Have old Linhof 150/265, questions when using 265 optics.?

[harlequin]

Dear Analog Apug users,

I recently traded for a chrome, 150/265 Symmar lens, preliminary tests on 4x5 Tri X show a surprisingly
sharp lens with both elements.....however:

a) When I remove the front element the lens becomes effective 265mm lens
b) shots taken with front element removed seem to lack punch and contrast vis a vis the 150mm
c) also depth of field is non existent with friont element removed...
d) Is this normal behavior for a convertible lens, I am impressed as it is 50 years old, Linhof/Schneider quality.
e) I was thinking of using 265 for portraiture, is this the main purpose when using a convertible?
f) Or do I simply cut back on my mistress* and save up for an exotic Cooke Convertible??

* collecting old electric guitars and vintage tube amplifiers

Thanks for your help on this, many folks seem to have owned this lens at one time or another
including Ken Rockwell who raves about this glass.

harlequin

 

[devb]

There are a few things to keep in mind here.

First, with the front element removed, the aperture is going to be in front of the element in use. The depth of field is going to shift when you stop the aperture down. If possible, try to refocus after stopping down.

There is a loss of quality when using the 265 element, but it's not debilitating. I personally never use it.

Ken Rockwell raving about anything should never be taken seriously.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

these questions were being answered in minutes 10 years ago , old folks gone and new ones not interested and not experienced.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Convertibles are better for black and white when you use a filter and you need to stop way down, but personally, I've never seen the point. That would include the Cooke lens too. Just get a lens specifically for portraits if that is what you want.

Is there any particular reason for your fascination with convertibles? Size? Simplicity?

 

[devb]

these questions were being answered in minutes 10 years ago , old folks gone and new ones not interested and not experienced.

I don't know how old OP is but I'm fairly young and answered within an hour of the post. What is your point, exactly?

 

[shutterfinger]

Have you seen/read https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/symmar/
I have 2 210/370 and I'll part with the chrome one. I will test the black one by the 32nd.

 

[Ian Grant]

The OP is right that the 265mm when the lens is split is ideal for portraits.

Schneider actually made/sold a convertible Symmar set in the 1950's, I've details in a BJPA, this allowed different front and rear elements to be swapped to give differing Focal lengths, They also sold Angulons as convertible lenses.

Ian

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The OP is right that the 265mm when the lens is split is ideal for portraits.

Schneider actually made/sold a convertible Symmar set in the 1950's, I've details in a BJPA, this allowed different front and rear elements to be swapped to give differing Focal lengths, They also sold Angulons as convertible lenses.

Ian

Yes, Schneider recommends stopping down and using a yellow or green filter (on B&W) helps too.
The late 40s/early 50s convertible Symmar was a Dagor type, as was the original Symmar.

 

[btaylor]

Couple of things, of course the DOF is going to be greatly reduced going from 150 to 265mm, 'cuz you almost doubled the focal length. A question for you: there should be a second (green) aperture scale for the 265mm focal length-- are you using it? If not, your negs would be over 2 stops underexposed which would likely lead to a lack of contrast and "punch." I have a Schneider 240/420 convertible. Wonderful piece of glass, I have not ever used it in the converted 420mm mode however. I have an old Turner Reich 8x10 triple convertible also. The three aperture scales can be hard to read at times.

 

[removed account4]

i have the 210/370 chrome barrel linhof select too, and love it
your lens takes more than the 265mm to focus at infinity
the focus node is way back when converted, it will take about 350mm at infinity, so way more than
that at portrait distance. it is a f12 when converted, ( do youhave the 2nd set of numbers on your fstop dial ? )
its roughly 1 1/4 stops less than the f5.6 .. oh, there is a little focus shift too so when you stop down
use a loupe to make sure what you focused on is what is still in critical focus ..

have fun!
john

 

[harlequin]

OK, Thank You!

If I take off front element, where do I screw in the yellow or green filter when using 265mm mode?

