opinions about a Symmar 5,6/240 convertible

[jeanba3000]

Hello

I'd like some opinions about that lens I found on eBay.

Is it a good or correct lens ? Someone very demanding advised me against convertible lenses that are very low optics in his opinion. He also thinks it isn't worth the price. Do you agree ?

I'm looking for a cheap and not too heavy lens for my 8x10" Century n°2 wooden view camera (1902~1923). For the moment I use it only as a pinhole camera and I'd like lenses to make landscape and portrait. I thought the convertible would be a reasonnable choice to begin with. Am I wrong ? Should I wait and save my money up for better but more expensive lenses ?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

These are older designs, and the lenses are single-coated rather than multicoated, but they are still quite good lenses and excellent values because of opinions like that of your "demanding" friend. Go to www.schneideroptics.com for info on this specific lens under their "vintage lens data" section. I believe it covers 8x10", but it might not give you much room for movements. You might be better to start with a lens of around 300mm.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Good lens if you use it normally, if you use back half only, you need to work at a small aperture. The seller says it covers 18 x 24 cm, this is right, i.e. only just 8x10". Would agree 300 or 360 mm lens better as first lens for 8x10", 240 mm is a handy semi-wide but no front camera movements possible.

 

[df cardwell]

SNIP I thought the convertible would be a reasonnable choice to begin with. Am I wrong ? Should I wait and save my money up for better but more expensive lenses ?

The 240 (to begin) is far better than anything Edw or Ansel ever shot with on 8x10

It will cover 8x10 with a couple inches of movement... not much, but you can do a lot with it.

The single cell (always behind the shutter !) is about 420, right ? It will do well stopped down.

David is right: a 300mm will give you more coverage. It all depends on your style.

I use a legendary dagor , which is grossly inferior to the Symar, of this focal length. It wants for nothing. But I don't enlarge 8x10 beyond 20x24, so I'm not that demanding.

The thought of having this lens in Paris makes my heart race. Some FP4 or TMY, and I go straight to Champ de Mars... then... ah, me.

Bon chance.

 

[jeanba3000]

Thanks to all for your advices.

I only have a MF enlarger and I just do contact prints or scann for my webgallery.
My view camera has only vertical front lift and back vertical/horizontal twist.

Df Cardwell, I don't have pictures of the Eiffel tower, though I invite you to visit my webgallery to see some pictures taken in Paris. More to come when I find the time to scann my films...

 

[Shinnya]

Well,

I actually have this lens for about 3 years, and I did not know how to use it as 420/12 until I see this thread... I just tried it, and it works!

I am selling this lens if anyone is interested in though mine is in copal 3.

Warmly,
Tsuyoshi

 

[Ole]

I have one of those, and it's a great lens. I can't tell from the picture (well - not without getting out of my chair) whether that one is in a #2 or a #3 shutter, mine is in a #2. These are less common than the #3, but very good and reliable. I have 3 lenses in that size shutter...

I was very surprised the first time I tried mine converted, it was a lot better than I had been led to expect.

I use mine on 18x24cm and 5x7", but will use it on 8x10" too when I get it together (the camera that is). There is enough coverage with movements on 18x24cm that it should give some movements on 8x10" too.