180mm Rod/SK/ Fuji copal 1 lenses performance

[Allthink]

Hello colleagues
Maybe you can share your experience with these lenses, how they perform, small movements on small tech. camera, possibility to use for macro with long bellows, and regular still life, it's performance on digital if you had tried.
CM Fujinon W 180mm f5.6
Schneider Kreuznach Apo Symmar MC 180mm f/5.6
Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-N 180mm F5.6
Thank you

 

[Ian Grant]

A 180mm lens on a 5x4 Technical camera has huge coverage for the format. I prefer a shorter focal length for macro work, I do have a Wray Lustrar 184mm lens.
Ian

 

[Allthink]

A 180mm lens on a 5x4 Technical camera has huge coverage for the format. I prefer a shorter focal length for macro work, I do have a Wray Lustrar 184mm lens.
Ian

What lens are you using for macro work and what size subjects you shoot?

 

[xkaes]

Looks like you are going to get the same answers on this BOARD.

 

[Allthink]

Looks like you are going to get the same answers on this BOARD.

I'm pretty new on this forum, thought it's different people on different forums.

 

[ic-racer]

Hello colleagues
Maybe you can share your experience with these lenses, how they perform, small movements on small tech. camera, possibility to use for macro with long bellows, and regular still life, it's performance on digital if you had tried.
CM Fujinon W 180mm f5.6
Schneider Kreuznach Apo Symmar MC 180mm f/5.6
Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-N 180mm F5.6
Thank you

Shutter performance can be highly variable depending on where you are sourcing the lenses. I prefer all black, late model Copal shutters, but the earlier ones can be made to work fine too.
A few cleaning marks are usually ok, but haze and lens element separation will spoil the pictures.

 

[Allthink]

Shutter performance can be highly variable depending on where you are sourcing the lenses. I prefer all black, late model Copal shutters, but the earlier ones can be made to work fine too.
A few cleaning marks are usually ok, but haze and lens element separation will spoil the pictures.

Thanks, i usually look for ebay for the lenses. How to i know if it's a late model of copal shutter by looking at image the seller posted? I just looking at the model name currently

 

[MattKing]

I'm pretty new on this forum, thought it's different people on different forums.

They are sub-forums, and they are all inter-connected.
A large percentage of people use the "New Posts" function to keep track of the activity here, so they see activity in many of the sub-fora.

 

[Dan Fromm]

They are sub-forums, and they are all inter-connected.
A large percentage of people use the "New Posts" function to keep track of the activity here, so they see activity in many of the sub-fora.

Matt, the OP referred to LFPF. He asked the same question there and didn't like the answers he got.

 

[Allthink]

Matt, the OP referred to LFPF. He asked the same question there and didn't like the answers he got.

Your conclusion is wrong.
It's not true i didn't like the answers I got.
Instead, I did want to hear additional opinions.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'll only comment on shutters, since I've already said enough about the lenses themselves on the LF Forum. All the lenses you specifically mention are quite modern, and unless an item has been abused, any of their Copal shutters are apt to be quite acceptable except at the highest speed, which always seems to be off. But there are minor variations which only an electronic shutter speed tester can distinguish. The all black Copal 1 shutters are newer than the chrome ring ones, but even that distinction shouldn't cause worry. It's the general condition of the lens which counts when buying used. Some have been used a lot, some very little.

 

[Ian Grant]

What lens are you using for macro work and what size subjects you shoot?

For Macro work., a 135mm Componon, or a 203mm f7.7 Ektar, and shooting to 1:1, with the Componon on my Wista 45DX. Schneider sold Componon lenses in shutters for LF macro work, and Kodak sold their 203mm Ektar for up to 1:1 on the half plate Kodak Specialist 2

Ian

 

[Joe Kashi]

I have compared the 180 Sironar N multicoated version with the Fujinon 180mm. Both are extremely sharp and both are multicoated. You cannot go wrong with either, assuming a good shutter and no damage to the lens.

The Kodak Ektar 203/7.7 that Ian mentions is of similarly good optically despite its older date of manufacture. The Ektar's underlying Dialyte-style optical design is particularly well-regarded for close-up work. It is far less expensive than a shutter-mounted Componon. Just have the Ektar's shutter CLA's as it's older and likely needs cleaning.

All of these cover 5x7 at infinity.

I do not have any experience with the Schneider lens although the Componon has an excellent general reputation for macro.

If you are not getting closer than about 1:5, i.e. your subject is at least 900 mm away from your lens, then there likely would not be a lot of difference between these lenses.

 

[Allthink]

I have compared the 180 Sironar N multicoated version with the Fujinon 180mm. Both are extremely sharp and both are multicoated. You cannot go wrong with either, assuming a good shutter and no damage to the lens.

