Sironar-S vs Sironar-N

[jasonjoo]

Hey folks,

While I patiently wait for my first LF camera (a Chamonix 45N-1!), I've slowly been gathering a few things to get me started. So far I picked up a few film holders and a Super Angulon 90mm f/8 lens. I've also been looking for a Sironar-S 150mm lens, but after a few other purchases, my budget seems to be shrinking.

So my question is, other than the image circle coverage difference, is there anything else that is different between a Sironar-S and Sironar-N lens? I'm also unsure how much coverage I will actually need from a lens, seeing as I have never used a LF camera before. I'm sure that I will use camera movements, but by how much, I have no idea! Also, I feel that 90mm maybe a bit too wide for portraits (I mainly shoot landscapes and portraits). A 150mm lens is not much longer, but I think it will serve well as a double-duty lens and I've heard that the 150mm Sironar-S is one of the top lenses out there in that focal length.

Has anyone used both lenses and could you please share the most notable differences?

Thanks,

Jason

[jasonjoo]

Just saw this site:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

These are all just numbers to me and I do not know how they translate in "real-life" shooting, but it seems like the Sironar-S is just sharp all across the board and the Sironar-N seems to suffer in the corners/edges.

I may or may not have answered my own question, but I would love to hear some of your own insights!

Thanks,

Jason

[Oren Grad]

I have several focal lengths in both the S and N series, and for some focal lengths I have both S and N.

The S series, in addition to the extra coverage, tends to be just a bit more refined all around. BUT, the N's are fine lenses too, the 150 N has ample coverage for 4x5, and the 150 N will be *much* cheaper than the 150 S. Note that you can find the N under the Apo-Sironar-N, Sironar-N and Caltar II-N labels, with the older Sironar-N and the Caltar II-N typically being a bit cheaper still. (Actually, under the Sinaron S label as well, but that will usually be *more* expensive.)

For getting started, and especially if you're on a tight budget, the 150 N should be just fine. Spend the extra money on film, developing and printing, go take lots of pictures, and learn a lot - that will do much more for the quality of your work at this stage. Eventually, you'll know enough to figure out for yourself whether you need to trade up. Even then you may find that it's not necessary.

[Eric Leppanen]

http://photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/00Pw5F

[Matus Kalisky]

Or just get the multicoated (lens data from the outer side of the lens barrel) version of the Fujinon W 150/5.6 and save even more bucks. If you decide to go for the Apo Sironar N - have a look at the Caltar II-N lenses - these are the same Rodenstock lenses sold under Caltar brand name.

For portraits I would go for 210 - 300 mm lenses with 4x5 - but it depends what kind of potratis you have in mind.

Getting cheaper lenses (but of course clean and in working shutter) and saving money for the film and all other stuff makes sense. Do not forget about a good tripod and a head.

good luck

[Lachlan 717]

As a cheaper option, perhaps look at either a Fujinon NSW 150mm f5.6 or even a Fujinon A 180mm? Even the Nikkor M-Series 200mm could be of interest?

Also, search for threads on best focal length for portraits. You'll get an idea on what is best for tight head shots, waist-up and full length portraits. Keep in mind the distance that you'll be able to shoot from in any given location...

Lachlan.

[jasonjoo]

Thanks guys.

The link from photo.net was especially helpful. While I'd rather get it right the first time, meaning the Sironar-S, it seems like it won't fit in my budget just yet. I'll settle with the Sironar-N or another derivative.

Jason

[Blueberrydesk]

Jason, I hope that Chamonix shows up for you soon! I had the Sironar 150-N which I sold with my Osaka. I loved that lens. Razor sharp, plenty of IC for movements (at least for the Osaka field camera) and nice and lightweight, in a reliable Copal-0 shutter. I would say that you'd be more than happy with the -N and as has been stated earlier, spend the extra money of film.

[Joseph O'Neil]

I think the sironar-N line has gotten a bad, undeserved rap on the internet. Perception, more than real world use, IMO, has driven people away from them.

For what it is worth, I use a 135mm Sironar N and a 180mm plain old Sironar, no N or S. I love them both, and both are great lenses.

Let me put it to you this way - I used to own one of those "legendary" lenses - the Kodak 135mm Wide Field Ektar. Wonderful lens, insane coverage, but i gave it up for a brand new 135mm Sironar N.

Why? although the image circle was smaller on the Sirnoar N, the lens was considerably sharper. Also, what you can sell a 135mm WF Ektar for used and at that time buy a 135mm N for new, didn't cost me a lot to "upgrade" to the new lens.

So my personal advice is feel very, very , very comfortable with the Sironar N line. The image circle is almost always smaller than the "S" counterpart, but they are IMO, still superb lenses.

joe

[IanG]

Have to agree Joe, the Sironar N's are superb lenses, for 5x4 I doubt you'd be able to see a difference in image quality between an S & an N. Probably on 5x7 the extra coverage of the S would come into it's own.

I have Sironar N's S's and unmarked older versions and they are all great lenses.

Ian