135mm f5.6 - Symmar-S MC or Apo-Sironar S for portraits?

[Jamie123]

I currently own a Schneider Symmar-S MC 135mm lens that I've had for ages and it's the lens I use most on my 4x5. Even though it was very cheap, it's served me well and I have never had any issues with it other than occasionally running out of image circle. I have the chance to get a Rodenstock Apo-Sironar S 135mm for around $600 which seems like a good price and, given that 135mm is my most used focal length, it seems that this would be a good investment. However, I'm wondering, could this lens be too sharp/harsh for portraits? If so, I would probably forgo it and stick with the Symmar-S.

[otto.f]

You can see that on flickr if you search for this lens. I don’t know what this would tell you exactly because scanning is an important intermediate step before it comes with on our screens

[Bob Salomon]

If you are doing head and shoulder or ¾ portraits it is too short and you will create a lot of foreshortening.
If you are doing environmental portraits or street portraits it should be fine.

[Jamie123]

Thanks, but I do know what the 135 focal length will give me as far as the perspective is concerned. I use it mainly for environmental portraits when I photograph people. What I'm not sure about is the rendering of the Apo-Sironar S and whether it might be a bit too harsh for portraits. What are your experiences?

[BrianShaw]

Like Bob said... to do closer portraits good you really need a longer focal length lens. If you like the results you are getting with the 135, get same/similar 210. They are quite affordable. If they are too sharp, there are soft focus filter options, etc or you could seek out other lens designs that “aren’t as sharp”. Don’t bother with another 135, especially if it purports to be “sharper” than what you already have.

[Jamie123]

Sorry, I might have been a bit unclear. I do have a 210mm lens, too, which I use for portraits a lot. I don't primarily use the 135mm for portraits. I use it mostly for landscape, still life, interior stuff but occasionally also for environmental portraits. It's very much an all-purpose focal length in my kit (90,135,210) but portraits are a large part of what I do so it's important that my 135mm be suited for it. I would not want to keep two 135mm lenses so if I get the Apo-Sironar S the Symmar-S has to go. So I'm wondering, is it worth it? I'm not overly obsessed with sharpness and I've never had any gripes with any of my lenses on 4x5. However, I do scan my work on a Flextight X1 and also print it in the darkroom (mostly color) so I'm getting quite a lot out of my negatives which is why I'm considering this "upgrade"

[BrianShaw]

Good clarification...

No, it’s not worth it. . I have same range of lenses and found a 300 or so more worth getting.

[Tobias Key]

Unfortunately it's the sort of question you can only answer by testing the lenses side to side - a luxury that almost no one does anymore. By reputation I would have thought these lenses are very close in quality, so you may be paying mainly for improved image circle. I guess it wouldn't cost too much to buy the new lens, test it against what you have and keep the winner, it might only cost you the film and developing. Other than that you are asking for opinions from other photographers who may have different priorities to yours.

[Mark Sampson]

Remember that both of these choices were top-of-the-line lenses, made by leading optical companies for a demanding professional market. You'd be hard-pressed to see any difference between the Schneider and Rodenstock 135s unless you are an extremely critical worker, and searching to find any such differences. If you really want to know, buy the Rodenstock and do a careful A/B comparison against the Schneider. Then see if anyone else can notice a difference... then sell the one you don't like as much. Really, it's the only way to know.
Myself, I'd keep the Schneider and get a 300/9 Nikkor-M for portraits. Or any smaller 300... I find the perspective the 300 gives very pleasing. Best of luck in your search!

[BrianShaw]

The300 I’m loving for portraits... 12 inch Kodak Commercial Ekar. But it’s in aHUGEshutter that might be an issue for a lighter camera.