Macro 180mm Lenses: Experiences with Rodenstock and/or Schneider

[Scott J.]

I'm curious to know if anyone has any experience with either (or both!) of the 180mm macro offerings from Rodenstock and Schneider -- i.e., the Rodenstock Apo-Macro-Sironar and the Schneider Makro-Symmar HM. There's a little bit of information out there about these two lenses but not much in the way of people's first-hand experiences with them (aside from a few general endorsements of their sharpness at high magnification).

If you've had a chance to use one in the 1:3 - 3:1 magnification range on 4x5, 5x7, or 8x10, I'd be curious to know what you liked or did not like about it and if there are compelling reasons (performance, design, etc.) why you'd purchase one over the other. Thanks in advance for sharing your experiences.

 

[Scott J.]

As a follow-up, the product brochures for these two lenses can be viewed here:

Rodenstock 180mm Apo-Macro-Sironar -- https://www.rodenstock-photo.com/Archiv/e_Rodenstock_Analog_Lenses_27-42__8226.pdf (Page 6).
Schneider 180mm Makro-Symmar HM -- https://www.arca-swiss-magasin.com/contents/fr/macro-symmar.pdf.

I did notice something strange regarding the respective flange focal distances (FFD) of these two lenses when focused at infinity and mounted in Copal 1 shutters. Schneider says the FFD for their 180mm is 174.4mm, which seems about "right" to me in the sense that the FFD is usually ball park with the focal length of the lens. But according to Rodenstock, the FFD of their 180mm is 356.6mm when focused at infinity, which is twice as long as I would have expected. Am I just misreading what Rodenstock is saying in their brochure?

Although I don't plan to use this lens at infinity, I am concerned about the bellows extension required to get to 1:1 -- i.e., if the Rodenstock really needs 356.6 mm to focus at infinity, would it need >700mm to get to 1:1? I'm thinking there must be some nuance to Rodenstock's product literature that I'm not quite getting. Any ideas?

 

[GLS]

But according to Rodenstock, the FFD of their 180mm is 356.6mm when focused at infinity, which is twice as long as I would have expected. Am I just misreading what Rodenstock is saying in their brochure?

You're not misreading the brochure, but I think it must be an error on their part in the footnote and those figures are actually for 1:1 reproduction. They say the FFD for the 120mm is 235.6mm too.

I am also interested in any general feedback on this thread topic, as I have mulled over getting the Schneider 180mm HM in the past. The thing is I do precious little macro work so I've held off for now. Also if I wanted to do 2:1 or greater the 120mm would be required with my camera (its max bellows extension is only 500mm).

 

[Scott J.]

Another gentleman who previously owned both lenses reached out to me in a private message and echoed what you said above, GLS -- i.e., that the true FFD for the Rodenstock at infinity is around 180mm and that the 356.6mm figure is really for 1:1 (hence, a misprint). His opinion was that he couldn't really see a difference in the performance between the two lenses but sold the Schneider and kept the Rodenstock.

One potentially importance distinction I see in the two brochures is that the Rodenstock reportedly projects an image circle of 415mm at 1:1, whereas the Schneider projects a smaller IC of 375mm at 1:1. The Rodenstock seems to have a larger image circle at magnifications lower than 1:1, too, meaning it's theoretically still usable on larger formats as the bellows are drawn in toward infinity focus. Plotting the respective ICs versus magnification suggests that the Rodenstock will still cover 8x10 at a magnification of 0.28x (roughly 1:4), whereas the Schneider will only cover 8x10 down to 0.66x (somewhere between 1:1 and 1:2).

Of course, that all needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It might simply be that the two manufacturers are using different criteria for what constitutes an "image circle". Perhaps Schneider is simply ignoring more of the projected image at the margins due to it not meeting their criteria for optical sharpness. I don't doubt that both lenses are extremely sharp for macro work.

Other than that, the only other things I see are filter size (67mm for the Rodenstock and 58mm for the Schneider) and Copal 1-mounted weight (410g for the Rodenstock, 500g for the Schneider). My choice between the two will probably come down to price.

 

[GLS]

Perhaps Schneider is simply ignoring more of the projected image at the margins due to it not meeting their criteria for optical sharpness

Probably. My understanding is Schneider tend to be quite conservative when defining image circle of "acceptable performance".

The Nikkor AM ED lenses are another possible alternative, and tend to be cheaper (although there isn't a 180mm option).

 

[DREW WILEY]

Unless you're photographing diamond rings or insects as a profession, why not get a close-range corrected lens which is also superb clear out to infinity? Both the Schneider 180 G-Claron and Fuji 180 A-series would be excellent. But here again, Schneider's published image circles are very very conservative. Either of these lenses will provide plenty of wiggle room on 4X5 film even at infinity and are optically excellent. For 8X10 film use, the 240 GC or 250 Fuji A would be a good choice for close-ups with limited bellows draw. But again, Schneider's published image circle for this particular lens series is very very conservative. I've often used the 360 Fuji A for near-macro purposes on 8x10 film; but it's a rare expensive lens compared to G-Clarons.