I know these threads get old and are subjective, but I can't help asking. I can get a new Nikon lens for about 50% the cost of the Rodenstock. Any opinions? Is the Sironar S compelling despite the price difference? Thanks.
Sironar S vs Nikkor 135 mm
-
A
- Thread starter jeroldharter
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale BOOK SALE! Weston, Karsh, Kenna, Worth, Sexton
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale Complete Mamiya RB67 Pro SD collections with camera bags
- Started by orbitaldebris
-
Want to Buy JOBO ATL 1500/1000 or JOBO CPP2
- Started by balazsfff
-
For Sale Foto-100 bulk roll, 100'
- Started by MCB18
-
Sold Hasselblad ELM battery adapters x2
- Started by blee1996
Forum statistics
I've never had a bad Nikkor lens. I've have fewer Rodenstocks. They all work very well for modern lenses. Personally, I'd save your money for film and processing.
I have the Nikon 135mm and love it. I find it's just as sharp as my Rodenstock Sinaron-N 210mm. Unfortunately I don't think I have any shots I've taken with it to send you.
That's OK. A framed print would suffice.
I have the Sironar N 210 also (a late version Caltar purchased new) and it seems quite good. I have never used a Sironar S version for comparison.
Jerold, I think the price difference has far more to do with the US$ v Yen and US$ v Euro exchange rate than the craftsmenship of the two lenses.
Having said that I have just bough the 135 Sironar-S and love it
I was suprised how small it is.
I suspect there is more variation lens to lens than any of the manufacturers care to admit to.
Martin
Having said that I have just bough the 135 Sironar-S and love it
I was suprised how small it is.
I suspect there is more variation lens to lens than any of the manufacturers care to admit to.
Martin
I have the 135mm sironar-S and I can say that it is a fantastic lens. Super sharp, works very well for closer focus distances, has excellent coverage. I haven't used the nikkor so I can't tell you if the differences, if any, are worth the price difference, but from past experience I favor the Rodenstocks in the middle focal range.
Hi,
Samples from my nikkor sw 135 f5,6 on Chamonix 045n-1.
Film: Wephota np22 developed in Diafine.
Shell is more then lifesize, f11 used.
Landscape f16.
1600dpi Files direct from flatbed scanner Canon 8400F (except stitching in photoshop from two parts and cropping)
Maybe this will help you.
Btw. those frames are from my first 10 sheets on 4x5, and I'm still getting scratches, and I don't know if they are from holders or from jobo 2509N reel.
Samples from my nikkor sw 135 f5,6 on Chamonix 045n-1.
Film: Wephota np22 developed in Diafine.
Shell is more then lifesize, f11 used.
Landscape f16.
1600dpi Files direct from flatbed scanner Canon 8400F (except stitching in photoshop from two parts and cropping)
Maybe this will help you.
Btw. those frames are from my first 10 sheets on 4x5, and I'm still getting scratches, and I don't know if they are from holders or from jobo 2509N reel.
Attachments
jovo
Membership Council
Boy, this certainly speaks to the sharpness and contrast of the Nikkor.
"Btw. those frames are from my first 10 sheets on 4x5, and I'm still getting scratches, and I don't know if they are from holders or from jobo 2509N reel"
Your film is most vulnerable to scratches when it's wet, so it's most likely a jobo issue though I have no experience with that implement. I've found that films loaded in tanks of any sort that have slots are less likely to be scratched if the emulsion side (with the notches in the URHC) is NOT the side that rubs against the slot when being inserted or withdrawn.
There probably is more variation lens-to-lens than there is manufacturer-to-manufacturer.
In other words, the designs and manufacturing techniques are so similar, there is hardly ANY DISCERNIBLE differences.
The imaging chain ends to buffer small differences anyhow. Any of the post-1980 plasmats are pretty much the same: superb.
In other words, the designs and manufacturing techniques are so similar, there is hardly ANY DISCERNIBLE differences.
The imaging chain ends to buffer small differences anyhow. Any of the post-1980 plasmats are pretty much the same: superb.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 391
- Format
- Medium Format
In MTF testing most of the Sironar-S lenses should test out somewhat better than the Nikkor lenses. But in real life, the Nikkor is a very good lens. (The same goes for the Schneider and Fuji counterparts.) If you are willing to pay the premium, go for the Sironar-S lens. You can probably not find anything better.
Now, I were in a similar situation with getting a "new" 150mm. I settled for a used but nice Linhof selected Symmar-S lens at a good price. I decided to spend the money I saved on film instead. Also, the lens delivers everything I want from it and I do feel happy with it, which is what matters the most to me. I don't think that I would have had any different (read: 'better') results if I had gone for the Rodenstock.
