Hello, interested in knowing if anyone used these two and how do they compare, i´m not interested i wheight or coverage discussions but in overall image quality.
i am talking about the super symmar hm with 150mm FL and 80º coverage, and a apo sironar 150mm FL 75º coverage, the super symmar hm is no longer made, and it´s heavy, and it´s more a 5x7 lens, i know, but how do these two compare in terms of image quality overall...
People often make typos like that. I wanted to be clear on whether OP was comparing two current lenses, or a current lens with an older lens. But thanks for your contribution.
Ok, I'm new here but interested in this discussion. I recently made this decision and went with the Apo-Sironar-S for 4x5. Its a sweet little lens, and very quickly moved to the top of my "pry it from my cold dead hands list." However, while I am amazed with it (in terms of sharpness and overall "quality") I wonder if I would have been just as happy with a 150mm HM that has more coverage, to replace my Sironar-S and the Nikkor-SW 120 I also carry when I need lots of coverage.
Sorry I have not shot with, or even seen in person a 150 HM.......but I am curious about the answers to the OP question.
Do I need the 80 degree coverage? If yes, look at the APO Sironar W/Sinaron WS or Super Symmar HM. I'd go for the Rodenstock as so much smaller and lighter.
If you do not, and 75 degs suffices, the APO Sironar S is much smaller and lighter than the 750g 150 SSHM and the better bet. The Schneider APO SYmmar L is comparable to the APO Sironar S in coverage.
The SSHM, APO Sironar S, APO Sironar W etc are so darned good that I personally think the considerations are coverage and size weight (and cost).