Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,659   Posts: 1,481,501   Online: 1122
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    118
    Images
    11

    Rodenstock Sironar S vs. Sironar N

    Anyone with experience with 300mm Sironar-S versus 300mm Sironar-N (other than a hefty $700 price difference)?

    Your insight will be much appreciated.
    Jack Rosa

  2. #2
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,079
    Images
    20
    The Sironar-S has a larger image circle.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  3. #3

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Italy
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    21
    I just bought a 300 Sironar S and I'm totally amazed from the results, all the 8x10" originals I shoot with this lens came out impossibly crisp and sharp, but I never made a comparison with the 300 N.
    Another difference between the N and S series, is that the S lenses use ED glass (extra-low dispersion) for better perfomance in the chromatic aberration "department".
    I think that the excellent Paul Butzi website has some great informations about these Rodenstock lenses (both N and S).

    Ciao
    Marco

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    453
    IIRC, Bob Salomon once posted that the Sironar-S was optimized for 1:5 to infinity while the "N" was optimized for 1:10 to infinity. Might be of issue if you're shooting tabletop or up close.

    Steve

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    118
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by MarcoF
    I just bought a 300 Sironar S and I'm totally amazed from the results, all the 8x10" originals I shoot with this lens came out impossibly crisp and sharp, but I never made a comparison with the 300 N.
    Another difference between the N and S series, is that the S lenses use ED glass (extra-low dispersion) for better perfomance in the chromatic aberration "department".
    I think that the excellent Paul Butzi website has some great informations about these Rodenstock lenses (both N and S).

    Ciao
    Marco
    ------------

    Marco: Are you shooting table top (close-ups) or landscapes (infinity)? Thank you for your insight, by the way.
    Jack Rosa

  6. #6
    Frank Petronio's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    downwind from Kodak
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    218
    Images
    2
    If you don't need the extreme coverage of the S, I doubt you could tell a difference in outdoor work and optical (traditional enlargement). You might see a very slight advantage if you are someone who scans super hi-res on top dollar scanners, making mural sized prints. But who really has shot and compared?

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    118
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Petronio
    If you don't need the extreme coverage of the S, I doubt you could tell a difference in outdoor work and optical (traditional enlargement). You might see a very slight advantage if you are someone who scans super hi-res on top dollar scanners, making mural sized prints. But who really has shot and compared?
    Frank: Thank you for your insight. MY works is motly landscapes. I shoot 8x10 negatives and enlarge them to 20x24 and 30x40
    Jack Rosa

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    145
    Images
    2
    Jack

    A while ago, I tested 10 modern 150mm lenses - the APO Sironar N and S were among them. The test involved shooting both a test target and a real world 3-D subject at round 50 feet (roughly 20 times focal lengh). At anything up to around 6X enlargement, there was no real difference in 9 out of the 10 lenses (and I suspect that the 10th lens was a dog, given the closeness of the others). Only at extreme magnifications would there have been any discernible difference in some of the lenses - very small resolving differences. Color rendition was a little more noticable, but differences on the whole were still slight at most. A 30X40 from an 8X10 enlargement is very modest and my advice would be to go with the APO Sironar N and save the money - I am 100% certain that you will not be able to detect any differences at that level of enlargement.

  9. #9
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,079
    Images
    20
    I would choose on the basis of practical considerations, rather than optical quality, which should be excellent in either case. The tradeoff is between coverage, price, and physical size/weight of the lens.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
    I would choose on the basis of practical considerations, rather than optical quality, which should be excellent in either case. The tradeoff is between coverage, price, and physical size/weight of the lens.

    I agree. Size, weight and cost.

    My 2 Cents is this. I own a 300mm F9 Rodenstock Geronar, supposedly a very simple cery basic lens with only 340mm of coverage....from a family of lenses regrded by many as inferior. It is TINY i.e much smaller than a 210mm f5.6 plasmat. The performance of this lens on the equivalent of a 40" enlargement from 10x8 is beyond reproach and the coverage ample. It is optically moer than good enough to allow sniffing of a 40" print! A 300mm Sironar N would undoubtedly be a better performer still.

    On 10x8 a lens is not having to do any real work even for a 30" enlargement. I would go for the cheaper lighter, smaller one. The 300mm f5.6 N still has a big circle. If you are doing landscapes and intend to carry more than one lens, I would go for A 305 g Claron, smaller and light by far and superb up close and at infinity! I own one and have not yet compared to to the Geronar. Coverage is IMMENSE and it comes in a nice small Copal 1 rather than whopper Coapl 3. It is under 1/2 the weight of 300mm sironars.


    Tom

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin