Rodenstock S that much better than Nikon?

[karin bingel]

I am looking for a late vintage 300mm lens in good condition ( I shoot 5x7",
Delta 100, occasionaly FP4 + HP5) and I have noticed that Rodenstock Ss
and Schneider Apo Symmars sell for twice as much as the respective Nikon W lenses. Are they really that much better? Thank you

 

[Thomas Wilson]

There is much debate on this subject. The (my) short answer is yes, the APO lenses are better, at least theoretically. I would also suggest that putting good glass in front of a 5x7, coupled with good technique from start to finish, will put you far beyond the point of diminishing returns.

Do you lose any benefit of shooting with an APO if enlarging with a non-APO or achromatic lens?
Seriously, I don't know.

 

[Ian Grant]

I have some Schneider Symmar's & Rodenstock Sirobar's and yes they are superb lenses but they aren't any better than the Nikon's you'd need to check the exact specifications as coverage is slightly different, but there's far more than you need for 6x7 work.

You might look out for the 300mm f9 Nikon M, it's smaller & much more compact, but an excellent performer & still covers 10x8.

The pricing differences are more a factor of exchange rates etc for new lenses.

Ian

 

[eclarke]

The 300 Nikkor M is a great lens on 5x7...period...Evan Clarke

 

[sepiareverb]

The 300M is a great lens on 810 as well. In the darkroom I've seen the benefits of the Schneider HM and Rodenstock APO enlarging lenses over the Nikon, but only in very big enlargements (16x20"+) from 35mm. That could also be due to what size they are designed to perform at- out of my level of knowledge there.

I prefer the Nikon LF lenses to both the Schneiders I had, mostly contact printing from 810 negs, some enlargements at 20x24" (through an EL Nikkor).