Advice re 180mm lens requested

[rick_russell2]

I need advice regarding the purchase of a 180mm lens. I intend to

use the lens primarily for landscape work, and shoot both color and

black and white. I own a Schneider XL 110mm, and intend to

ultimately purchase a wide angle (72, 75 or 80mm) as well as a Nikon

300mm.

 

My dilemna is as follows: The relative merits of modern lenses in

the 180mm length is not addressed often. I have located a demo

180mm Caltar II for a little over $400, which apparently has not been

used. I have also located 2 mint Apo-Symmar 180mm which can each be

purchased for just under $700. Another retailer has an Apo-Sironar S

180mm for about $750. Finally, I can simply purchase a new Apo-

Symmar L or Apo-Sironar S, for just under $1000 and $1050,

respectively.

 

I intend to use the 180mm as my normal lens, along with the SS XL

110mm. Because I shoot color, I prefer lenses of similar color

temperature, which is why I am not considering a Nikon or Fuji. Lens

sharpness is of paramount concern.

[bob fowler]

First, light sources have color temperature, NOT lenses. Certain lens coatings can have an effect on the color rendition of a lens, but even that is very slight. I would be more concerned about variations between emulsion batches more than between lenses.

 

As for 180mm lenses, all of the makers have good examples. You'll pay more for greater coverage and speed. Mine is a Sironar and I'm very happy with it. I wouldn't overlook Nikon or Fuji, they are fine lenses.

[streetlevel]

I can't speak specifically to the 180mm, but my 135 Caltar II is one of the sharpest landscape lenses I've seen.

[eric_leppanen]

180mm lenses (as part of a 110-180-300 combo) were recently discussed as part of this thread on "that other LF forum" here:

 

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/500384.html#533929

 

I am a little confused as to ruling out Nikon and Fuji since you plan on purchasing a Nikon 300M. Skipping over that point, your main choices are the APO Symmar and APO Symmar-L, and the APO Sironar-S. With the exception of the "L", both of these lenses are frequently available on the used market (Midwest Photo currently lists a 9+ APO Symmar for $689), and I presume either of these lenses have more coverage than the Caltar II (although I can't find the Caltar specs right now). Since you are going for maximum quality, I would suggest the Sironar-S, since it and the "L" are of the latest designs, and the Sironar weighs a smidge less than the "L".

 

Please note that by ruling out Fuji you are missing out on the 180mm Fuji-A, which is less than half the weight of these other lenses (170g versus 385-410g, Copol 0 versus Copol 1). The Fuji is an f/9 lens, so the ground glass would be a bit darker when focusing (although not tremendously so).

[michael_briggs2]

<p>Rick, you are planning on the focal length sequence very close to what I use: 72 / 110 / 180 / 270 / 450. I find this spacing to work well.</p>

 

<p>All of the lenses you mention are very fine ones. If the Caltar is a Caltar II-N, then it is really a Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-N. The main difference between these various models is some have a bit more coverage. I sometimes use strong movements such as front rise so I picked an Apo-Sironar-S for the extra coverage. Many photographs don't use movements to quite that extent and will find the coverage of the Apo-Symmar or Apo-Sironar-N to fully meet their needs.

All of the 180 mm lenses already have a significantly larger diameter of coverage than lenses of the same type in the popular 150 mm focal length.</p>

 

<p>So I think the decision comes down to your preferences for coverage, used vs new and cost. There might be some slight weight differences and perhaps differences in the filter size. I would, given the price differences, and assuming that the seller will accept a return if you are dissatisfed with the lens, go for one of the used lenses.</p>

 

<p>I think the issue of differing color transmissions of lenses is overblown except perhaps for some pros doing studio work. For landscape photographers, the natural variations in light will be larger than the differences in the light transmissions of modern lenses. You might want to look at a long thread on the subject: <i>Differences in color between major lens manufacturers</i> at <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0047n6">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0047n6</a>.

But you already have more than enough choices....</p>

[michael_briggs2]

<p>The Apo-Symmar and Apo-Sironar-N lenses mostly have 72 degrees of coverage, while the Apo-Symmar-L and Apo-Sironar-S lenses mostly have 75 degrees of coverage. (The longest focal lengths have less, either to keep the weight down or because of the size of the aperture of the largest currently available shutter, the Copal 3.) </p>

 

<p>One reason that Schneider introduced the Apo-Symmar-L to use glasses that are better for the environment. Probably another was that they felt that they had to match the specs of the Apo-Sironar-S, which had been on the market for some years already.</p>

 

<p>Rick, with the prices you have found, you can see that a small increase in performance is coming with a rather large increase in price. This isn't unusual, e.g., cars, fighter planes, computers, ...

So the decision is whether the extra 3 degrees, which for the 180 mm focal length takes one from 262 to 276 mm is worth the marginal cost.

Different photographers will make different decisions: money available, use of large movements, desire to have the "best", ....</p>

 

<p>For 180 mm and 4x5 film, the change from 72 degrees to 75 degrees probably isn't that useful. Looking at my notes, the largest front rise that I have used with my 180 mm lens is 53 mm, so I have never passed the capabilities of a 72 degree lens.</p>

 

<p>In shorter focal lengths, or for other formats, the increase between 72 and 75 degrees could be very useful.</p>

 

<p>On the other hand, the market seems to be saying 75 degrees. Schneider replaced the Apo-Symmar line with the Apo-Symmar-L line. For many years Rodenstock made both the Apo-Sironar-N and Apo-Sironar-S lines, but now their Apo-Sironar-N line seems to have shrunk to only two focal lengths, 150 and 210 mm (see <a href="http://www.linos.de/en/prod/apo-sironar-n.html">http://www.linos.de/en/prod/apo-sironar-n.html</a>.)

No doubt declining sales made it too costly to keep making two lines.</p>

[mark_muse]

There is a 9+ rated 180 mm Fujinon A for $400 at Midwest now. I have one and I can't

imagine someone not being completely happy with it's performance for landscapes. It is a

fraction of the weight of the plasmat designs of this focal length and sharp as can be. Also

I see no color balance difference between my Fujinon A's and my Sironar S.

[michael_briggs2]

From the cross-section diagram in Fuji brochures, the Fuji-A lenses are plasmat type designs. The decision here is weight & size versus maximum aperture for focusing and composing. The Fuji-A are small and light for their focal lengths, but only have an f9 aperture. The lenses that Rick listed are larger but have f5.6 maximum apertures. Which is better depends on the preferences of each photographer.

[d_g]

First i bought a 180 apo symmar in order to have a larger image circle than a regular 150,

then i bought a 110 xl, follow by a 72 xl, i thought it was the perfect combo for me, then i

realise that the gap betwen 110 and 180 was to big for me, so i've sold the 180 (very nice

lens indeed) and bought an apo sironar S 150. So try a 180 and 150 before !

Otherwise, in 180 i will go for the cheaper apo "something" you can find in second hand

mint cond., while for a 150 i will go for a apo sironar S or apo symmar L for their larger

image circle !