Rodenstock Sironar S vs. Sironar N

[JackRosa]

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

Your insight will be much appreciated.

[David A. Goldfarb]

The Sironar-S has a larger image circle.

[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

[Steve Hamley]

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

[JackRosa]

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.

[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?

[JackRosa]

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

[Donsta]

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.

[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.

[Tom Stanworth]

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