason like, filter size.

[koh303]

i actually have both in hand right now, and only want to keep one

[richardman]

Shoot some slides and check the color balance. If there is anything you can see "at a glance" on different lens or lens lines, the way they render colors may be one of them. *Generally* speaking, Japanese lens tend to be the cooler side, but that's a general statement so shoot a few sheets of film and see which ones you like better.

[BradS]

Shoot some slides and check the color balance. If there is anything you can see "at a glance" on different lens or lens lines, the way they render colors may be one of them. *Generally* speaking, Japanese lens tend to be the cooler side, but that's a general statement so shoot a few sheets of film and see which ones you like better.

Good point. I forgot about this one. There is a noticible difference betweeen these two lenses when it comes to the way each renders colors.

[Sal Santamaura]

I have been reading alot about the Sironar N, and considering to replace my trusty Nikon or the past 14 years, with this Sironar N (Sinaron S branded) lens of the same focal length.

Aside from very minor technical differences can anyone comment about the differences in real life?

I own both of those lenses as well as a 135mm Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S. Here's my take.

First, as you might have read in this post

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...=1#post1164459,

I don't find technical differences between the Nikon and others "very minor." My sample is consistent with the one Kerry and Christopher tested, namely its edge performance is substantially worse than in the center or middle of a 4x5 frame, even without movements. Between the Rodenstock N and S versions, at infinity my N sample is sharper. The S series is computed for 1:10, while the N was designed for 1:20. It shows in my negatives. Since my work is mostly at infinity, I prefer the N. If a substantial portion of my shooting were of closeups, I'd go for the S.

...I ended up selling the Nikon and keeping the Sironar-N simply because of the filter size...

Filter size of the N is, for me, its biggest drawback. While I appreciate that accepting 40.5mm filters means its front cell is small enough to close inside my Horseman FA, there are two problems. First, the front element is particularly bulbous. Any filter other than Heliopan collides with it when screwed all the way in. Second, after having special-ordered the Heliopan filter and attaching it, I discovered that vignetting choked off the image circle substantially, greatly restricting movements, especially in vertical image orientation.

My ultimate solution, delivered only three days ago, was an S.K. Grimes slip-on wide angle adapter that accepts 52mm filters. Although one can't close an FA with it attached, at least the full 200mm image circle remains available for use.

[koh303]

I am coming back to this thread after having some hard use experience. I ended up swapping out the nikon for the rodenstock but only had a chance to give it the beans fairly recently. While the rodenstock is marginally sharper at more of the range then the nikon, it definitely has a smaller image circle then the nikon. I know now that i should have gone with the Apo Sironar S 135mm when i had the chance (actually, i had 2 dam it). Well, if an S comes along again, i think that would be the answer for what i am looking for:
135mm, sharp, compact and with a larger image circle. Even though the Apo S might be slightly larger then the N...

[Old-N-Feeble]

If image circle is of prime concern and you really are interested in buying another optic then you might consider the 135 WF Ektar or the original 135 Fujinon-W (writing on front). These have image circles of 235-236mm. Neither are quite as sharp as a Sironar-S but pristine sharpness may not make as much difference, in practice, as the greater image circle does.

[Rod Klukas]

But the color contrast of the Apo-Chromatic design makes a difference, especially if you try working close to 1:1. There is less error as the red wave length error is calculated from the extension. You are correct at distance the N may be a bit better than the S, though there are also other factors involved. But the correction of the S is so good that it performs quite well up to 60mp on digital stopped to the 16-22 range.

[Helcio J Tagliolatto]

I own both of those lenses as well as a 135mm Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S. Here's my take.

First, as you might have read in this post

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...=1#post1164459,

I don't find technical differences between the Nikon and others "very minor." My sample is consistent with the one Kerry and Christopher tested, namely its edge performance is substantially worse than in the center or middle of a 4x5 frame, even without movements. Between the Rodenstock N and S versions, at infinity my N sample is sharper. The S series is computed for 1:10, while the N was designed for 1:20. It shows in my negatives. Since my work is mostly at infinity, I prefer the N. If a substantial portion of my shooting were of closeups, I'd go for the S.

On this forum, the search for information never disappoints.

Thanks, Sal, for helping me not to waste money on a purchase today.