135 nikkor vs 135 sironar s

[eliasi_sharon]

Hi, I use a nikkor 135/5.6 for 4 years and not pleased with it's

sharpness. I consider getting 135 sironar s and read very good

comments about it( I love the 135 focal length), is it that better

than the nikkor? I get my prints up to 50x60 inches and unpleased

with the nikkor resaults.

[tedharris]

I don�t think you can make a better choice. Kerry Thalmann, in his article on

future large format classic lenses says this about the 135 Sironar-S:

 

�135mm f5.6 Rodenstock APO Sironar-S (215g, 49mm, 208mm) - see Figure

3.

This is a wonderful little lens. Compact, lightweight and more coverage

(231mm) than the other 150mm 4x5 lenses (I consider the larger 150mm APO

Sironar-W and 150mm Super Symmar HM to be overkill for 4x5 landscapes

and better suited for the 5x7 format in that application - see below). It uses ED

glass and is incredibly sharp all the way to edges, and even at large stops (I

have found it to be incredibly sharp even wide open, and have read at least

one test report that showed it to achieve maximum LPM at f5.6 - which is

where it should be sharpest in theory, but in practice is rarely true). I don't

know what it is about this lens, but images made with it just scream SHARP!

and have an incredible sense of "depth". I've used a lot 4x5 "normal" lenses,

both modern and classic, and this one beats them all IMHO. Out of all the

lenses I own, this is the last one I would ever part with (you'll have to pry it

from my cold, dead hands (OK, 110 SS XL in one hand, 150 APO Sironar-S in

the other)). In general, the comments above also hold true for the 135mm

APO Sironar-S (if you prefer that focal length over the slightly longer 150mm).

The 135mm APO Sironar-S has an image circle of 208mm, which is slightly

larger than any of the other current 135s. It also has the wonderful sharpness,

compact size and lightweight of the 150mm APO Sironar-S.�

 

You can find the complete article at http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/

future.htm

 

Beyond that, I use the lens and it is one of my favorites. It is one of the two or

three lenses that are always with me. My personal experience with Nikon�s

�standard focal length� lenses has been similar to yours. While I find nothing

wrong with their resolution I do find that their contrast and other characteristics

is not up to the same offerings from Rodenstock, Schneider and Fuji. If Bob

Salomon reads this thread he will weigh in with the technical details which

you can also find at Paul Butzi�s website at http://www.butzi.net/rodenstock/

rodenstock.htm

 

 

Good luck.

[glenn_kroeger]

Eliasi:

 

While agree with Ted about the superb quality of the Sironar-S, I think you should realize that the actual sharpness differences between these lenses, used at typical f-stops of f/16-f/32, is going to be very small. When I compare modern lenses, I can see slight differences when examined at 20-40x. I emphasize "slight". Unless there is something wrong with your Nikkor, or it is just a lemon, I think that you will not see a quantum inprovement in sharpness at 50"x60" just due to a change in lenses. If your Nikkor is not defective, you may need to examine your choices of film, shooting apertures, filters and enlarging workflow, as these will probably have more impact on sharpness than the minor differences between two healthy modern LF lenses.

 

For example, have a look at the lens tests by Christopher Perez and Kerry Thalmann (referred to in Ted's response).

 

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html#100mm_thru_163mm

 

And you will see only slight differences in resolutions between the Nikkor and Rodenstock offerings. That is not to say there is NO difference, or that, as Ted mentions, there are clear subjective differences in image character. But the differences are not night-or-day differences in sharpness.

[bob_salomon]

Rent one and compare for yourself.

[nicholas_fiduccia]

Eliasa, I think Glen is right. You may want to have the position of

your ground glass checked in your camera as this can cause

unsharpness. Are there any other lenses that you own that are

sharp? Make sure your focusing loupe focus on the "ground

side" of the glass and not the side nearest the loupe.

[glenn_kroeger]

Bob:

 

Where can one rent this lens?

 

I ask this question for two reasons. First, I am curious if you know of a rental establishment that has one for rent.

 

But more importantly, I ask this question because this is a common answer on this forum. But, to quote an old picante commercial, we don't all live in "NEEWW YOORRRK CITY".

 

Renting specific LF lenses is VERY difficult. Many folks on this forum indicate that in their countries, rentals are not available.

 

I live, not in another country, but in central Texas. Yes, I know that some folks think Texas IS another country. There are no LF rentals in my city. In Houston and Dallas, there are some LF rentals, but pickings are slim. Generally, the rental pool is a mishmash of older studio lenses that were taken in trade. Lots of 210 Symmar-S, but an Apo-Sironar-S 135?

 

I rent from Lens and Repro in New York, Photomark in Phoenix and Glazer's in Seattle. Even there, you pretty much take what they have. Fortunatly, Glazer's does have an Apo-Sironar-S 180mm that I rented. It was wonderful. I am buying one. They may also have a 135 (the list it as an Apo-Sironar, but no indication whether it is an N or S).

 

Another problem with rentals is the expense. By the time I rent a lens from one of these places, and pay two way FedEx, I have dumped at least $100-$200 on the rental. Because of this, when I want to test a pair of lenses, I usually buy them on Ebay, or even new. I can buy a new lens, keep it, test it, and sell it for a loss which is often less than what the rental+shipping would have cost. I am lucky to be able to do that. It isn't cheap and it ties up capital.

 

My point is that "renting" specific lenses is, for most folks outside of 3 or 4 major U.S. cities, either not possible or not affordable.

[bob_salomon]

You don't have to live in any specific place. rental houses do ship rental product.

 

Among others Ken Hansen in NY and Photo Mark in Phoenix do rentals. As do most other dealers with pro departments with large format.

[photo_color]

Besides the hassle and shipping expense of you trying mail order for rental lenses, you have to hope that the lens you get has been treated properly. Then you have a limited amount of time to try it out. What if you want to do outdoor tests shots and the weather is bad for a week? You can't do better than the Apo-Sironar S in my opinion, so if you don't like your current lens, just buy the new one. Do some comparisons and sell the old one. However, you may find that there is not a lot of difference (unless yours is defective), so whether it's worth the money or not will be how picky you are and what aperatures you shoot (as a previous poster indicated). Unlike some, I find Nikkors preferable to most Fujis - I find Fujis to be ultra contrasty (most color shooters seem to like that - yeah, shoot Velvia at 80, push it, and use the most contrasty lens available. Then scan into Photoshop and increase color saturation and contrast... ok sorry for the off target rant; I've just put on my flack jacket : -). For Fuji's 4-element lenses I have found by trying a 300mm f8.5 and a 450mm f12.5 (and maybe it's just me and my testing methods were off) that the marked f-stops gave darker results than Nikkor, Schneider, or Rodenstock - beyond what increased contrast would show. I think Schneider has some upgraded lenses that may compete with the Apo Rodenstock Sironar S. But I don't think you will be sorry you got the Rodenstock.

[glenn_kroeger]

Now Dan, you left out one important step...

 

"yeah, shoot Velvia at 80, push it, and use the most contrasty lens available" with polarizer and color intensifier filter...

[david_caldwell]

Eliasi: I concur that the Sironar is a great lens, but I cannot accept your allegation that the Nikkor is an unsharp lens. The 135 mm lenses of allo the lens manufacturers are among the simplest to manufacture and are known for their superior sharpness. I cannot recall any one else tracking mud over their reputation. Have you ruled oput alternate possibilities? You would be focussing wrong, if you have adjusted your loupe for sharp viewing of transparencies. When you use the loupe for camera focussing, you need to adjust the loupe so that the grain on the ground glass comes into sharpest focus. [source: Bob Salomon] This is a different setting from that used for focussing on the film transparencies. If you have corrective lenses for your eyes, you need to keep them on when using the loupe. When did you last have your prescription tested? Maybe you have early onset diabetes or changes associated with aging that is affecting your vision.

[michael_kadillak6]

Irrespective of personal preferences for manufacturers, I have seen many images made with the Nikon 135mm and they were all as sharp as a handful of razor blades (as Richard B. would say) as long as the images were managed on the ground glass and were subsequently processed to strict standards.

 

I am surprised that it has taken you four years of use to determine that the lens is unacceptable. Could your ground glass be off a bit? Are the elements screwed fully into the shutter? I would bet you that a new lens alone will be the only variable inhibiting you from realizing your photographic objectives. If you are going to 50x60, have you considered 8x10?

[ed_candland1]

I have the Rodenstock 135-S, it was my first lens and yes it's very sharp. At first I was going to say that I didn't feel like there would be all that much difference between the two and if photographers the likes of John Sexton use Nikons it must be pretty good. Then I took a look at: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html#100mm_thru_163mm . The Nikon (at least the 135) does look a bit less sharp, particulary around the edge. So if you want the sharpest 135 I think the Rodenstock 135-S would be the way to go.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Ted; I got an email from Kerry when I posted a quote from his website. I believe he wants a link to his site; instead of long quotes; that might be taken out of context. I posted a quote on the board and a link to his site; and got an email from him 2 days later saying not to do this anymore. Regards Kelly

[eliasi_sharon]

thank you all for the responses!

Bob, I don't think I can rent one here in ISRAEL, but it worth trying.

Glenn, I took a look on that test you recomended and there IS a very nice different on the edges. I was shooting with UV filters(B&W) and read that it can be one more step in reducing (slightly) the sharpness, use a toyo 3.6 loupe for focusing, a Toyo c with fresnal lens and the groundglass facing the shiny side out.

I use also nikkor 210 w and unpleased with this one also.

I saw lot's of very good prints ( scaned and printed by LAMBDA) that say: don't move to 8x10!!! (another reason is that I can't buy shits for 8x10 in israel and after the attack in N.Y.C I can't get to the airport with 8x10 without scaning them- what will ruin them).

the sironar s is a very good and inexpensive lens so I thing I'll go for it anyway.

thanks again.

[glenn_kroeger]

Eliasi:

 

Do you wear reading glasses? Are you over 40 years old?

 

I have used the Toyo 3.6x loupe for decades, but have recently discovered that as my eyes have aged, it no longer works as well for me. In order to achieve sharp focus on the imaging surface of the groundglass, I have to either wear my reading glasses while using the loupe, or lift the loupe out of contact with the groundglass. I have tried a 5x Wista focusable loupe, and with it carefully focused on the imaging surface of the groundglass, it has signifiantly improved the consistency with which I achieve accurate focus. There are many varieties and powers of focusable loupes available. I still love the rugged construction and simplicity of the Toyo, but I find it difficult to use with reading glasses.

[eliasi_sharon]

Glenn:

 

I'm 29 years old and my eyes are still in a mint condition.

I find the toyo 3.6 very good for use on groundglass.

I usually make some tilts in field and find out after looking at my transparencies that the edges are not sharp. I use this movement after comparing it to the camera used without any movement and the bellow move less in the first option(obviously the close and the far change).I usually use 32 aperture and don't get the edges sharp.

do I miss something?

[john_randall3]

Eliasi,

 

A 135 of whatever brand is a relatively short focal length.

Sometimes, when using movements, the limited space between

the front and rear standards, combined with an inflexible

bellows, can result in the rear standard 'pushing' the front

standard as you are focusing under the dark cloth. This can

affect focus - and you might miss it when composing/

focusing/locking the movements, etc.

 

It's easy, of course. to check to see if this is the case. Get out

from under the dark cloth and note the reaction of the rear

standard to the front standard while you are operating your fine

focus knob.

 

Once again, this usually becomes a problem only

when using movements. If this is the case, the solution will be

to use a bag bellows, if your camera will accept one.

 

Best regards,

[ken_schroeder]

I have used a 135 Nikor for fifteen years and have been very pleased with it. I rarely print larger than 8x10, and have never used the Sironar, so I cannot comment with any knowledge on it. However, I do not believe we have shot the trouble thoroughly enough to pronounce the lens defective. What is the effect of the glass filter upon the sharpness? In the 50x60 size prints, are the results satisfactory using your other lenses? If, for example, your prints of the same size from your 210 or 90 are very sharp, that would point to the 135 as the culprit. If the 135 is your only lens, then the jury is still out.

 

I would not be suprised if the newer Sironar is indeed a sharper lens. The Nikon design has been around for quite some time. I have been a telephone repairman for 29 years. Customers with trouble on the line would often tell me they wanted a new telephone. My response was I had no problem with giving them a new telephone, but let's find the trouble first. I suggest careful isloating and testing. You are certainly blessed with a fine "tech support" crew in the other respondants.