Not a typical Shneider vs Rodenstock Qn....

[Tom Stanworth]

OK, The new APO Symmar L lenses have been 'improved' on previous symmar S lenses by virtue of the larger coverage, now similar to the Sironar S.

Assuming both produce outstanding images (a given) would there be any reason to choose one over the other?

All I can see is that they have similar prices in many cases but the Schneiders have larger filter diameters and much larger rear assemblies which might be tiresome when attaching and removing lenses.

I would incline towards the rodenstock (Sironar S 180 in this case) for that reason alone. I would be tempted by a used Nikkor W or Schneider S but seeing as it is for 5x7, I feel the symmar L or Sironar S gives that little more coverage.

The sironar S just looks that bit smaller to me..

Thoughts?

 

[colrehogan]

Are you concerned about weight, size, coverage or price? I don't know about these lenses, are any of them faster than the others, i.e. f/5.6 vs. f/8 at the widest aperture?

 

[Nick Zentena]

You forgot the Fuji W -)

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I had not forgot the Fuji W but kinda lumped it in with the Nikkor W as a used lens of good performance but less coverage than the sirona S or Symmar L. Maybe I am wrong on this !

Just wondered with the Synmmar L and Sionar S being direct competitors whether there would be any real reason to leab towards a Symmar L considering the larger front an rear glass. If all else is equal I would always go with the smaller lens. Seems that these two give about 10-15mm more IC than the others.

 

[Nick Zentena]

The oldest Fuji W if you could find it I think has the highest coverage. Published coverage for the first model is 305mm. The newest model only cover 260 supposedly -) It seems every newer model got a little less coverage.

 

[Petzi]

OK, The new APO Symmar L lenses have been 'improved' on previous symmar S lenses by virtue of the larger coverage, now similar to the Sironar S.

Assuming both produce outstanding images (a given) would there be any reason to choose one over the other?

Hello,

the Schneider Apo-Symmar L was preceded by the (outstanding) Apo-Symmar, which was preceded by the Symmar-S.

Yes, the coverage has improved. But you can not really compare lens coverage figures that you read in manufacturers publications. Because it is not well defined how to detemine the limits of lens coverage. Some manufacturers are more conservative with their coverage figures than some others or some photographers. You may find that your lens has coverage in the edges in that it projects an image there, but it does not give much resolution.

For landscape photography for example, you might have coverage beyond what the manufacturer stated, because you don't care about the loss of sharpness in the edge of your image on a piece of sky, as long as the lens does not vignette.

This does not make the choice easier of course, just food for thought... You could compare MTF curves to get an idea.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Petzi,

Absolutely...many say schneider are conservative with coverage and Fuji somewhat generous, thats why I wanted to tie it down to these two 'equal' lenses. Many threads I have read about teh Sironar S does suggest outstanding coverage that is indeed in excess of teh 72 degree offerings, such as the N and the Schneider non L lenses, so I gues that at least tells me something. I am sure the same is true of the Symmar L lenses, in that they cover more than the APO series did. I have occassionally seen the Sironar S 180 used and might well spring for one if I see it at the right price because it seems to do everything the Symmar L does but in a smaller package. That makes me ask teh question why Schneider went for big front and rear objectives? I mean, why would you do that. I could of course ask the same question about the massive Super angulon 90 6.8 'classic' which seems ridiculous to me.

I suppose there is a very good argument for picking up a clean Nikkor W, Sironar N or Fuji CMW 180 and seeing if it has enough coverage. I could always resell if I buy wisely. Used they seem to be about 60% of the price of a sironar S. In image quality terms I cannot say that I have been disappointed withy any lens from the main names. All seem much of a muchness unless splitting hairs....and their some unwanted diamonds out there used like the Rodenstck 300mm Geronar f9.

The Fuji CMW 180 looks good at 260mm, claiming a touch more than the Nikkor at 252 or so. I remember my 150 Xenar 5.6 rated at 175mm or so had more useable movement than the number suggested so if that 20mm was converted into 5x7 format to give an equiv of 30mm.....lenses with 250+ should give similar movement on 5x7 ...maybe...