//Björn
Now, I were in a similar situation with getting a "new" 150mm. I settled for a used but nice Linhof selected Symmar-S lens at a good price. I decided to spend the money I saved on film instead. Also, the lens delivers everything I want from it and I do feel happy with it, which is what matters the most to me. I don't think that I would have had any different (read: 'better') results if I had gone for the Rodenstock.
//Björn
I have never used a large format lens that I did not think was leaps and bounds beyond the amount of quality I need to do what I want to do. If anything is more bothersome than anything else, it is shutters. Speeds, reliability, consistency, etc. of shutters will cause you way more hassle, potential problems, and expense than optical quality. My suggestion is to get whatever is the best value, all things considered as far as shutter repair and adjustment. Get something with a sweet shutter, and I am sure the glass will be fine.
Jerold, are you going to let us know what you decided to buy?
Martin
Still dithering. I managed to pick up a used Sironar N for about 1/4 the cost of the Sironar S. I will try it and see what I think. Nobody mentioned that particular lens which appears to be quite compact.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 391
- Format
- Medium Format
The Sironar N does have a slightly smaller Image Circle (1/4-1/2" or so). In an MTF testing environment it may come in as slighly inferior to the Sironar S lens. But in practical terms... no real difference.
The simple reason why noone mentioned the N lens (or e.g. Fujinon W lenses) is that most modern lenses from the "big four" (Rodenstock, Schneider, Nikkor and Fujinon) are about the same in terms of performance. All of these 135mm lenses are the same design, i.e. a "Plasmat". Rodenstock did evolve the concept with both the Sironar S and the Sironar W lenses. Schneider made a Symmar HM series, but that production was only on for a few years to be followed by the Super Symmar XL is a very different (but very nice) "beast".
The same goes for wideangle lenses, where Grandagon, Super Angulon, Nikkor SW and Fujinon SW are all derivates from the Zeiss Biogon construction.
In short, when it comes to normal lenses (i.e. Plasmats) and wide-angles (Super Angulons et al) almost any lens from any of the big four will do the trick. It's more a matter of matching filter sizes etc.
//Björn
The simple reason why noone mentioned the N lens (or e.g. Fujinon W lenses) is that most modern lenses from the "big four" (Rodenstock, Schneider, Nikkor and Fujinon) are about the same in terms of performance. All of these 135mm lenses are the same design, i.e. a "Plasmat". Rodenstock did evolve the concept with both the Sironar S and the Sironar W lenses. Schneider made a Symmar HM series, but that production was only on for a few years to be followed by the Super Symmar XL is a very different (but very nice) "beast".
The same goes for wideangle lenses, where Grandagon, Super Angulon, Nikkor SW and Fujinon SW are all derivates from the Zeiss Biogon construction.
In short, when it comes to normal lenses (i.e. Plasmats) and wide-angles (Super Angulons et al) almost any lens from any of the big four will do the trick. It's more a matter of matching filter sizes etc.
//Björn
Back in the dark ages, before anybody made a good lens, say, 20 years ago....
I had a neat opportunity, to just play with glass. No spreadsheets, no illustrations here,
just the anecdote. I set up a simple shot, through big windows that opened fully, that had illumination that changed little. day in, day out. Shot 4x5 E6. Examined them for center and edge detail with a Zeiss microscope. Measured the film for edge and center brightness with a densitometer, and for contrast. Shot the stuff with a Sinar P2 on a foba tripod, with sandbags on the legs.
I had to do it all one handed, 'cuz I had a broken arm and had to do something to stay busy. Shot uncoated dagors, single coated ektars, samples of off the shelf MC lenses by Fuji, Schneider, Nikon, and Rodenstock. Shot close up stuff lit by a Hazylight.
Honestly, I was testing the Hypothesis, "Lenses from the 1950s were good enough for the 1990s."
Sent an outline to a magazine, rejected, they said there was no interest. Of course not.
So here's the deal: if you are NOT using a better enlarger than a Durst L1200 with glass carriers with Apo El Nikkor lenses,
or looking at your images through something better than a Zeiss microscope,
or have more revealing illumination than southwestern US summer sunshine,
or a more stable platform than was used to run the test, and better film than 'old' E6 chromes and... TechPan,
and won't be grain sniffing anything bigger than a 20x24,
the only thing I can tell you is that your technique is more important than any optical difference,
diffraction and camera movement kills pure optical performance,
and for most normal photography a 1950's journeyman grade lens (dagor, ektar, etc.) is better than you need
90% of the time. AND IF you NEED something better, ANY new lens is superbly efficiently
and virtually indistinguishable from another, made by anybody.
The gold standard of photo sharpness is still Adam's work from the '40s and early '50s.
ANY commercial lens from the '50s will do as well or better than Ansel used, the cameras are better, the film beyond comparison (despite the claims of factories using obsolete technology to make us film),
and new developers are so far beyond what Adams had to use it is just... silly.
So, here's what I did: I understood 20 years ago that if the picture wasn't perfect, it was my doing.
I sold off my posh new glass and made do with the old stuff. I returned the Sinar to a friend, the microscope to the university, and stopped worrying about it.
Today, film is better. Cameras, any cameras, are dirt cheap. Labs are still throwing Durst enlargers, and Omega and Beselers, into the dumpsters. Anybody with a job, which is always a thing to be thankful for, can go into the field better equipped than Weston-Adams-Anyfrickingbody, and execute ANY picture we might want to make.
Now, that is based on the assumption that you WANT to make great pictures. If you just want to test stuff, do what I did, have a couple beers and play in goal on a Sunday afternoon with a bunch of friends. But after the broken arm heals, go take pictures.
I had a neat opportunity, to just play with glass. No spreadsheets, no illustrations here,
just the anecdote. I set up a simple shot, through big windows that opened fully, that had illumination that changed little. day in, day out. Shot 4x5 E6. Examined them for center and edge detail with a Zeiss microscope. Measured the film for edge and center brightness with a densitometer, and for contrast. Shot the stuff with a Sinar P2 on a foba tripod, with sandbags on the legs.
I had to do it all one handed, 'cuz I had a broken arm and had to do something to stay busy. Shot uncoated dagors, single coated ektars, samples of off the shelf MC lenses by Fuji, Schneider, Nikon, and Rodenstock. Shot close up stuff lit by a Hazylight.
Honestly, I was testing the Hypothesis, "Lenses from the 1950s were good enough for the 1990s."
Sent an outline to a magazine, rejected, they said there was no interest. Of course not.
So here's the deal: if you are NOT using a better enlarger than a Durst L1200 with glass carriers with Apo El Nikkor lenses,
or looking at your images through something better than a Zeiss microscope,
or have more revealing illumination than southwestern US summer sunshine,
or a more stable platform than was used to run the test, and better film than 'old' E6 chromes and... TechPan,
and won't be grain sniffing anything bigger than a 20x24,
the only thing I can tell you is that your technique is more important than any optical difference,
diffraction and camera movement kills pure optical performance,
and for most normal photography a 1950's journeyman grade lens (dagor, ektar, etc.) is better than you need
90% of the time. AND IF you NEED something better, ANY new lens is superbly efficiently
and virtually indistinguishable from another, made by anybody.
The gold standard of photo sharpness is still Adam's work from the '40s and early '50s.
ANY commercial lens from the '50s will do as well or better than Ansel used, the cameras are better, the film beyond comparison (despite the claims of factories using obsolete technology to make us film),
and new developers are so far beyond what Adams had to use it is just... silly.
So, here's what I did: I understood 20 years ago that if the picture wasn't perfect, it was my doing.
I sold off my posh new glass and made do with the old stuff. I returned the Sinar to a friend, the microscope to the university, and stopped worrying about it.
Today, film is better. Cameras, any cameras, are dirt cheap. Labs are still throwing Durst enlargers, and Omega and Beselers, into the dumpsters. Anybody with a job, which is always a thing to be thankful for, can go into the field better equipped than Weston-Adams-Anyfrickingbody, and execute ANY picture we might want to make.
Now, that is based on the assumption that you WANT to make great pictures. If you just want to test stuff, do what I did, have a couple beers and play in goal on a Sunday afternoon with a bunch of friends. But after the broken arm heals, go take pictures.
Absolutely right. However, I sometimes have more money than time and I am always looking for ways to mollify the effects of "my doing."
I took my first trip that was devoted mostly to large format photography this summer and I shot about 175 4x5 negatives. Of course, I found that my lenses were not my rate limiting factor but I was. Checking everything twice, locking down all the knobs, remembering to zero movements, careful metering, the wind...
I have a short photo trip planned for February and hope to make progress. Also, I have a new camera that I can't wait to use more extensively, but anything new tends to increase the error rate also.
Have a good time, Jerold ! It IS easier when you can play with the camera every day...
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |