Difference between a Rodenstock 135mm and Rodenstock APO 135mm?

[mandonbossi]

Hello,
I am jumping back into the world of Large Format and have just purchased a Horseman FA. I am looking to purchase a Rodenstock 135mm Sironar - N as I have heard that this can be folded into the camera itself (and it happens to be my most used focal length).

I see a few different ones floating around on Ebay, specifically a couple listed as "APO" that seem to be asking a higher price as compared to the standard Rodenstock 135mm Sironar - N

Is there anybody there that can please tell me the difference between the two and whether it is worth the price difference?

Thanks so much in advance!

[mdarnton]

This will be interesting. My understanding of it is that the earlier lens was already essentially an Apo lens, and when Schneider brought out their Apo-Symmar, Rodenstock was just forced to play catch-up and added Apo to the name, without changing the lens. There is, however, the additional consideration that the "Apo" version will inevitably be newer, and therefore everything will likely be in better state of preservation. There's also the added issue that at one point Rodenstock was having trouble with lenses coming eventually de-cemented internally, and I THINK some of the earlier Sironar-Ns fall within this period, where the Apo version doesn't.

If I'm wrong about these things, someone will correct me, I'm sure.

[Bob Salomon]

This will be interesting. My understanding of it is that the earlier lens was already essentially an Apo lens, and when Schneider brought out their Apo-Symmar, Rodenstock was just forced to play catch-up and added Apo to the name, without changing the lens. There is, however, the additional consideration that the "Apo" version will inevitably be newer, and therefore everything will likely be in better state of preservation. There's also the added issue that at one point Rodenstock was having trouble with lenses coming eventually de-cemented internally, and I THINK some of the earlier Sironar-Ns fall within this period, where the Apo version doesn't.

If I'm wrong about these things, someone will correct me, I'm sure.

You started out ok till you got into myth.

[Steve Goldstein]

Bob, it would be useful for everybody if you could indicate what you believe the myth starting point in Michael's post occurs.

[Oren Grad]

There's also the added issue that at one point Rodenstock was having trouble with lenses coming eventually de-cemented internally, and I THINK some of the earlier Sironar-Ns fall within this period, where the Apo version doesn't.

No. The problem was with plain Sironars, the prior generation from the Sironar-N's. Different optical designs, evidently different manufacturing approach too.

[Oren Grad]

Is there anybody there that can please tell me the difference between the two and whether it is worth the price difference?

You can safely consider them interchangeable. Also, the Caltar II-N is the same lens under the Calumet badge, and Sinaron-S is the same lens under the Sinar label. The Caltar-badged versions are often the least expensive.

You may encounter early Sironar-N's without the "MC" designation for multicoating. I wouldn't lose sleep over it, but if you care, just watch for the MC.

[mdarnton]

No. The problem was with plain Sironars, the prior generation from the Sironar-N's. Different optical designs, evidently different manufacturing approach too.

Thanks for the correction.

[Luis-F-S]

You started out ok till you got into myth.

Age, marketing and cost. The Apo is newer and probably more expensive. I doubt you'd see any difference in the results. L

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, it would be useful for everybody if you could indicate what you believe the myth starting point in Michael's post occurs.

It would be even better if he first did a search as I have answered this numerous times on this forum over the decades.

[Kevin Crisp]

So do a search for Rodenstock and myths?