Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Schneider Symmar 150 vs. Rodenstock Sironar-S 135 for B/W Landscapes

  1. #1

    Schneider Symmar 150 vs. Rodenstock Sironar-S 135 for B/W Landscapes

    I am currently shooting with a Schneider Symmar 150mm f5.6 convertible lense and I am considering purchasing a Rodenstock Sironar-S 135mm. I shoot black & whit e landscapes and would like to get opinions on the type of image quality differe nce between these two lenses. The first question is, all things considered equa l, will their be a quite noticeable difference in image sharpness / contrast / q uality between the two lenses? I shoot most of my shots in low light at the end of the day with my camera very seldom aimed at the sun. The second question is, would the change in lense be worth the expense for the quality improvement?

  2. #2

    Schneider Symmar 150 vs. Rodenstock Sironar-S 135 for B/W Landscapes

    Roger: What kind of quality are you getting now? I have found the Schneider convertable to be good lenses when used at their prime focal length. I don't see where you would get a noticable improvement, but there will probably be someone who will take exception. Shooting in low light, which is softer, you will not get the contrast and apparent sharpness you will get in bright sun. However, for scenics, the slightly wider angle of the 135 may be of benefit. It depends upon what type of scenic you are shooting. I would keep the convertable, as it can make acceptable negatives at its converted length in a pinch, especially when filtered. Both the Schneider and Rodenstock are good lenses and both are the plasmat formula.

    Regards,

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    86

    Schneider Symmar 150 vs. Rodenstock Sironar-S 135 for B/W Landscapes

    The Rodenstock Apo-Sironar S f/5.6 and Schneider Apo-Symmar 135 mm and 150 mm lenses are reputedly among the sharpest lenses available for landscape photography. You can look at published data provided by the lens manufacturers to verify this. Possibly a local dealer has someone on its staff who knows how to interpret and explain this data. I would guess that the 150 mm focal length lens may be more popular than the 135 mm lens. They are about equal in price. The 150 mm lens is equivalent to a 50 mm lens in the 35 mm format, while the 135 mm lens is equivalent to about a 45 mm lens in the smaller format. The Rodenstock 135 Apo-Sironar lens has more coverage than the Schneider 135 mm lens Apo-Symmar and allows about an additional 1 cm rise. I do not know how their coverage compares to that of their predecessors, the non-Apo series. The non-Apo Rodenstock and Schneider lenses mentioned by you are still available and usually sold and resold at lesser prices (several hundreds of dollars less). Check out images taken by Craig Wells at TranquilityImages.com taken with a 135 mm lens. The 135 mm lens serves as a mild wide angle and sells in the USA for about $1200-1400 less and is more compact than the 110 XL wide angle HM-lens made by Schneider. Rodenstock's Apo-Sironar S 135 mm lens takes a 49 mm filter and weighs only 240 grams (about a 1/2 lb). Virtually all field cameras can use the 135 mm lens without changing from a normal to a wide angle bellows. Some cameras require a wide angle bellows for a 110-115 focal length lens. I do not know about the filter size for the Schneider 135 mm lens but I suspect it takes a 49 mm filter. Nikon's 135 lens takes a 52 mm filter. If you use step rings, it may not matter to you what size is the filter. I suspect that you would might see a difference in sharpness/contrast/ quality, because the 135 mm lens allows greater depth of field compared to the 150 mm lens and there are mathematical formulas for calculating lens resolution which seem to favor the 135 mm over the 150 mm lens, all other things being equal. However, I have not compared the 150 with the 135 mm lenses, and my opinion is really speculation. For 6 x 7 cm format, the 150 mm lens might better serve as a head and shoulder portrait lens, when your objectve is to have the background out of focus. I suggest that you contact a Rodenstock or Schneider product representative and see if

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Loganville , GA
    Posts
    14,408

    Schneider Symmar 150 vs. Rodenstock Sironar-S 135 for B/W Landscapes

    Doug,

    " I have found the Schneider convertable to be good lenses when used at their prime focal length. I don't see where you would get a noticable improvement"

    This is easy to say. But have YOU actually gone out to see if you can improve?

    Or is it your feeling that you would not see a difference?

    There is a big difference.

  5. #5

    Schneider Symmar 150 vs. Rodenstock Sironar-S 135 for B/W Landscapes

    Hi Roger,

    based on years of fooling around comparing lenses, I'd assert the only practical "$-on-the-counter" LPM or colour difference you'll see between good examples of these lenses, is under Lab style repeatability testing, not so much with mellow lit landscapes. Personally, I prefer Rodenstock lenses. And I prefer 135mm as a GP landscape length, there's an immediate difference in the look between 135mm and 150mm, a lot more than the 10% difference would seem to imply. The perspective change by itself maybe worth the money to you.

    Borrow the one you don't have and do your own comparsion, but a word of Warning, Lens testing can be addictive ...

    Kind regards.

  6. #6

    Schneider Symmar 150 vs. Rodenstock Sironar-S 135 for B/W Landscapes

    The 135mm Apo-Sironar S was my first 4X5 lens. It takes 49mm filters, and is very compact and light. Every photo I've shot with it exhibits high contrast and sharpness, even under adverse conditions.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    193

    Re: Schneider Symmar 150 vs. Rodenstock Sironar-S 135 for B/W Landscapes

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Salomon - HP Marketing View Post
    Doug,

    " I have found the Schneider convertable to be good lenses when used at their prime focal length. I don't see where you would get a noticable improvement"

    This is easy to say. But have YOU actually gone out to see if you can improve?