The Kodak Ektar 203/7.7 that Ian mentions is of similarly good optically despite its older date of manufacture. The Ektar's underlying Dialyte-style optical design is particularly well-regarded for close-up work. It is far less expensive than a shutter-mounted Componon. Just have the Ektar's shutter CLA's as it's older and likely needs cleaning.

All of these cover 5x7 at infinity.

I do not have any experience with the Schneider lens although the Componon has an excellent general reputation for macro.

If you are not getting closer than about 1:5, i.e. your subject is at least 900 mm away from your lens, then there likely would not be a lot of difference between these lenses.

Thanks Joe. Do you have the CM version or just W (of fujinon)?
Didn't know about Ektar being good for macro. The other lenses i mentioned are also good for macro? (As i understand they were not designed for that)

 

[Joe Kashi]

I have the NWS version, the series immediately prior to the CM-W series but essentially identical optically. The Ektar is a Dialyte-pattern lens of 4-elements in 4 groups, not dissimilar to the Goerz Red Dot Artar. The Ektar 203/7.7 was slightly modified from an exactly symmetrical lens pattern to provide better coverage ( it's rated for 5x7 with minimal movement) and balanced near-far performance. Kodak also made this lens in the UK with European shutters. I have copies of both and both makes are excellent. They can be found for as little as $70-$100 USD if you are lucky.

 

[Allthink]

I have the NWS version, the series immediately prior to the CM-W series but essentially identical optically. The Ektar is a Dialyte-pattern lens of 4-elements in 4 groups, not dissimilar to the Goerz Red Dot Artar. The Ektar 203/7.7 was slightly modified from an exactly symmetrical lens pattern to provide better coverage ( it's rated for 5x7 with minimal movement) and balanced near-far performance. Kodak also made this lens in the UK with European shutters. I have copies of both and both makes are excellent. They can be found for as little as $70-$100 USD if you are lucky.

Do you mean W S, and not NWS. I don't see NWS onebay but i see W S and CM versions as well as W, but not NWS.
You mean this one?

 

[gary mulder]

I have a Apo-Sironar-S 1:5,6 f=180mm and a Apo-Rodagon 1:4,8 f=180mm The Apo-Rodagon outperforms the Apo-Sironar-S making still life on 4x5” hands down. My Apo-Rodagon is on a Sinar DB board. Maybe hard to find on a normal copal.

 

[Allthink]

I have a Apo-Sironar-S 1:5,6 f=180mm and a Apo-Rodagon 1:4,8 f=180mm The Apo-Rodagon outperforms the Apo-Sironar-S making still life on 4x5” hands down. My Apo-Rodagon is on a Sinar DB board. Maybe hard to find on a normal copal.

Thanks Gary. Good to know that.
Your lens is Rod apo-sironar N or without N?
There were also S and N and L versions too from what i know.

From what i read, Rod. sironar N without "apo" as well as MC version also very close in performance. Is the RODENSTOCK 180MM SIRONAR-N marginally underperforms APO version?

Does your Apo-rodagon also outperforms SK Apo Symmar MC 180mm f/5.6?
All 180mm lenses i mentioned are f/5.6, don't see f4 version on ebay.

Did you have a chance to compare it also to other 180mm lenses, like sinar sinaron or fuji cm ?

 

[gary mulder]

I only have the two 180mm lenses that I mention. 180mm is not very common. These two just came on my way.
I think all 180mm lenses with the same coverage will perform more or less the same. The variation between individual examples will likely be more. The Apo-Rodagon 1:4.8 f=180mm is an enlarger lens. Less coverage. And as mentioned previously in this thread enlarger lenses will do a better job with still live.

 

[Allthink]

I only have the two 180mm lenses that I mention. 180mm is not very common. These two just came on my way.
I think all 180mm lenses with the same coverage will perform more or less the same. The variation between will likely be more. The Apo-Rodagon 1:4.8 f=180mm is an enlarger lens. And as mentioned previously in this thread enlarger lenses will do a better job with still live.


View attachment 387399

Thanks. The N model was before the S? ( I attached the N model)

I didn't find any "Apo-Rodagon" lens from Rodenstock on the net. Are you sure that's the correct name?
Did you mean it outperforms another Rodagon lens or the Schneider Kreuznach Apo Symmar MC 180mm f/5.6?

 

[gary mulder]

Thanks. The N model was before the S? ( I attached the N model)

I didn't find any "Apo-Rodagon" lens from Rodenstock on the net. Are you sure that's the correct name?
Did you mean it outperforms another Rodagon lens or the Schneider Kreuznach Apo Symmar MC 180mm f/5.6?

Yes. the N model was before the S

 

[Besk]

The Schneider Kreuznach Apo Symmar MC 180mm f/5.6 is the newest design compared to the Sironar-N and should theoretically be better for general photography - which they were designed for.

