Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,140   Posts: 1,658,095   Online: 839
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25
  1. #1
    JackRosa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    412
    Images
    14

    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
    17,713
    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
    JackRosa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    412
    Images
    14
    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
    JackRosa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    412
    Images
    14
    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
    17,713
    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  Ś   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin