Schneider convertible lenses

DrPablo · Oct 30, 2006

I just visited a great photography expo in Boston, and picked up for $395 an old Schneider 5.6/300 - 12/500 lens. I've been looking around on the net, and it looks like the single cell-convertible lenses don't perform quite as well as when both cells are used. Now, this lens is big enough to cover 8x10 (from what I understand), so if I'm using it on a 4x5 camera and stopped down should I expect good performance from it when using the single cell?

Dan Fromm · Oct 30, 2006

It will take a long 4x5 camera to answer the question. The flange-to-film distance for the rear cell used by itself is > 500 mm. Does your 4x5 camera allow that much extension?

DrPablo · Oct 30, 2006

I don't think I get that much with the standard monorail and bellows.

What if I reversed a recessed lensboard?

gchpaco · Oct 30, 2006

I have a Schneider 210/370, and mostly use it as a 210 where it's just a peach. I occasionally have cause to pull the front element off, and the results are not quite so great as with all six elements mounted, but I value the additional flexibility enough and the results are sufficiently good on 4x5 film that I haven't been motivated to pick up a longer lens.

Donald Miller · Oct 30, 2006

DrPablo said:
I don't think I get that much with the standard monorail and bellows.

What if I reversed a recessed lensboard?

At infinity focus you will need at least 20 inches of separation between the nodal point of the lens and the film plane. How you get to that dimension is immaterial.

sanking · Oct 30, 2006

Donald Miller said:
At infinity focus you will need at least 20 inches of separation between the nodal point of the lens and the film plane. How you get to that dimension is immaterial.

You will need less bellows draw if you use the front element (on the front) and remove the rear element. Unfortunately, performance is not as good as when you use the lens the way it was designed for convertible performance, i.e. with the front element removed. But it may be ok for some applications, portraits for example, or images where a fairly small central image is required.

Sandy King

Claire Senft · Oct 30, 2006

Generally speaking single cells are not nearly as well corrected as the two cells. Many of theses single cells will have appreciabble spherical erreors leading to focus shift and may well not have the ablility to bring all colors acceptably to the same point of focus.

I would think that you would find the single cell most usable if you do the following for b&W. Place the single cell behind the shutter, stop down to at least f32. Use a strong yellow filter such as a #15, focus with the filter in place while STOPPED DOWN. Your 500mm single cell may work fairly good under these conditions. This will greatly reduce focus shifts from the spherical abberations and the yellow filter will selectively reduce the wavelengths passed and help with color errors. Actually, you may find that a lens like this will work better with 8x10 contacts than 2x enlargements from 4x5.

This is only meant as a general statement. I have no experience in using a single cell from a convertible Symmar.

Ian Grant · Oct 30, 2006

Well said Claire.

I tried my 210mm Symmar split 30 years ago it was useless, although possible useable stopped right down. It was unsharp with focussing at full aperture.

In contrast my late 1930's 12" Dagor is fine split.

I think Schnieder were trying to catch a part of the market, but they soon dropped any mention of their lenses being splittable

Ian

Claire Senft said:
I would think that you would find the single cell most usable if you do the following for b&W. Place the single cell behind the shutter, stop down to at least f32. Use a strong yellow filter such as a #15, focus with the filter in place while STOPPED DOWN. Your 500mm single cell may work fairly good under these conditions. This will greatly reduce focus shifts from the spherical abberations and the yellow filter will selectively reduce the wavelengths passed and help with color errors. Actually, you may find that a lens like this will work better with 8x10 contacts than 2x enlargements from 4x5.

This is only meant as a general statement. I have no experience in using a single cell from a convertible Symmar.

DrPablo · Oct 30, 2006

I was getting my lensboard drilled today, and I ended up getting a good deal to trade up my 45N to a Cambo Legend with a monorail extension. So I easily have enough draw to focus with the rear element removed, but I still don't have enough to focus with the front removed (surprising, since the lens boards are 560mm apart at maximum draw). The images look good that way on the ground glass, but I haven't done any serious 'dry' shooting that way. The tradeup was still worthwhile, because the 45N is just too short for good macro shooting, the Legend has a rotating back, and it's easier to disassemble for travel.

