180/5.6 Sironar vs. 180/5.6 Symmar-S MC

jmooney

Member

Joined

Sep 24, 2003

Messages

642

Location

Morrisville,

Format

35mm

• Oct 23, 2008

• #1

Hi All,

I'm trying to decide between these two lenses for use on 5x7:

180/5.6 Sironar (Plain ole' Sironar)

or

180/5.6 Symmar-S MC

I shoot 99.9% B&W. I've searched the archives and cannot find anything to really set one apart from the other. Both seem to have excellent coverage #'s for 5x7 so short of flipping a coin or resorting to reading tea leaves can anyone recommend one over the other

 

Ian Grant

Subscriber

Joined

Aug 2, 2004

Messages

23,263

Location

West Midland

Format

Multi Format

• Oct 23, 2008

• #2

I've answered here

 

cdholden

Member

Joined

Aug 9, 2005

Messages

763

Location

Nashville, TN, USA

Format

Multi Format

• Oct 23, 2008

• #3

I picked up my Symmar-S for about $150 on the auction site. If you can't tell the difference, grab the one that is cheaper and/or more readily available... whatever moves you past that next obstacle.

 

kirkfry

Member

Joined

Aug 19, 2006

Messages

39

Format

4x5 Format

• Oct 27, 2008

• #4

I would avoid the plain old Sironar, this vintage of lens (1970's) had lens separation problems due the fancy new glue they used. K

 

edtbjon

Member

Joined

Jun 8, 2004

Messages

391

Format

Medium Format

• Oct 27, 2008

• #5

I've seen separation on a Rodenstock lens too of that vintage. While being an enlarger lens, i.e. a Rodagon, the lens cannot be used for a full size negative. On the Schneider side, Schneideritis is only a cosmetical issue. But apart from the separation issues with the Rodie, there is really nothing to tell these lenses apart in terms of performance, apart from finding the best specimen.
Given the results from your polls here and at lfphoto.info, I recon the answer is pretty unanimous.

//Björn