i cant really figure out how big of a difference there is between symmars

[bicycletricycle]

i am looking to get a 180mm lens for 4x5 usage. This lens is going into a point and shoot that i am making and so it does need a lot of room for movements. I currently have a 135mm apo symmar that is really nice and sharp and was thinking about going with another apo symmar but it seems that the rodenstock APO Sironar s may be even better than the symmar. I am also generally confused about the symmars, I have seen them as convertables, APO, S, N (i think), MC, Linhof select and now L. I am very interested in wide open f5.6 performance. can any one help me with some general perceptions of these differences and also if the super expensive rodenstock sironar s is really better. I know that lots of people may be tempted to say things like none of this matters and the processing is more important and that an uncoated old barrel lens is all you need and part of me agrees but the question about all the different symmars still looms. I am also not looking for lines per millimeter data here unless you have it. General comparisons based on whatever anybody has learned would be great.

 

[Ian Grant]

The more modern APO Symmars and Sironars are the best, some people say the later pre Apo Symmars and Sironars are the same it's just they didn't use the APO marking, but in reality all the Multi-coated Symmars & Sironars are excellent. Sironars are also sold as Caltars.

Older single coated versions are OK too, but just not quite as good if you shoot into the light/sun. Using MC Symmars, Sironars, Super Angulons & Grandagons I often shoot with the sun in the image and have no flare or ghosting problemmns, but that just isn't possible with single coated lenses.

Ian

 

[bicycletricycle]

ghosting and flare

can the advances in coatings be seen as only effecting contrast and in reducing lens flare and ghosting. Do coatings only effect resolution through improving these two areas or do they also have another effect. I shoot mostly at night so increase in contrast is not needed and i dont really care too much about flare, actually i dont think all the coatings in the world will help a 2 minute exposure with a street light on in it. ive heard that the super fast leica lens (noctogon?) exhibits almost no flare at night wide open but maybe that is due to its construction and not its coatings.

 

[edtbjon]

Coating does help a lot, especially as you are shooting with street lights et al. in the picture. Also, somewhat simplified, a lens that have high contrast looks sharper.
The Leica Noctilux (and variations) f/1.0 lens behaves the way it does because it is constructed to be used wide open. It's an exceptional piece of glass (with an exceptional price tag...). The same goes for e.g. the 35mm Summilux and so on.
Large format lenses in general does not behave like the Leitz glass (or e.g. Zeiss Planar lenses) and benefits a lot from having the aperture closed down a couple of steps.
In short, I really hope the new incarnations of the Symmar range of lenses are the best of them so far, in terms of QC and performance. But as you pointed out yourself, it is probably very difficult to see any difference in between a "pick of the litter" old Symmar and a brand new one. I use a wide range of lenses from 100 year old brass lenses to Super Symmars and of course the SS lenses or a Fuji A-series lens will be very sharp. But the old lenses often surprises me when it comes to sharpness, while the tonality is always there. The old lenses can suffer from flare from time to time, so it's important to use a proper shade (read compendium), but that is equally important with modern lenses.

//Björn

 

[Nick Zentena]

This lens is going into a point and shoot that i am making and so it does need a lot of room for movements.

Wouldn't a lighter lens being a better choice then? Camera shake is going to hurt resolution more then lens choice.

Oh you've missed a Symar -) The -S model that Calumet sold labeled with their brand.

 

[Ole]

Let's see if I can get this right:

First there was the triple convertible Symmar f:6.8, a Dagor design.

Next came the more familiar convertible Symmar f:5.6.

The Symmar-S came next, and multicoating came along somewhere in the production time. So the multicoated ones are marked "MC".

The Super-Symmar HM was next, but as an addition, not a replacement to the Symmar-S.

Then came the APO-Symmar, along with the Super-Symmar XL Aspheric. The APO-Symmar replaced the earlier Symmar-S, but the "Super-series" just grew.

The last step was replacing the APO-Symmar with the Apo-Symmar-L.
-----

So are the newer ones better than the older ones? Yes, definitely.
Will you see the difference? Only if the old one is a pre-WWII Dagor-type.

