Rodenstock Sironar or Schneider Symmar-S?

[Keith Tapscott.]

I will be hoping to buy a second-hand 180mm lens soon. Is there any significant difference between a Symmar-S and a Sironar n or s in terms of image quality? An APO version is desirable but not essential.

 

[Steve Hamley]

The Apo Sironar-N and -S are later lenses than the Symmar-S, although I doubt you'd see any difference. The current Schneider version is the Apo Symmar-L, and the version before that was the Apo Symmar. I'd get the one that's in the best shape glass and shutter-wise.

The Apo Sironar-S has a tad more coverage, a wider range of optimization than the Apo Sironar-N (according to Bob Salomon of HP marketing), but is larger, heavier, and more expensive.

Steve

 

[Frank Petronio]

An older Rodenstock won't have tiny flaking chips of paint floating around inside it -- commonly called Schneideritis.

 

[Early Riser]

The Sironar S lenses use ED type glass and besides having wider coverage also tend to be slightly sharper and contrastier than the Sironar N. They also work much better for macro photography than the N type, nearly equaling the performance of a true macro. I have the 150mm, 180mm, 210mm and 360 Sironar S and have been very satisified with them.

 

[Dan Fromm]

An older Rodenstock won't have tiny flaking chips of paint floating around inside it -- commonly called Schneideritis.

Right, sometimes. With a little luck, it won't have separations either. But many of them do, so luck really is needed.

Lucky me. I have a 58/5.6 Grandagon with separations AND Schneideritis. Doesn't shoot that badly, though.

 

[BradS]

I will be hoping to buy a second-hand 180mm lens soon. Is there any significant difference between a Symmar-S and a Sironar n or s in terms of image quality? An APO version is desirable but not essential.

They're all APO - printing it on the side is a recent marketing gimick.

 

[MichaelBriggs]

An older Rodenstock won't have tiny flaking chips of paint floating around inside it -- commonly called Schneideritis.

"Schneideritis" is a condition where spots on the edges of the lens elements reflect light. One might think that the black paint has flaked off in spots and that there should be flakes of paint in the lens. But I have never seen flakes of paint in a Schneider lens with Schneideritis. I took an old Symmar apart to clean internal haze and found that the edging paint, viewed externally, appeared completely intact. So the paint is detaching in spots, but remaining in one piece. There are no flakes.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Some interesting comments. Schneideritis sounds like a worrying condition that can happens to other brands too, can`t say I`ve heard of this before reading this thread.
The Rodenstock APO Sironar-S along with the Schneider APO Symmar-L providing my budget can stretch to it are so far the leading contenders for me although the others are an option depending on condition. Thanks to all who replied.
Cheers.

 

[Ole]

I wonder why it's called "Schneideritis"?

I see exactly the same thing in a 1930's Goerz lens (180mm Dagor) and an 1870's Lancaster Rectigraphic. Both lenses are still as good as the day they were made. So are all but one of my Schneider lenses, except the 90mm Angulon where the inner elements are missing (that's all right, since I bought it for the shutter).

On the whole I find it very difficult to see any difference in prints from negatives made with this or that lens. The only obvious differencs in prints are between coated (single or MC) and uncoated lenses.

Admittedly I have no modern lenses (newer than the 1970's), but even comparing a 120 Angulon, an 121 Super-Angulon, a 121 Leitmeyr and am 130 Weitwinkel-Aplanat (Busc, 1904) it's very difficult to tell which lens has been used.

 

[haziz]

The Rodenstock APO Sironar-S along with the Schneider APO Symmar-L providing my budget can stretch to it are so far the leading contenders for me although the others are an option depending on condition. Thanks to all who replied.
Cheers.

Don't ignore the offerings from Fujinon and Nikon either. I have lenses from all four major manufacturers and my Fujinon W 180 f5.6 is excellent. I am also very happy with Rodenstock's Sironar N line. My 135 f5.6 Sironar N is a gem. Extremely sharp and absolutely tiny. It is my most used lens. For landscapes which is most of what I photograph, I find that slightly wide of normal view afforded by the 135 on 4x5 or the 180 on 5x7 is ideal. If you are buying from the US, Calumet's Caltar N line is in fact Rodenstock Sinronar Ns rebadged. Their older S II line was made by Schneider (Symmar S?? late seventies or early eighties vintage), both are plentifull on the used market at least in the US, possibly Europe since Calumet has stores in Europe. I am personally more partial to the newer lenses (last 25 years) and would be very happy with the Sironar N or it's Caltar version. I don't think you can go wrong with a 180 lens from any of the four manufacturers made within the last 25 years.

Sincerely,

Hany.

 

[Simonpg]

I have 2 Schneider Symmar-S MultiCoated lenses - 150mm f5.6 and 210mm f5.6 and both are abosolutely superb - razor sharp with wonderful tonality.

They are great value for money with no noticeable difference to the later APO version (which simply reflect the newer "green" glass as I understand it). Mint condition versions can be had for about US$300. I have no "older" Rodenstock lenses, but was promised these Symmar-S MC would be great and borrowed them for a few weeks to trial.

I have no issue with Rodenstock lenses as I have a 90mm f4.5 which is my regular lens and I love its images.

 

[roteague]

I have all Schneider lenses now; an 80XL, 135 Symmar-S and a 210 APO Symmary. They are all very sharp - especially the 80. I used to use a Rodenstock 210 and a Nikkor 90 - I had no problems with either. I just prefered to have all my lenses from the same manufacturer where possible.