B) Good idea to re-focus the image if there is shifting going on....never thought of that.
C) Now that explains why there are two settings on the lens aperture........greenhorn
D) This lens is being used on entry level Omega E camera, do I have enough bellows to use 265 setting for a portrait
of subject 7 feet away? I guess I will be testing this weekend....

Again thanks for your input, I am not fascinated, with convertible lenses however it was available at reasonable cost
and is sharp at 150mm setting.

I slowly am seeing the light on Ken Rockwell, as it seems like its "pay to play" in a photographic sense....
Not as fraudulent as Angie's List but to be taken with a large grain of salt..

Harlequin

 

[E. von Hoegh]

OK, Thank You!

If I take off front element, where do I screw in the yellow or green filter when using 265mm mode?

B) Good idea to re-focus the image if there is shifting going on....never thought of that.
C) Now that explains why there are two settings on the lens aperture........greenhorn
D) This lens is being used on entry level Omega E camera, do I have enough bellows to use 265 setting for a portrait
of subject 7 feet away? I guess I will be testing this weekend....

Again thanks for your input, I am not fascinated, with convertible lenses however it was available at reasonable cost
and is sharp at 150mm setting.

I slowly am seeing the light on Ken Rockwell, as it seems like its "pay to play" in a photographic sense....
Not as fraudulent as Angie's List but to be taken with a large grain of salt..

Harlequin

Yes, the light is dawning for you, we're all greenhorns at some point.
I've been using that same lens for the past 30 years and it has never dissapointed me even in pretty demanding product work.
I don't use it converted, having a faster and better 270mm. The convertible Symmars are underrated lenses. Check yours for internal haze, a seemingly insignificant haze makes a very significant degradation of contrast.

 

[paul ewins]

I think all of your questions have been answered, but I'll add some more information for anyone searching this thread later. The "convertible" aspect is an inherent property of this type of lens because it consists of two cells of identical design (but usually different focal length) either side of the shutter. Each cell is a functional photographic lens in its own right. So the front cell is one focal length, the rear another and combined they give a third, shorter focal length. When these lenses were being sold new they were comparatively expensive so to effectively be able to get two or three focal lengths in one package was a huge selling point.
Unfortunately optical laws still apply and there is no free lunch. The two cells together are sharper than either of the single cells and using a single cell behind the aperture is sharper than using a single cell in front of it. Add to this that the optical designer can tweak the lens for better sharpness as a complete unit or better sharpness as individual cells but not both. Eventually having one unit that was sharper became more important than being able to use it at multiple focal lengths and the manufacturers optimised the lenses as one unit and stopped marking the individual focal lengths. You should still be able to take a modern(ish) APO Symmar and use the rear cell alone but the performance would be inferior to the complete lens and possibly even to the rear cell on your 60 year old Symmar.

 

[removed account4]

OK, Thank You!

If I take off front element, where do I screw in the yellow or green filter when using 265mm mode?

B) Good idea to re-focus the image if there is shifting going on....never thought of that.
C) Now that explains why there are two settings on the lens aperture........greenhorn
D) This lens is being used on entry level Omega E camera, do I have enough bellows to use 265 setting for a portrait
of subject 7 feet away? I guess I will be testing this weekend....

Again thanks for your input, I am not fascinated, with convertible lenses however it was available at reasonable cost
and is sharp at 150mm setting.

I slowly am seeing the light on Ken Rockwell, as it seems like its "pay to play" in a photographic sense....
Not as fraudulent as Angie's List but to be taken with a large grain of salt..

Harlequin

hey harlequin

no worries about not knowing stuff, most people don't know stuff, but they ask and learn
so if you have more questions feel free to ask, even if the questions seem dopey, cause there are
no dopey questions just dopey answers ..

regarding the filter .. there are a few routes you can go..
some folks screw the filter into the rear cell of their lens
which is a pain, others use a thing called a xenophon
which is a filter holder that mounts on the lens board
and a gell fits in the filter holder .. not sure how to mount
something infront of the shutter .. to be honest i've had my lens for decades
and never used a filter with it

have fun with your lens !
john