    Or is it your feeling that you would not see a difference?

    There is a big difference.
    Bob,

    For monochrome use I would disagree. in my admittedly subjective experience (which is all that matters..when we are talking about looking at prints not MTFs!) My Schneider 135 convertible used at 135mm (I never used it separated) was pretty well indistinguishable from any of my modern offerings printed to say 16x12 or 20x16. It held up well against:

    Nikkor 90 f8 SW MC
    150 5.6 Xenar (late model - SC but very simple design and very contrasty, albeit with limited coverage.)
    210 Rodenstock Sironar N MC

    I used the convertible in varying light, from very very bright back-lit lake scenes to overcast forests. It might have lost a tiny weeny bit of contrast compared to my MC lenses, but nothing that 1/2 a grade in the darkroom would not take care of. Resolution was very good indeed and I could see no practical differences from lens to lens looking at final prints. I would also go on to say that my 203 7.7 Ektar was astoundingly sharp and at f16-22 was every bit as good as the Sironar N. It may have been slower but opticlly was brilliant and half the weight.

    I suspect for colour use the older symmar convertable would struggle and the colour balance would be 'off'. For mono, if his sample is as good as mine, it is more than up to the task unles enlarging the 5x4 negs to 50" when maybe there would be a difference.

    Maybe the latest sironar S lenses and APO Ls do offer a touch over and above the Sironar Ns and APO Symmars. Personally, I found my older lenses matched the new offerings in resolution at the sizes I printed. I mainly shoot at landscape apertures and it may be that at the wider end the newer lenses are much better as diffraction is less of a limiting factor.

    I am a firm believer in looking at prints. When I tried out a super cheap ebay purchase in the form of a 300 f9 Geronar, I found that at f22 (I know it gets soft wider open) and shot on 10x8 I got fabulous sharpness on a 40" print (sectioned to 10x8) and over 1.5 inches of useable rise at f32. The print looked as good as a 20x16 shot on 5x4 using the modern Sironar N plasmat. At f11 I am sure it would have been very different.

  8. #8
    All metric sizes to 24x30 Ole Tjugen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,383

    Re: Schneider Symmar 150 vs. Rodenstock Sironar-S 135 for B/W Landscapes

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Salomon - HP Marketing View Post
    Doug,

    " I have found the Schneider convertable to be good lenses when used at their prime focal length. I don't see where you would get a noticable improvement"

    This is easy to say. But have YOU actually gone out to see if you can improve?

    Or is it your feeling that you would not see a difference?

    There is a big difference.
    The only times I can tell from a colour slide which lens I've used is if it's (A) uncoated, or (B) my yellowish Apo-Lanthar.

    I see no difference in colour balance between single-coated and multicoated LF lenses. The sample-to-sample variation is much larger (within each group) than between SC and MC in general. In a direct comparison between a Fujinon 180W and a Symmar 180 convertible, the only significant difference was the price.

    But by all means carry on recommending only the newest multi-coated lenses. That makes the late single-coated lenses much cheaper for those of us who no longer believe in the ultimate lens.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Posts
    3,803

    Re: Schneider Symmar 150 vs. Rodenstock Sironar-S 135 for B/W Landscapes

    It doesn't seem fair to expect a response from Bob in less than the 6 1/2 years that passed between his post and turtle's & Ole's quoting it. Fair expectation or not, I suspect Bob will follow up much quicker than that!

    Please don't misinterpret; I'm thrilled to see someone actually searching the archive and revitalizing old threads rather than starting new, duplicative ones.

  10. #10
    All metric sizes to 24x30 Ole Tjugen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,383

    Re: Schneider Symmar 150 vs. Rodenstock Sironar-S 135 for B/W Landscapes

    To tell the truth, I didn't notice how old the thread was.

    But since it was already "reactivated", its as good a place as any to write about my findings!

    I've been busy today developing about 50 B&W sheets shot in Italy this spring. All APX100, all with a Speed Graphic, but using lenses spanning most of a century - up to about 1955. To be honest I can't tell from the contrast which shots were done with the one single-coated lens I used - a Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 150mm f:4.5. One of the other lenses I used was a Carl Zeiss 150mm f:6.3 Doppel-Amatar, and i wish I had made notes so I could find out what was shot with which lens!

Similar Threads

  1. 300mm Rodenstock Sironar-S vs. Sironar-N
    By Ralph in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 8-Sep-2009, 11:24
  2. Rodenstock Sironar S 210 vs.Schneider Apo-Symmar 210
    By nick rowan in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 7-Feb-2001, 10:57
  3. Rodenstock Sironar: S vs. N
    By nick rowan in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 6-Jun-2000, 17:12
  4. Schneider Xenar vs. Rodenstock Sironar S lenses
    By Howard Slavitt in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 17-Nov-1998, 22:11
  5. Schneider APO-Symmar 210mm f/5.6 vs Rodenstock-N or S 210mm f/5.6
    By John Rodenberg in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 14-Apr-1998, 13:35

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •