S&N - Rodenstock APO Sironar-N and S differences?

What's the fundamental difference between the Rodenstock APO Sironar-N and S
lenses?

I see that Chris Perez's tests give a whopping 20 to 30 lp/mm superiority to
the 210S over the 210N.

In article , "jjs"
wrote:

What's the fundamental difference between the Rodenstock APO Sironar-N and S
lenses?

I see that Chris Perez's tests give a whopping 20 to 30 lp/mm superiority to
the 210S over the 210N.

Glass, performance, optimal aperture range, optimal magnification range,
coverage.

The Apo Sironar N has been discontinued except for the 150 and 210mm.
The S range has been expanded and now covers 100 to 360mm.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

In article , "jjs"
wrote:

What's the fundamental difference between the Rodenstock APO Sironar-N and S
lenses?

I see that Chris Perez's tests give a whopping 20 to 30 lp/mm superiority to
the 210S over the 210N.

Glass, performance, optimal aperture range, optimal magnification range,
coverage.

The Apo Sironar N has been discontinued except for the 150 and 210mm.
The S range has been expanded and now covers 100 to 360mm.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

In article , Bob Salomon wrote:
In article , "jjs"
wrote:

What's the fundamental difference between the Rodenstock APO Sironar-N and S
lenses?

I see that Chris Perez's tests give a whopping 20 to 30 lp/mm superiority to
the 210S over the 210N.

Glass, performance, optimal aperture range, optimal magnification range,
coverage.

The Apo Sironar N has been discontinued except for the 150 and 210mm.
The S range has been expanded and now covers 100 to 360mm.


And how does the now-discontinued Apo Sironar W compare in terms of optical
performance to the S and N? I know the coverage is greater, as is the size (and
cost).

Thanks.

In article , Bob Salomon wrote:
In article , "jjs"
wrote:

What's the fundamental difference between the Rodenstock APO Sironar-N and S
lenses?

I see that Chris Perez's tests give a whopping 20 to 30 lp/mm superiority to
the 210S over the 210N.

Glass, performance, optimal aperture range, optimal magnification range,
coverage.

The Apo Sironar N has been discontinued except for the 150 and 210mm.
The S range has been expanded and now covers 100 to 360mm.


And how does the now-discontinued Apo Sironar W compare in terms of optical
performance to the S and N? I know the coverage is greater, as is the size (and
cost).

Thanks.

In article ,
(Stephan Goldstein) wrote:

In article , Bob
Salomon wrote:
In article , "jjs"
wrote:

What's the fundamental difference between the Rodenstock APO Sironar-N and
S
lenses?

I see that Chris Perez's tests give a whopping 20 to 30 lp/mm superiority
to
the 210S over the 210N.

Glass, performance, optimal aperture range, optimal magnification range,
coverage.

The Apo Sironar N has been discontinued except for the 150 and 210mm.
The S range has been expanded and now covers 100 to 360mm.


And how does the now-discontinued Apo Sironar W compare in terms of optical
performance to the S and N? I know the coverage is greater, as is the size
(and
cost).

Thanks.

Other then the added coverage the W does not outperform the S. However
the S is much smaller, lighter and less expensive. In addition there
were only 3 lenses in the W series. A 150 a 210 and a 300mm.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 19:13:40 GMT, (Stephan
Goldstein) wrote:


And how does the now-discontinued Apo Sironar W compare in terms of optical
performance to the S and N? I know the coverage is greater, as is the size (and
cost).


I've used the S series lenses and have found nothing better. I
currently use a 300 mm W on 11x14 and find that it is my sharpest lens
(I also have Fuji 450 CMW, 24" Red Dot Artar), just about as good as
the S series but with great coverage for the format.

In article , PlatPuss wrote:
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 19:13:40 GMT, (Stephan
Goldstein) wrote:


And how does the now-discontinued Apo Sironar W compare in terms of optical
performance to the S and N? I know the coverage is greater, as is the size
(and
cost).


I've used the S series lenses and have found nothing better. I
currently use a 300 mm W on 11x14 and find that it is my sharpest lens
(I also have Fuji 450 CMW, 24" Red Dot Artar), just about as good as
the S series but with great coverage for the format.


Now here's my *real* question. Through extremely good fortune I've managed to
squirrel away both a 210mm APO-W _and_ an 210mm Fujinon-W (the older one
with single coating but 80-degree coverage). I expect to move up to 8x10 in the
next year or two, but certainly won't need both of these lenses. Which one
would *you* keep? BTW, the Sironar-W weighs nearly 1kg, almost twice the
weight of the Fujinon, but I don't expect to backpack with 8x10.

Thanks.

Steve

In article ,
(Stephan Goldstein) wrote:

I've managed to
squirrel away both a 210mm APO-W _and_ an 210mm Fujinon-W

Then you are very fortunate that you can try them both, side by side,
and make your own decision based on actual, first hand results.

Then you can let us all know which you kept.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

In article , Bob Salomon wrote:
In article ,
(Stephan Goldstein) wrote:

I've managed to
squirrel away both a 210mm APO-W _and_ an 210mm Fujinon-W

Then you are very fortunate that you can try them both, side by side,
and make your own decision based on actual, first hand results.

Then you can let us all know which you kept.


Agreed, but I'm still trying to figure out a truly meaningful way to test
them at their limits of coverage when all I have at present is a 4x5!
I suppose with enough rising and tilting I might be able to do it (once
the Fujinon arrives) but I was hoping perhaps someone might be able
to share their experiences.