---

When all that is said: If I were to pick a 180mm lens for a 4x5" point-and-shoot, I'd look for an old single-coated Xenar or Tessar f:4.5.

 

[bicycletricycle]

I'd look for an old single-coated Xenar or Tessar f:4.5
would these be in a compound shutter or barrel?

 

[Ole]

180mm f:4.5 Tessar or Xenar could be in barrel, Compound 3, or Compur 2 shutters. It's a slightly tricky size - and the 180mm f:4.5 Xenar I have is in a pre-standardisation dial-set Compur, slightly smaller than the later rim-set Compur 2 but a lot larger than a Compur 1...

 

[bicycletricycle]

i have to say that in all my ebay searching i havent run across a 180mm xenar, mostly 135, 150, 210... are these rare? also, do you have any experience with the 270mm tele arton or tele xenar? its the other lens that im thinking about using.

 

[Dan Fromm]

2wheels/3wheels, get thee to http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/archiv.htm and read what Schneider had to say about its products. IIRC, the tele-arton is a newer design than the tele-xenar; if so, better performing.

On your original question, Ole's complaints notwithstanding, the VM is more right than wrong. It makes the point strongly that there was a significant improvement in lens performance from the convertible Symmar (this is the first 6/4 plasmat one) to the Symmar-S. After that, nothing significant.

Also, on your original question, you wrote "This lens is going into a point and shoot that i am making and so it does need a lot of room for movements." Is there a typo in that sentence? Did you mean doesn't?

I suspect that it doesn't matter much which decent 180 you get if your point and shoot has no movements at all, as I suspect. This because most 180s cover more than 4x5 so you won't have to worry about image quality at the edges.

Good luck, have fun, buy the VM,

 

[bicycletricycle]

i have been to the schneider archive and it has a lot of good info but comparative data between different era lenses is something that it does not have. I did do a typo, no need for movements, maybe a little bit of tilt but i don't know yet. looks like the newer symmars have more coverage, especially the L. What do you mean by VM, very modern? am i missing something? So from this estimate the symmar s is the best bargain unless you needed the coverage of the new L? i have to admit the possible extra stop from getting an old xenar is tempting.

 

[Don Dudenbostel]

I've not had any experience with the 270 Tele Arton but have had two 360 Tele Artons over the past 40 years. Both were very good general work. They're quite sharp but pront to flare with light sources in or near the frame. If I remember correctly there were two versions of the 170 Tele. One only covered 6x9cm anf the other 4x5. Make certain you get the right one.

 

[Ole]

"The VM" is "The Lens Collector's Vade Mecum", an essential resource for anyone even as much as considering the mere possibility of the thought of considering buying an older lens. It is far from complete, often inaccurate, occasionally wrong, and totally invaluable.

Now it just so happens that I prefer having all the possible focal lengths I could want to get the framing I want rather than cropping in printing; so I own lenses of just about every conceiveable focal length. Since even my finances are not inexhaustible, the majority of these lenses are old and "cheap". So I have never compared a Symmar with a Symmar-S - all my Symmars are plain old convertibles. But I have never felt the lack of multicoating to be limiting; nor the slight difference in resolution between "plain" and "-S" versions.

I could point you to several of my pictures shot with old and "inadequate" lenses; but you really should be able to find them for yourself.

In short: If you want speed, go for Xenar/Tessar f:4.5. They aren't as rare as they seem, and tend to be cheap when found (my 180mm Xenar cost me $25). For sheer availability the Symmar, Symmar-S and Fujinon-W seem to be much better at the moment.

 

[argus]

Keep in mind that the Symmars have more coverage than Tessar of Xenar series.
The old models (convertibles) do weigh a lot more.

I got rid of all the shorter than 240mm classic Symmars and replaced them with more modern and lighter lenses.
I kept the 240mm/300/360 lenses for their coverage on 8x10" and larger formats.

G

 

[Ole]

Yes Geert, but a Xenar 180/4.5 is (or at least can be lighter than a Symmar 180/5.6.

Personally I have every Symmar (old, convertible) except the 135mm - and I'm workig on that. I just happen to like them, and performance-wise they're a lot of lens for very little money.

 

[Nick Zentena]

So from this estimate the symmar s is the best bargain unless you needed the coverage of the new L?

The Caltar version of the Symmar-s if you can find it will be cheaper then the Scheinder named version. Same lens. Same shutter. Different paint. My 300mm cost $150 from Keh.

If you're looking for "bargain" modern lenses the Fuji-W must be at or near the top of the list for value.

http://members.aol.com/subgallery/byseries.htm

 

[Chazzy]

The Caltar version of the Symmar-s if you can find it will be cheaper then the Scheinder named version. Same lens. Same shutter. Different paint. My 300mm cost $150 from Keh. [

I find the nomenclature for Schneider lenses confusing, and I can never remember who were the suppliers prior to the rebadged Rodenstocks.

How would I recognize a Caltar Symmar-S?

 

[Nick Zentena]

I'm not much better -( I think all the Schneider Caltars are labeled -S.

 

[Bandicoot]

...also, do you have any experience with the 270mm tele arton or tele xenar? its the other lens that im thinking about using.

I have a 270, Tele-Xenar and like it quite a lot as a 'long' lens I can use on a camera with limited bellows. I don't have anything else right in the FL to compare it to, but it is sharper than a 150/265 Symmar when the latter is converted (not unconverted, obviously). Contrast is lower than most non-tele lenses that I use, but still very acceptable with the right subject. I've even used it for still life as well as landscape. I don't know the Tele-Arton, but it should be the better of the two.

Since you were originally asking about a 180mm, any reason not to consider the 240mm Tele-Xenar?


Peter

 

[Steve Hamley]

Ole,

My 180mm Schneider Xenar in ringset Compur #2 is 10 grams heavier than a Rodenstock Apo Sironar-S! PM me, I have cells for you I promised a while back if you're still interested in them. It's a long story.

Cheers,

Steve

 

[void]

Personally I have every Symmar (old, convertible) except the 135mm - and I'm workig on that. I just happen to like them, and performance-wise they're a lot of lens for very little money.

I believe You. I ma curious if the convertible Symmar 300mm is available in Compur 3 shutter. Will it fit*? Which one shutter does Your have?

* I have checked on-line documentation and the results are not clear. This site confirms it http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/symmar/data/5,6-300mm.html, but for some reason Schneider's pdfs lists it with Compound 3.

 

[Paul.]

Yes Geert, but a Xenar 180/4.5 is (or at least can be lighter than a Symmar 180/5.6.

Personally I have every Symmar (old, convertible) except the 135mm - and I'm workig on that. I just happen to like them, and performance-wise they're a lot of lens for very little money.

Thank you Ole, as a newbie to this game of LF it is nice to learn that older cheaper lenses are worth looking at. The idea of a convertable lens intreques me, I know Scheider say it is less sharp and will have soft edges when converted but they recomend it as a soft portrate lens (150/265) will have to try it. Have you used any of the triplet lenses and what was your oppinion of them please? Last point where can one get a coppy of VM from please.

Regards Paul.

 

[paul ewins]

My 300 convertible is in a Compur 3 Electronic, as is my 240 convertible. The threads on the 300 are the same size (55.8mm) as a Copal 3s but appear to be a slightly different pitch as it binds after a couple of turns. The 240 looks like it has adapters in the shutter to suit the smaller thread size (45.7mm) of the lens.

 

[Ole]

My 300mm Symmar is in a Compound #3, the 360mm is in a Compound #5 - IIRC.

The Compur Electronic shutters were a replacement for the big Compounds, and have different threads from the Copals.

I think I put some examples in the "Technical Gallery" here, shot with a converted 150mm Symmar on 4x5". There should be an enlarged section of the corner of the photo, showing the aberrations. I should have blown up the center too, to show the difference.

Got to get to work now - more later.