fujinon 150mm/5.6 vs Apo sironar 150mm vs Apo Symmar 150mm

[francesco_bertelli2]

<p>I bought for only 200$ a Fujinon 150mm i think is one of the newer model, i bought to try the focal and now after a hundred shots (90% b&W) i really like the 150, so I was wondering if it make sense to upgrade to an rodenstock APO sironar S or not?<br>

I feel the Fujnon is very sharp, but I dont have other 150 to compare it...is it worth to spend extra 400$ to get a used apo (around 600$ used on ebay)?</p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>If you are critical, yes. But know what you want to buy. The Apo Sironar/Apo Sironar W will be much more money and much larger. The Apo Sironar N will not equal the Apo Sironar S. The S will eqaul the Apo Sironar/Apo Sironar W but has 75° coverage compared to the 80° coverage of the Apo Sironar/Apo Sironar W. The N had 72° coverage. Only the S is still in production. The other 2 are discontinued.</p>

[ivan_j._eberle1]

Probably not. While the Sironar S seems to be nearly everybody's dream lens at 150mm, there are undoubtedly a lot of fabulous lenses at better bargains in circulation. Your Fujinon sounds like one of these. Between the diffuse base of LF film and diffraction effects, LF lenses just don't hit the resolution test numbers that the best 35mm lenses routinely hit on film. So if you're new to LF and it looks reasonably sharp under a loupe, it likely is a very sharp LF lens indeed. Maybe if it wasn't visibly sharp you'd have something to improve upon, but most all lenses in that haven't been dropped or abused (or haven't separated) are going to show similar performance by f/16 and especially f/22 or smaller. You're mostly hitting diffraction limits by f/22-- not lens design limits.

 

For instance, I've got a 135mm Caltar IIN (same as Rodenstock APO Sironar N) that's just razor sharp at f/16. There's just no reason for me to switch to the S on the basis of resolution, since I've already got it. Too, the shutter is immaculate. The differences in image circle are trifling between the Sironar N and S versions at 135mm (which focal length I happen to prefer, but admittedly the S version has more of an improvement in IC over the N at 150mm in by the specs.)

 

If someday you're setting up on a tricky scene and you find you've run out of coverage, sure, you might wish for that Sironar S and yes, there may have been some slight improvement to be gained. But even the biggest IC Plasmats like the Sironar S at middle focal lengths of 135mm and 150mm don't have a lot of excess coverage when compared to longer focal lengths, or to other lens designs. But then instead, you might simply reach for another lens. These days, that same $400 bump up to the Sironar S could have been used to buy a superb additional lens, or TWO more lenses, for that matter.

 

(I've got another razor-sharp lens that I bought for under $200 with enormous coverage, the 210mm Caltar IIN aka APO Sironar N with a 301mm image circle.)

[friedemann_pistorius]

<p>Years ago I owned an Apo-Sironar-S 150 and it was tack sharp. I replaced it by a Schneider Apo-Symmar-L 150 which equals the Apo-Sironar in every respect.<br>

I too have a Fujinon-W 135/5.6 (52mm filter size) and it is every bit as sharp as the two lenses mentioned above.<br>

If you have the Fujinon-W 150/5.6 with 52mm filter size and Copal shutter with silver or black shutter dial ring, then you have one of the sharpest lenses around. No need to upgrade in my opinion.</p>

 

[sheldonnalos]

<p>I've had both, and I found that the APO Sironar S had a touch more contrast than the Fuji, but both were very sharp. Not a $400 difference in my opinion. You can stick with the Fuji with no regrets, especially for B&W shooting.</p>

[francesco_bertelli2]

<p>does anybody know if I can find a Fujinon MTF test somewhere? Now I'm curisous about mtf and shaprness compared to the sironar and apo symmar.<br>

I found that sironar s, i slightly better that apo symmar L (whn I say slightly I'm talking something that maybe the human eye won't notice)<br>

but again, I'm pretty happy with my fujinon, but given that I'm starting a ongoing project and I will spend hundreds of shots outdoor I'd like to have the best not the better...</p>

 

[ivan_j._eberle1]

Once convinced you need the "very best," you stop asking generalized questions about sharpness of others--and don't mention price again. This is because you'll necessarily buy multiple copies of different lenses with return policies, and then cherry-pick the best lenses. Sample variation between individual lenses become more of an issue than MTF charts or anecdotes about what constitutes "sharp". All bets are off on used, mishandled, "new old stock"/ out of production, or poorly reassembled lenses. Must buy new only, at 10X the cost of what similarly performing lenses can be sniped off eBay.

 

You're certainly welcome to go through all that magic-bullet chasing.

 

Or, reading a little further, you may come to the conclusion that no lenses can resolve more than 60 lp/mm on film by f/22 (normal taking aperture in 4x5). Realizing this, you relax with the knowledge that all but the most severely abused LF lenses are likely all on a fairly level playing field.

[bob_salomon]

<p>"you may come to the conclusion that no lenses can resolve more than 60 lp/mm on film by f/22 "<br>

Of course there is also contrast, flare characteristics, color, distortion, fall-off, coverage, bokah and a host of other intangibles that are as important as resolution, also the ideal ratio range as well as the optimal aperture range.</p>