But you would be hard pressed to see the difference in real life.

 

[Allthink]

The Schneider Kreuznach Apo Symmar MC 180mm f/5.6 is the newest design compared to the Sironar-N and should theoretically be better for general photography - which they were designed for.

But you would be hard pressed to see the difference in real life.

Thanks Besk. Is it(Sk apo symmar mc) newer design than apo sironar s that Gary have?

I wish there was some list of this ~180mm lens that could sort the lenses in descending order from best ones at the top, the top one being the best in all categories IQ wise, because so many versions were from all the big 4 brands, and sill are but with the digital and only 2 brands now left.

Just for comparison of prices, each next gen. is 2-3 times more $ than previous one, even they are ~ 20 years old.
RODENSTOCK 180MM SIRONAR-N F5.6 - 250$
Rodenstock Apo Sironar N 180mm f/5.6 - 700$
Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S 180mm - 1800$
SK apo symmar 180 - ~450$
Funinon CM 180mm W - 500$
Fuji Fujinon W S 180mm f/5.6 - 150$
and finally Pentax 67 165mm f/2.8 though not copal.

 

[Steve Goldstein]

The best gauge of what your average Joe is willing to pay is to look at ebay "sold" prices for actual auctions. There's little logic in ebay "sold" BIN prices and none whatsoever in BIN asking prices. Occasionally a seller will list something at an extremely low BIN price, well under recent sold prices, because they don't know what they have, and it'll be snapped up quickly (and very possibly flipped). Sometimes an auction item will go for a very low price because demand is temporarily low (like the day after Christmas, or maybe quite a few of that particular lens have sold recently and there are few or no buyers at that moment, or because the seller has very low or poor feedback.

As far as what's the "best" lens, there's no way to say. One lens might be marginally sharper than another when looking at resolution charts but it might have uglier out-of-focus rendition. Or maybe the color rendition won't match other lenses you've already got. Some people don't like the newer multicoated plasmats (most of the lenses you mentioned other than the Pentax follow the basic plasmat design) because they're too sharp - instead, they might prefer a single-coated older Fujinon like the W S with inside lettering, or even something older like a Dagor. Maybe you've standardized on 58mm filters - in this case the 180mm Apo-Sironar-S might not be "better" for you because it takes 67mm filters.

Trying to find the "best" lens is a silly exercise, IMO. Rather than stressing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, buy a lens in good condition and use it for a while doing your type of photography. If you like the results, keep it. If not, get another, compare the two, keep the one you prefer, and sell the other. You can do this exercise as long as your patience and wallet hold out, but remember that even the most expensive lens in the world isn't going to make you a better photographer.

 

[Allthink]

The best gauge of what your average Joe is willing to pay is to look at ebay "sold" prices for actual auctions. There's little logic in ebay "sold" BIN prices and none whatsoever in BIN asking prices. Occasionally a seller will list something at an extremely low BIN price, well under recent sold prices, because they don't know what they have, and it'll be snapped up quickly (and very possibly flipped). Sometimes an auction item will go for a very low price because demand is temporarily low (like the day after Christmas, or maybe quite a few of that particular lens have sold recently and there are few or no buyers at that moment, or because the seller has very low or poor feedback.

As far as what's the "best" lens, there's no way to say. One lens might be marginally sharper than another when looking at resolution charts but it might have uglier out-of-focus rendition. Or maybe the color rendition won't match other lenses you've already got. Some people don't like the newer multicoated plasmats (most of the lenses you mentioned other than the Pentax follow the basic plasmat design) because they're too sharp - instead, they might prefer a single-coated older Fujinon like the W S with inside lettering, or even something older like a Dagor. Maybe you've standardized on 58mm filters - in this case the 180mm Apo-Sironar-S might not be "better" for you because it takes 67mm filters.

Trying to find the "best" lens is a silly exercise, IMO. Rather than stressing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, buy a lens in good condition and use it for a while doing your type of photography. If you like the results, keep it. If not, get another, compare the two, keep the one you prefer, and sell the other. You can do this exercise as long as your patience and wallet hold out, but remember that even the most expensive lens in the world isn't going to make you a better photographer.

Thanks Steve.
As it is a long route(you mentioned) i prefer to hear someone that already did that path, maybe did some mistakes, and can share his experience on that. That's why i eager to hear photographers that already had a chance to have at least two of them and have based their knowledge about them after using it for some time. I want to learn from experience of another photographers.
I personally prefer lens that have minimal CA and have very good resolving power if i pair it with 45/60mp 24x36mm sensor and enough(10mm) movements(on tech cam.) without sacrificing quality significantly.
Just someone that tried at least 2, i'm looking for these people, that used 2 brands at least in 150-180-210mm range.