Difference between Sironar n and Sironar s

[spgreene]

Anyone explain the difference between a Sironar N and a Sironar S lens?
Thanks.

[Gene McCluney]

Sironars were available in "S" "N" and "W" designations, according to a popular Rodenstock ad found in Photo Techniques in the 1990's. This seems to refer to their coverage. The "N" being the models with the narrowest coverage circle (least amount of movements possible), while the "S" had a larger image circle, and the "W" has the widest circle of coverage.

[Brian K]

The S lenses just don't have greater coverage thay are also optimized for 10:1 instead of the usual 20:1 and they also have ED type glass in them. I own both S and N types and find that the S type is a little contrastier and better for close work. The S type is usually larger and heavier as well. If you are doing landscape type work you might be better off with the N type as I doubt if the optical differences will be visable unless you make huge prints.

[Ron Bose]

Bottom line is, if you can afford the 'S' version get it. These lenses are sweet.

I have a 210 Sironar-S and its a wonderful performer. I use it for 4x5 and 8x10.

The Sironar-N can only be used upto 5x7 with few movements.

This lens and the 110 SS XL are my two favorite lenses.

[Joseph O'Neil]

I own an "N" version of the 135mm. Simply a wonderful lens. My main concern is that while yes, the S is a better lens, the N version is no slouch at all.

Also, for backpacking, the smaller N versions are very nice.
joe

[Bob Salomon]

I own an "N" version of the 135mm. Simply a wonderful lens. My main concern is that while yes, the S is a better lens, the N version is no slouch at all.

Also, for backpacking, the smaller N versions are very nice.
joe

Jie, Let's be specific:

The 135mm N uses 40.5mm filters (not the most common size), is 43.5mm long in Copal 0 and is 42mm in diameter in front (smaller then the 0 shutter diameter) and weighs 210 grams in Copal 0.

The 135mm S uses 49mm filters, is 47.5mm long in Copal 0 and is 51mm in diameter in the front. Also smaller in diameter of the Copal 0 shutter. It weighs 240 grams in Copal 0. That is a difference of 30 grams (1.05 oz) in weight and 4mm (0.15") in length and 9mm (0.35") in diameter.

All in all that isn't very much smaller then the S which easily outperforms the N.

Size in this case isn't really the issue.

[Colin Graham]

I have a 150 sironar s....A great lens surely but it doesn't really stand out among my other lenses. Although, I shoot black and white and the differences may shine through more in color work.

[spgreene]

Many many thanks...to all

[David Karp]

For those of you nuts (like me) who are interested in 6.5" x 8.5" Whole Plate cameras, the 210 f/5.6 APO Sironar N and Caltar II-N nicely covers this format, with room for movement (I have not measured how much). It's a very nice wide focal length for that format. So - For you normal folks, that leaves plenty of room for movement with 5x7.

[Joe_6286]

Bottom line is, if you can afford the 'S' version get it. These lenses are sweet.

I have a 210 Sironar-S and its a wonderful performer. I use it for 4x5 and 8x10.

The Sironar-N can only be used upto 5x7 with few movements.

This lens and the 110 SS XL are my two favorite lenses.

Ron - when you use the 210 Apo Sironar S on 8x10, are you shooting distant landscapes or something closer, and what aperture do you usually use? Do you find that you have any room for movements such as rise/fall, or tilt?

Thanks, Joe