I've only had a 90 and 210 to this point, so I wanted a bit longer than 210 for portraits. The 300 might be enough, but I'd love that 500 for color portraits if possible. I've heard that any filter (incl. UV filters and polarizers) will help cut the aberrant focusing, so maybe shooting with my polarizer will help with focus precision for color.

Marco Gilardetti · Oct 31, 2006

sanking said:
You will need less bellows draw if you use the front element (on the front) and remove the rear element. Unfortunately, performance is not as good as when you use the lens the way it was designed for convertible performance, i.e. with the front element removed. But it may be ok for some applications, portraits for example, or images where a fairly small central image is required.

Sandy King

I did the same occasionally, and though the results were not striking they were pretty much usable.

I think, however, that by doing so the diaphragm scale will be offset.

Ole · Oct 31, 2006

I've used my 240/420 Symmat converted on 5x7". Vertical format, maximum front drop on a Technika 5x7", f:32, no filter, FP4+ film.

The negative was as sharp as anything, and fully usable.

Using a strong coloured filter (e.g. colour separation) might be useful, but I saw no need for it.

I have also tried a 150/265 cunverted on colour slide (4x5"). There is some colour fringing at the edges, but better than getting no image!

Paul - "any filter (incl. UV filters and polarizers) will help cut the aberrant focusing" - that's wrong. A UV filter does nothing except introduce two more air/glass surfaces.

Claire - I own and use 180, 210, 240 and 300mm convertible Symmars, and have owned a 150mm as well. I also use them "converted".

Sandy - the front cell was originally intended to be usable as well, at f:14 and a slightly longer focal length. But it was always intended to be used behind the shutter.

A "Converted" cell will never be as good as a full lens, not even the fabled Protar Serie VIIa are as good as a full Serie VII. I know that, too, from experience...

DrPablo · Nov 1, 2006

How much bellows draw would I need if I'm using the rear cell alone with the 12/500? Even at 560mm bellows draw I can't get it to focus, and the rear cell is no more than 30mm from the lens board.

Ole · Nov 2, 2006

Paul - that's correct. I don't know how much you'll need for the 500mm cell of the 300/500mm Symmar, but I think you'll need more than 60cm (24"). My 420m rear cell at least needs over 50cm. I used that one on the Technika 5x7", but it won't focus on the Gandolfi Traditional. I'll check it out when I get home in a week or so.

removed account4 · Nov 2, 2006

hi paul

i have a 210/370 and use it pretty often.
it gets used mostly on my 5x7 because i have the draw for it,
but once in a while i find myself able to use it on my toyo 4x5 camera.
i have never used it without the rear cell, i only remove the front cell.
i never have used filters with it, and
have shot color slide film as well as black and white without any
of the mentioned issues. mine does however have a moderate case
of schneideritis. i often stop down to f16+/- ...

you might look into getting a cone of some sort made so you can use
it on your camera and get the draw you need. while i don't have a cone/lens extension device ( like the opposite of a recessed lens board ) i know they are made. maybe the folks at sk grimes or mr ritter make one?

good luck!

john

Ole · Nov 3, 2006

Just checking in here briefly again...

I know there is a pdf document with the specifications for the Symmar lenses including rear cells alone somewhere on the www.schneiderkreuznach.com website. With the speed of this internet connection I'm not going to go looking for it today...

PaulEv · Nov 3, 2006

I have two of these lenses, 1 150/265, and a 240/420 that I use on by 8x10 and a 150/265 that I use on my 4x5. I use both with and without the front element and find both give very good results unconverted, and acceptable results with only the rear element. As an experiment I have used the 240/420 on 8x10 with only the front element, for a portrait, I deliberately took the portrait in the bright sun, outside, to get a high contrast image I wanted of the sitter. I was not fully satisfied with the result, knowing what the unconverted lens can do, but with the lens stopped right down, I can say the result was soft, but acceptable and usable. I do not believe the result would have been so good if I had not stopped the lens to the lower middle of its useable range where it should be sharpest. I have not used the lens like this since.
I have not used this larger lens other than unconverted on the 4x5 as the bellows draw gets excessive.

Schneider convertible lenses

DrPablo

Dan Fromm

DrPablo

gchpaco

Donald Miller

sanking

Claire Senft

Ian Grant

DrPablo

Marco Gilardetti

Ole

Moderator

DrPablo

Ole

Moderator

removed account4

Ole

Moderator

PaulEv

Schneider convertible lenses

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency