Rodenstock Sironar lenses

[geoffrey_poulton]

<p>I keep seeing Rodenstock Sironar lenses for sale, without the designation of either S or N, or apo, just plain Sironar.<br>

I saw one with a paper sticker on saying MC, but that could have been added at any stage and I suspect that it might not be a Rodenstock addition.<br>

Does anyong know anything about these lenses, the coating for example, coverage (say 100mm f5.6) or any other aspect of the lens. <br>

There does not seem to be any information on the internet at all that I can find, and yet I keep seeing the lenses. Some of the Sironar lenses do look MC, but do not say that they are.<br>

Any information would be gratefully received!</p>

<p> </p>

[jim_momary]

<p>If you had access to an accurate part measurement and weight this would sort out some ...<br>

http://www.prograf.ru/rodenstock/largeformat_en.html#table1<br>

There appears enough variance in model to model to use the data to make a call, but one needs the data. Not sure if it is a sensible approach.</p>

<p>Jim M</p>

<p> </p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>This is a broad generalization, but I don't believe that there was any real substantive change in the Rodenstock lenses over the years, just the name.</p>

<p>Sironar = Sironar-N = APO Sironar-N = Caltar II-N </p>

<p>All are basically the same lens, and are excellent performers, I believe all are multicoated. There are some older convertible versions that are a different design but all the noncovertible lenses are generally the same. The Caltar II-N's are usuallly the cheapest. The 100mm Sironar won't be good for 4x5 since the coverage is too small. The 135/150/180/210 versions would be more appropriate choices. </p>

 

[AJG]

<p>For what it's worth, my Sironar N 150 and 210 lenses both have MC engraved along with all of the other information. My understanding is that multi coating and non convertible design started with the Sironar N line, and that plain Sironar lenses were convertible and single coated. My experience with these lenses plus a couple of Caltar II-N (also Rodenstock) has been uniformly excellent. Convertible lenses will usually have a shutter with two aperture scales on them to reflect the lower transmission when using a single element with its longer focal length.</p>

[geoffrey_poulton]

<p>Thanks everyone for you help, this information could not be more helpful, I'll follow up the leads you've given.<br>

This is only the second question I've posted on the forum and it's been truly helpful, I only hope I'm able to repay the favour to someone else at some time. I know about trombones, composing and recording classical music if anyone needs help in those area!! :-)</p>

 

[zelph_young]

<p>If you check out <a href="http://www.largeformatphotography.info">http://www.largeformatphotography.info</a> you can find a chart listing lenses and coverage. Worth looking at as it can help with buying decisions.</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Turn off the paranoia and off-the-top-of-the-head ignorance and go here <a href="http://1drv.ms/12OFqc2">http://1drv.ms/12OFqc2</a> to find the relevant brochures. Bob Salomon, then of HP Marketing, Rodenstock's US distributor, kindly made them available.</p>

<p>Sheldon, they're not all the same.</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>Dan, I'm not sure I see any paranoia or ignorance in any of the posts above. All the brochures you linked to are more modern and don't tell much about the history of the Sironar lens lineup.</p>

<p>Some google searching will up other threads on the subject, many with posts from Bob Salomon. One point I should clarify is that the older Sironar lens was the convertible one, with a different design - you can see the shutter is marked as a convertible lens. Then came Sironar-N, then Sironar-N MC, then APO Sironar-N and the rebranded Caltar II-N, all of which are relatively similar. Sinar also sold a rebranded Sinaron-S lens which was the same.</p>

<p>Yes, there are many other lenses that carry the Sironar designation, including the APO Sironar (same as the newer APO Sironar-W, also sold as Sinaron-WS) and the APO Sironar-S (also sold as a Sinaron SE, and which happens to be my personal favorite). None of these are what I was referring to, though.</p>

 

[geoffrey_poulton]

<p>Some very helpful information here which has illuminated me as far as the Sironar lens is concerned. Knowing that it is a convertible is most useful, it's not something I had considered.<br>

Thanks to everyone for such useful input<br>

Geoff</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Sheldon, all of the lenses Rodenstock badged Sironar are plasmat types. That's what they have in common. There was no change in design type from first to last. You may be confusing Rodenstock's Sironars with Schneider's Symmars. The first lenses that Schneider badged Symmar were dagor types. They were replaced by plasmat types starting in the '50s.</p>

<p>"Relatively similar" doesn't mean the same. If you'd read the brochures you'd have seen that shorter Apo-Sironar-N lenses cover 72 degrees and shorter Apo-Sironar-S lenses cover 75 degrees. Not the same.</p>

<p>What seem to be the same are Sironar-Ns and Apo-Sironar-Ns, Sironar-Ss and Apo-Sironar-Ss. Here adding the Apo- prefix seems to have changed nothing of substance.</p>

<p>Early Sironars and Symmars were designed and sold as convertibles. Later ones, not so. Giving up convertibility allowed better optimizations so later Sironars and Symmars not sold as convertibles are better than the convertibles used unconverted. You can still remove the later ones' front cells and shoot with just the rear cells if you're willing to accept the image quality they give.</p>

<p> </p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>Again, I wasn't discussing the APO Sironar-S lenses and I'm not confusing anything with Schneider lenses.</p>

<p>The Sironar name is used on three different lenses lines (most recently referred to as N, S, and W) and all my comments are referring to the "primary" lens line which started with the name Sironar and worked it's way up to the most current APO Sironar-N. The APO Sironar-S lens is a recent addition and has no predecessors. There is no such thing as a "Sironar-S" lens. </p>

<p>I've owned and shot with pretty much all of these different lenses and am well aware of the differences. </p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>Sheldon,<br>

There was originally the Sironar lens and, as mentioned, that was convertible. But unlike what was stated Rodenstock recommended removing the REAR group, not the front as with the Symmar.<br>

The convertible Sironar was replaced by the non-convertible Sironar-N. The Sironar-N was replaced by the Sironar-N MC. The Sironar-N MC evolved into the Apo Sironar-N which covered 72°.<br>

During the life of the Sironar-N MC Rodenstock introduced the 80° coverage Apo Sironar which, when the 75° coverage Apo Sironar-S was introduced, became the Apo Sironar-W. There were also 210 and 300mm Makro Sironar lenses and 120 and 180mm Apo Macro Sironar lenses. But they were not general purpose lenses.<br>

The Sironar, Sironar-N, Sironar-N MC, Apo Sironar-N lenses were all corrected for 1:20. The Apo Sironar-S and W were corrected for 1:10.<br>

Today all of those lenses are out of production except for the 135, 150 and 210mm Apo Sironar-S lenses.<br>

Currently there are digital lenses that carry the Sironar name, Apo Sironar Digital, Apo Macro Sironar Digital, etc.<br>

So the most current Apo Sironar-N lenses have been out of production for well over a year for most and up to 4 or 5 years for some.</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>Thanks Bob, that info matches up with my prior posts. Of course, that's to be expected when I got all the info from your prior comments over the years. :)</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

So the lesson learned about these lenses is that, in a broad generalization, they are basically the same, but only relatively similar, so really different.<br>Except for a few of them which really are the same though they have a different name.

[christian_french]

<p>Maybe one of you folks can help me. I bought Calumet 8x10 and found a Rodenstock Macro-Sironar-N 210mm at my local shop for a decent price. I bought it after reading many of the posts here and on the LargeFormatPhoto forum specifically to do macro work. Tomorrow I want to take it out and do some landscape shots with it, since it's my only lens :) Anyway, I'm a little confused as to how to set up the reversible lenses. For regular non-macro work, do I put the 1/3x...1x lens in front, or the 1x...3x?<br>

I think the former, for reasons that read like the story of the liar and the truth-teller on the road to Thebes.</p>

[dave_s]

<p>Christian, you have resurrected a dormant thread. </p>

<p>Look at <a href="/photo/7646200">this anecdotal review of the Makro-Sironar</a>, copied from a Calumet catalog from about 1985. (I'm not sure if it's the same as your Macro-Sironar-N, although the N series was current about then.) </p>

<p>The author of that review, a fellow named David Brooks, found the Makro-Sironar was superb at close range as expected, but it also gave a regular Sironar-N a run for its money with landscapes. I suppose this isn't completely surprising, and a lot of people find their macro lenses for 35mm do very well with distant subjects.</p>

<p>As far as I can tell, Mr Brooks was using his lens straight up, and wasn't doing anything with lenses or switching the cells. Maybe I'm missing something from Christian's post. But note that Brooks was using the lens with a 4 x 5 camera. I don't have the lens specs in front or me, but I expect it won't quite cover 8 x 10 at infinity.</p>

[christian_french]

<p>Well, firstly, thank you. And secondly, please accept my apologies if resurrecting this thread is bad form. I'm not uneducated, but I am naive to some internet protocols.<br>

The review seems to give the lens good marks. What I am struggling with is literally which reversible lens/element to put where. Each one has markings on it in the 1x or 3x or 1/3x variety. I can't figure out whether 1x equals the 1:1 ratio I've seen talked about with macro lenses and whether 3x or 1/3x equals 3:1 or 1:3, etc. I was hoping that one of the folks on this thread might have had practical experience and would say something along the lines of "Well, duh..." and thereby enlighten me:) It's possible I will figure it out in the field tomorrow, I was just trying to do my homework...</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Your treasure won't cover 8x10 at infinity.</p>

<p>1x and 1:1 have the same meaning. Similarly 1/3x and 1:3, 3x and 3:1</p>

<p>For working at magnifications <=1:1 -- that's your regular non-macro work -- put the 1/3x...1x cell in front of the shutter and the 1x...3x behind the shutter. For shooting at magnifications > 1:1 -- macro work -- put the 1x...3x cell in front of the shutter and the 1/3x...1x cell behind the shutter.</p>

[christian_french]

<p>Thank you. I appreciate the simple explanation!<br>

It is what I have to work with for now. There is another lens at the shop, a Rodenstock 240mm I have my eye on, but money's an issue at the moment. I do have a 4x5 adapter back, so I'll get what I can.</p>