4x5" lens quality

[Stephen Frizza]

Ok just curious I have a Schneider- Kreuznach Symmar-S 5.6/150mm
multicoating lens for 4x5"

I am curious about the quality of this lens is compared to other 150mm lens for 4x5"

Anyone who can educate me on this lens I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[Konical]

Good Afternoon, Stephen,

Assuming it's undamaged, the lens should be perfectly satisfactory. The Symmar is of quality similar to that of late-model Rodenstocks, Caltars, etc. of the same focal length. Lenses with an "Apo-" designation may be state of the art and marginally better, but your lens won't be far behind. Hope you got it for a good price.

Konical

 

[Ian Grant]

There's a few threads about the differences between various 150mm lenses both Schneider & Rodenstock made two versions of their Symmars / Sironars.

Over the years I've used Xenars, single coated Symmars, Multi coated Symmar S's, Sironar N's and in reality there's virtually no difference in the quality of the resulting images, the Xenar's don't perform quite as well until stopped down.

By the time Multi-coating became common most LF lenses had reached a very high performance level, and apart from Congo (and re-badged Congo lenses) the quality from all the manufacturers was excellent, Nikon, Fuji, Schneider, Rodenstock.

Many people say that some of the Apo lenses are the same as the pre-Apo versions and that the manufacturers added the word Apo after it became a selling point for smaller format lenses.

Personally I prefer German optics over Japanese, but this is just taste and like prefering Leica M series optics over Noikon or Pentax, they are designed to slightly different optical criteria.

Ian

 

[Frank Szabo]

The Symmar is a fine lens.

Schneiders, however, are famous for element separation (you'll occasionally se a reference to "Schneideritis"). It will show up as a thin white ring around the front, rear, or both elements' periphery. This hasn't any effect on the photograph until it gets larger. It's presense is a downgrading (price) point but nothing worthy of worry unless it's really bad.

Sellers on FleaBay will occasionally have a lens they'll describe as having "Schneideritis" and will sometime have a really good picture of the elements - you might want to do a search there and see.

In this league, Schneider, Rodenstock, and Zeiss are the only players. Bausch & Lomb will have their name on older Zeiss designs and the Kodak Commercial Ektars (50s and older vintage) are right in there also.

I've never cared for Nikon - to my eyes, they're soft and I have no experience with Fuji other the their film (which I personally find far superior to Kodak).

Your Schneider is a keeper - enjoy.

 

[Ian Grant]

The Symmar is a fine lens.

Schneiders, however, are famous for element separation (you'll occasionally se a reference to "Schneideritis"). It will show up as a thin white ring around the front, rear, or both elements' periphery. This hasn't any effect on the photograph until it gets larger. It's presense is a downgrading (price) point but nothing worthy of worry unless it's really bad.

Have to pull you up on this one, say it again and you'll be one skinned cat

"Schneideritis" has nothing to do with lens element separation and has no effect at all on image quality. Buy an early Sironar they DO suffer from lens element separation.

Ian

 

[k_jupiter]

The Symmar is a fine lens.

In this league, Schneider, Rodenstock, and Zeiss are the only players. Bausch & Lomb will have their name on older Zeiss designs and the Kodak Commercial Ektars (50s and older vintage) are right in there also.

I've never cared for Nikon - to my eyes, they're soft and I have no experience with Fuji other the their film (which I personally find far superior to Kodak).

Your Schneider is a keeper - enjoy.

In your league perhaps. Until you have shot a 150 6.3 Fujinon lens (and I hear the 5.6 is a good piece of glass also), you don't know who is in the league , much less who is in first place . I have used the fuji for 20 some years and give in to no one for sharpness or contrast.

On the other hand, there isn't a whole lot of difference for the majority of us shooting if the lens is coated and treated well. Let's see some pitchers.

tim (150 6.3 fujinon) in san jose

 

[df cardwell]

You guys are just plain cold.

The Symmar-S is a dazzling lens. If you can't do it with THIS lens, you can't do it.

 

[Alex Hawley]

I am curious about the quality of this lens is compared to other 150mm lens for 4x5"

You'll do just fine with it Stephen. All of the name brand LF lenses are great, IMO. Everyone has there faves of course, but trying to quantify one's image quality relative to another is quibbling about how the hair is split. Just make sure you get it in a decent working shutter.

 

[Nick Zentena]

I am curious about the quality of this lens is compared to other 150mm lens for 4x5"

Depends what you mean. There are smaller lenses. There are lenses with more movement. There are newer lenses with "improvements" IIRC at least two newer versions of the Symmar alone.

Do any of these things matter? :confused:

But the lens on the camera and take some photos. Leave the magic bullets until [more likely if you ever] you find something missing.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

"you'll be one skinned cat" Though the expression was entirely appropriate to the circumstances - Bob (My little Manx) took strenuous exception!