The apo sironar 120 macro. Worth updating?

[cunim]

I have used this lens for many years and, recently, have been looking at ways to refresh my Rollei-shiutter version (in Arca 110mm board). Apparently, others have a similar positive view of this lens.

My go-to lens, unfortunately it can’t be mounted to X Shutter, I’ve already tried .

Thanks to @Will Deleon for his info about the X. Too bad, though the consumption of the external shutter port on the IQ back (X eats it) makes the X shutter less attractive for studio work. Therefore, I am most interested in a copal option. "Course, getting those is a problem but -- pre-1980 copal 0 shutters cannot be used with modern lenses like the HR digaron line (I've tried). Those older copals may, therefore, be easier to find or to salvage. Anyone know if I can install my NOS pre-1980 copal 0 into the 120 macro?

The real problem with my 120 is that the outer parts of the image circle show a lot of coma artefacts and blurring as I go out. I don't remember it doing that back when this was my primary lens. I suspect my lens needs to go in for alignment but would be interested to know how well other samples hold up when moved. Is my lens off or was it always this way? Perhaps I have just become spoiled. The apo sironar is about as sharp as the Phase 120 macro BR on center, so that performance is good. It is just the moved imaging that is suspect.

The 120 macro has been replaced as my tabletop fav by the remarkable 138. Perhaps that experience is what makes the 120 look worse to me now. Whatever the cause, there remains a need for both lenses. Though I can push the 138 to about 1:4, it can't replace the 120 for true macro.

 

[Alkibiades]

I have used this lens for many years and, recently, have been looking at ways to refresh my Rollei-shiutter version (in Arca 110mm board). Apparently, others have a similar positive view of this lens.



Thanks to @Will Deleon for his info about the X. Too bad, though the consumption of the external shutter port on the IQ back (X eats it) makes the X shutter less attractive for studio work. Therefore, I am most interested in a copal option. "Course, getting those is a problem but -- pre-1980 copal 0 shutters cannot be used with modern lenses like the HR digaron line (I've tried). Those older copals may, therefore, be easier to find or to salvage. Anyone know if I can install my NOS pre-1980 copal 0 into the 120 macro?

The real problem with my 120 is that the outer parts of the image circle show a lot of coma artefacts and blurring as I go out. I don't remember it doing that back when this was my primary lens. I suspect my lens needs to go in for alignment but would be interested to know how well other samples hold up when moved. Is my lens off or was it always this way? Perhaps I have just become spoiled. The apo sironar is about as sharp as the Phase 120 macro BR on center, so that performance is good. It is just the moved imaging that is suspect.

The 120 macro has been replaced as my tabletop fav by the remarkable 138. Perhaps that experience is what makes the 120 look worse to me now. Whatever the cause, there remains a need for both lenses. Though I can push the 138 to about 1:4, it can't replace the 120 for true macro.

You can use every copal, compur oder prontor shutter 0 that was ever made!
You must calibrate the lens with the shutter, for best results it should be done by rodenstock: cost 500-1200 euro now, or you do it for free by youself.
All digital macros from schneider or rodenstock, 80 mm and 120 mm should achieve similar or better optical performance than the Phase 120 mm.

 

[daz7]

Do you use sironar macro (film version) or sironar Digital macro?
A digital version of their 120mm is better than their film version, as they took into account a sensor glass in the lens calculation.
It is in my opionion one of the best and most versatile macro lenses on the market if you need a large image circle and is better than Schneirer's, Phase, Mamiya or Contax/Zeiss offerings, beating them on image circle, CA or resolution.

Are you using the lens for its intendend scales?
If you use that lens to shoot anything larger than 3:1 then you may consider enlarger lenses.
I would also check if your lens is correctly aligned and adjusted - it should be visibly better than phase 120.
If you sitll want to upgrade for the real macro scales and if you do not care much about the cost, then getting a HR 105mm float Macro from Rodenstock may be the answer.

 

[Alkibiades]

the film and the digital version have the same design-schneider and rodenstock. the calibration is different. In some lenses also the cautings but a lot of tests shows that both versions when good calibrated should perfome exactly equal.

 

[cunim]

Thanks for the replies. You give me hope that I can put the Copal 0 into my 120 macro - digital by the way. I am checking that now and, if possible, will send the lens in for a shutter replacement and calibration.

Interesting comments that the Rodenstock 120 apo should be sharper than the P1 120 macro BR. My apo isn't sharper, so that could be another clue about needing calibration. I guess the P1 is not quite as great as I thought but, to my eye, it is lovely when movements are not required.

By the way, I just learned P1 make "BOB", a breakout box for the IQ back. It allows you to use the X shutter and an external shutter trigger at the same time. Not cheap, but you already knew that.