150 Super Symmar XL vs APO-Sironar-S 150mm/5.6

[tony_black1]

I m going to buy my FIRST LF 4x5 lens.

 

Which one do you think is SHARPER ?

[brucecahn]

The Apo Sironar S will look sharper. But it may not be sharper. The XL lenses are very sharp but lower in contrast than the S lenses. They are better for landscapes or other work which is high contrast. The XL lenses are used primarily for wide angle. But I prefer my 210 XL as a normal lens for 5x7 to the 210 S lens. Hope that is of some help.

[michael_briggs2]

The 150 mm Apo-Sironar-S is much more suitable as a lens for 4x5. While the 150 mm Super-Symmar-XL will cover 4x5, it is overkill for 4x5, really being intended as a wide-angle for larger formats. The drawback is that it weighs a lot more. You were asking about light weight cameras, so it doesn't make sense to throw away any weight saved on the camera with a lens that has extra weight from capability that you don't need for the format.

 

Rodenstock rates the 150 mm Apo-Sironar-S to cover 75 degrees, which is 231 mm diameter. This is plenty for 4x5. The weight is 250 g. You can download a PDF file from http://www.linos.com/pages/home/shop-optik/rodenstock-foto-objektive/analoge-fachfotografie/.

 

The comparable Schneider lens is the 150 mm Apo-Symmar-L, covering 75 degrees / 233 mm diameter and weighing 267 g.

 

The 150 mm Super-Symmar-XL has much more coverage, 105 degrees / 386 mm, which is enough to cover 8x10. So if you had a 5x7 or 8x10 camera it would be a clear choice. But it weighs 740 g.

 

Schneider has a PDF brochure on their LF lenses at http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/photography.htm. Unfortunately the columns for "angle of coverage" are mislabeled "angle of view". All three of these lenses will have the same angle of view on 4x5, and the same, but different angle of view on 6x7 cm, etc. Only the 150 mm SS-XL will have an angle of view on 8x10, because only this lens covers 8x10. In LF photography, unlike smaller formats, one has to understand the difference between view and coverage. The first is how much of the scene shows on the film. The second how much the lens is capble of projecting.

[steve_hamley1]

I've owned both (and still own a 150mm SS XL for 8x10, prefer the 135mm Apo-Sironar S for 4x5) and without question it would be the Apo-Sironar S for 4x5, because the 150 SS XL is a HUGE HEAVY 8x10 lens using 86mm filters.

 

If you're worrying about the difference in sharpness between these two, you should be worrying a lot more about taking pictures.

 

Steve

[eric_leppanen]

I recently compared chromes shot with my 150 Sironar-S and SS150XL. Using a 10x loupe I could not see any significant resolution differences between the two lenses. The Sironars tend to have a slightly more contrasty look than the SSXL's (or the APO Symmar series for that matter), so they superficially may appear sharper with certain subject matter; but if you look at the images closely under a loupe you'll see the actual resolution is the same.

 

I would definitely suggest the Sironar for 4x5, for the reasons already cited above.

[tony_black1]

thank you all.

 

i just found a 150mm Schneider Apo Symmar f5.6 for $650. Do you guys think its a good price ?

 

I assume this is pretty close to the lenses mentioned above in terms of sharpness and everything.

[tedharris]

Tony, the Apo Symmar is a fine lens but 1) 650 is a ridiculous price for it .... 350 is more like

it and 2) no, it ia not comperable to the Apo Sironar S or the SS XL ... it IS comperable to the

Apo Sironar N/Caltar II N.

[sheldonnalos]

Since this is your *first* LF lens, I would encourage you not to worry about sharpness. Pretty much any modern large format optic will have excellent sharpness and will serve your needs well. The differences from lens to lens sharpness and rendition do exist, but they are very minor compared to the total amount of resolution that a 4x5 shot has. I'd guess that you could not tell lens resolution apart between different models until you were printing at 16x20 or larger.

 

I've compared several different copies of 150mm lenses (Fujinon W, Rodenstock APO Sironar-N aka Caltar II-N, Schneider APO Symmar, Rodenstock APO Sironar-S) and they were all very good. I did keep the APO Sironar-S, but the differences between lenses was very small.

 

Personally I'd recommend that you hunt for a used 150mm f/5.6 Rodenstock APO Sironar-N or Caltar II-N between $250-$300. It will be a very good lens and produce pleasing photos with excellent resolution. Then once you are more familiar with your likes and dislikes on large format you can decide if your money would be better spent on a second lens of a different focal length, or on upgrading your current lens.

[michael_briggs2]

I agree with both Ted and Sheldon. The Apo-Symmar is the model previous to the current Apo-Symmar-L. In real life, the sharpness difference, if any, will be very small. A more significant difference is that Schneider claims slightly increased coverage for the Apo-Symmmar-L. But the price is totally unrealistic for a used lens. (This is a used lens and not very old new stock?) A quick search found one supplier selling a new 150 mm Apo-Sironar-N for LESS.

 

Sellers who are frequently recommended here include Midwest Photo, Badger Graphic and KEH.

 

You can get price information by looking at the websites of these retailers. Another good source is searching the completed auctions on eBay.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The "sharpness" requirements of a 4x5 cameras lens are not much at all; for most folks applications. <BR><BR>A 16x20" print is typically about a 4.5X enlargement from a 4x5 negative. A Walmart 4x6" glossy from a disposable 35mm camera has about the same enlargement ratio; abit over 4. Thus a 100 year old lens on a 4x5 can make a excellent 16x20 image. Getting a 6 to 7 line pair per mm image on a print only maps to a 24 to 28 line pair image on film. <BR><BR>From a press camera users standpoint a 150mm is abit of a long lens for 4x5; a 127 or 135 is considered a normal lens. <BR><BR>Even if you get the most clinical sharpest 4x5 lens on the planet beware that most folks have ground glass to film plane errors that can throw away this sharpness via focus errors. This error can be +/- 7 thousands of an inch; or worse if the camera has been hacked.<BR><BR>What matters is the overall SYSTEM sharpness; not just one component the lens alone. <BR><BR>If one is just making 4x6 glossies in 35mm; or just 16x20" with a 4x5 camera; a gross focus error is going to be noticed; and rarelya a lens sharpness issue. A 9 dollar aspheric high end kodak disposable 35mm camera and a 700 dollar summicron both make excellent 4x6" glossies. Miss focus each rig and folks will quicky point out the duds. With a 24x36" poster at about 25X the BOTH have excellent central sharpeness; the summicron has excellent corners; the disposable shows is weakness with soft corners in a giant enlargement.<BR><BR>The lighter weight 150 mm Apo-Sironar-S would be a better starter lens. Even a 150mm Ektar is great too. If you need alot of coverage then costs do go up; and weight for a given focal length. <BR><BR>After shooting some LF what you are trying to do will be clearer. In a way its like buying a saw or hammer. Here I have a mess of circular saws. If ba specific task is define the choice of "tool" can ne narrowed down.

[carl_bruch]

This is all very useful.

 

I too have been trying to sort through and assess similar lenses by different manufacturers and have found this thread and others on this forum to be invaluable.

 

I read with great interest the Schneider brochure for which Michael posted the link. Thank you.

 

Trying to figure out the nomenclature of older lenses -- and what it means -- is a challenge. Is there anywhere that compares the different lenses through time, not only the current ones?

 

For example, is there a sifference between a "Super Symmar S", a "Symmar-S" and an "APO Symmar S"? Does S indicate the APO, while the N is non-APO? [And I realize that APO in the commercial world of lenses is not necessarily APO in the world of physics ...] Does this also apply to the distinctions between N and S in Rodenstock lenses? The XL designation is pretty obvious (both for image area and lens size/weight). What does the HM get you?

 

Thank you all for this invaluable forum!

[sheldonnalos]

For the most part, designations like "S" "N" or "APO" are marketing speak and do not confer some type of advantage over another lens without that label. All modern multicoated lenses are well corrected for abberations and have good coatings. A generic rule of thumb is that if the lens comes in an all black Copal shutter, then it is modern enough to be a good performer. The collary to this is that there are many, many older lenses that are also good performers.

 

A lot of people today who are shooting large format are doing so in the field instead of the studio. So, priorities and popularity have shifted so that some of the large lenses designed for studio work are less desirable than smaller lenses that can be easily carried. Here is an excellent website that discusses lighter weight lenses, as well as the current cream of the crop lenses which are destined to become "future classics". You would do well purchasing any of these lenses, though typically they are not the cheapest.

