Is there a a difference between Bronica SQ 250 F5.6 S and PS lenses?

[ruicardoso]

Hello all,

 

Could anyone tell me if there are any differences between Bronica SQ

250 F5.6 S and PS lenses in terms of image quality?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

-Rui Cardoso

[Uncle Goose]

PS lenses are newer and better coated. For the rest they are more or less the same.

[david_henderson]

A similar question was asked four days ago,and its still on the list of recent questions for the Medium Format forum. Here's my contribution

 

The PS lenses have intermediate click stops between the apertures on the ring. S lenses don't. You can however set the S lenses to any intermediate point you want, as the diaphragm moves continuously with the ring.

 

I have 50S and a range of other PS lenses. I don't see any difference between them. I've photographed the same scene with different lenses and the colours/sharpness/detail seem to me to be the same. You certainly wouldn't look at the images made with the 50S and say they were different from the rest of the family.

 

The Hove Guide (and I assume Bronica) says that the PS lenses use MTF testing to optimise each element. I haven't personally observed any benefit from this. Informally "official sources" have indicated that I'd find the difference between the two ranges more noticeable on the longer lenses. I can't comment on that because I don't know the 150S and 250S lenses.

 

Finally "new" here is relative. The PS lenses first appeared in 1985 so some will be 20 years old, others much newer. All the S lenses will be more than 20 years old. Provenace and condition are much more important than model type here.

[ruicardoso]

Sorry, I wasn't very specific in my question. I also have other PS and S lenses and know the basic technical differences between them. I wanted to know specifically about image quality differences between the 250 F5.6 S and PS Lenses because I have a good oportunity for buying an S version and I'm trying to decide if I should go for it or look for a PS lens.

 

For instance, I've read reports saying that the 150mm F4 PS has a visible advantage over the 150mm F3.5 S; I also know from personal experience that there is no big difference between the 50mm F3.5 S and PS, I Just wanted to know wich would be the case for the 250mm F6.6 lenses.

 

Best Regards,

 

-Rui Cardoso

[robert_grasing]

Rui, you may already know this. I checked an old Bronica brochure: the 250/5.6 S is listed as 5 elements in 5 groups, and weighs 870g. The PS 250/5.6 has 7 elements in 5 groups, weighs 1010g. Obviously, the newer lens is not just the old version with better multicoating (which seems to be the case with the 50/3.5).

 

The older S telephotos are popular for portraits: they're not cracking sharp and have a very beautiful out-of-focus image. The PS teles were apparently intended for things like product illustration and are much sharper. At least, that is what I've heard here in Tokyo. I can tell you my 150/3.5 S is much softer than my 110/4 PS. And it does indeed have very nice 'boke-aji'.

[ruicardoso]

Thanks Robert, that was preciselly what I wanted to know! Do you know of any place on the web where we can find the specifications for S lenses?

 

Best Regards,

 

-Rui

[robert_grasing]

Rui, I don't know of a site which has the S lenses' specifications, though there must be one somewhere. I do have the old SQ brochures, which have the basics. What do you need?

[ruicardoso]

Robert,

 

For now I was more interested on the 250 F5.6 models, and the information you gave me was just great. (I expect to do more landscape than portraits with this focal length, so I guess I'll try to get a PS version).

 

Other than this I'm also curious about differences between the 80 S and PS. My 80 PS, that came with the kit just broke and I'm wondering if I should go specifically for another PS or if I'll be ok with with an S version (I'm ok with the handling differences between the two series of lenses, my only concern is image quality).

 

Best Regards,

 

-Rui

[robert_grasing]

Rui, if I were doing landscape photography I would also select the PS 250 over the S version, based on my own experience with the 150 S and the 110 PS, and what I've heard from photographers here in Japan. However, I have to add that I have no experience of my own with the 250, either S or PS.

 

I've got both the S and the PS 80/2.8. The PS seems to have more 'snap' than the S, especially at wider apertures, but at f/11 or f/16, they are essentially the same. The PS also has somewhat richer color than the S. According to Color Foto magazine tests from the 90s (which seem to be fairly comprehensive), the PS rates very close to Schneider and Zeiss 80mm lenses.

 

However, in practice, I just don`t see a significant difference between them. I suppose if you optimized everything, ie, used a tripod, slow fine-grained film, etc, and made large prints, the PS would show an advantage. Especially at f/2.8 or f/4. But absolute performance is not as important for MF as it can be for 35mm. So I'm tempted to say the S version is plenty good enough. On the other hand, the 80PS is one of the best Bronica lenses, and prices are very low now, so why not get one?