 

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm

 

In general people look at lenses based on the following critera:

 

1) Image circle: Does this lens offer a large enough image circle to accomplish my purposes and desired format? Landscape shooters don't need too much image circle for simple movements. Architecture shooters often need much larger image circles to use movements to control perspective. If you are shooting a larger format (5x7 or 8x10) then a lens may actually be designed as a wider angle lens for the bigger format. Buying more image circle than you need can actually be to your detriment, since it penalizes you on the size/weight/price components.

 

2) Size/Weight: smaller is better, all other things equal. Less weight to carry, smaller filters (cheaper), less bulk, less load on the camera (improved stability), etc. Sometimes this tradeoff comes at the expense of maximum aperture (often f/8 or f/9 versus f/5.6). Since these are not typically shooting apertures but rather just affect how bright the ground glass is, most of us are glad to make the tradeoff.

 

3) Reputation for performance: is the lens known as an excellent performer optically? There can be a little bit of hype involved here, but there are some lenses that are known to stand out among the pack for performance, and those lenses are considered more desirable. Keep in mind that sometimes overall reputation is more than just how "sharp" the lens is, but how well it combines sharpness with the prior two categories.

 

4) Price: pretty obvious here.

 

If you want more reading material and other resources to research your choices before buying then check out these websites:

 

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/

 

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/

 

Hope this helps!

 

Sheldon

[michael_briggs2]

In answer to Carl's question, it probably best to just regard the names as names, though some of them have meanings from Greek roots. Probably "N" means New (Neue), but that it a guess. "HM" means High Moduation, as in MTF.

 

The post-WWII sequence of plasmat design lenses from Rodenstock is Sironar, Sironar-N = Apo-Sironar-N, and Apo-Sironar-S. There is also the discontinued and uncommon version with extra coverage, the Apo-Sironar = Apo-Sironar-W. The Schneider sequence of plasmats is the Symmar, Symmar-S, Apo-Symmar and Apo-Symmar-L. The later versions are said by their manufacturers to offer slightly more coverage. Then there are the Nikkor-W and various Fuji-Ws, with the current version being the Fuji CMW.

 

The now traditional wide-coverage designs are the Grandagons (-N), Super-Angulons, Nikkor-SWs, Fuji-SWs. In the longer focal lengths, Schneider has replaced their Super-Angulons with Super-Symmar XL lenses using an aspherical surface to reduce size and weight.

 

All of these lenses have been discussed extensively on this forum. Try searching or browsing threads in relevant categories in the archives.

[tony_black1]

thank you.

[dakotah_jackson]

For size, weight and ease of use in the field on your camera the advice above about the Apo-Sironar S is good. The tendency for most of us when new to this is to obsess over ultimate sharpness and performance. Our version of the old baloney about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

I went to a presentation a few years ago given by a friend where he showed six 16x20 prints. All six were taken with 150mm lenses on his Wisner 4x5. He used his normal film and processing and then made his prints on fibre based Ilford Gallerie paper, mounted and matted the prints and brought them to show.

 

The lenses I remember were the Apo Sironar S, and the Nikkor W. The other four were a various batch of stuff up to a lens made in the 1890's. Really good to stuff most would leave on the shelf rather than use.

 

All the prints were good. All were better than the 16x20 he had blown up from his Nikon 35mm and his Hasselblad.(same scene, film and papers)

 

The differences were in shadow detail, fine tonal rendition and contrast for the most part. If you had not seen the other prints in the comparison any of them would have been judged as good work. They were all nice, clean and well done. the 4x5 stuff blew the socks off the smaller negative work. No commparison in ultimate quality, but there is so much that the view camera can't photograph well or easily when compared to the more mobile cameras.

 

The upshot of it was that almost any lens out there for your 4x5 will work and has most likely been used by top photographers for their work at some time or other. The comparison he presented was a good one for our group to see as a number of them were where you are now. Obsessing over minute differences that really can't be seen in most use.

 

For every camera/lens/film there are detractors and 'experts' who will tell you there is something better. Just as there are armchair quarterbacks who will tell you why 'so and so' isn't really a good quarterback even as the guy gets another MVP award at the Super Bowl.

 

Get one of the lenses you mentioned and you will get used to working with it. Then leave the theoretical for those who argue about it and don't photograph much.