A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Large Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Schneider Symmar's



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 9th 04, 03:02 AM
AArDvarK
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Schneider Symmar's


As far as less costly lenses go on the used market,
older Symmar convertibles and the later "S" type,
were either one apochromatic?

And what was the "S" improvement about? Was it
a supreme difference?

Thanks all,

Alex


  #2  
Old April 9th 04, 07:59 AM
Tom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Schneider Symmar's

S was single focal length. The old convertable Symmars compromised the design to
give better performance with the partial lens. Symmar S's were designed to give
better correction when using both elements. Early Symmar S's were single coated,
later ones multi-coated.

Apo's? I think they are only apochromatic in the advertising agency's mind, but
having never having used one that is hearsay only. The Apo Symmar is the newest
version.

--

AArDvarK wrote:
As far as less costly lenses go on the used market,
older Symmar convertibles and the later "S" type,
were either one apochromatic?

And what was the "S" improvement about? Was it
a supreme difference?

Thanks all,

Alex



  #3  
Old April 9th 04, 07:03 PM
Nicholas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Schneider Symmar's

AArDvarK wrote:
As far as less costly lenses go on the used market,
older Symmar convertibles and the later "S" type,
were either one apochromatic?

And what was the "S" improvement about? Was it
a supreme difference?

Thanks all,

Alex


The Symmar was designed to be a convertible lens, the Symmar S is not...
Apparently the "S" is based on the Symmar but designed and modified not
to be used as a convertible lens and therefore improved for standard
use. From this article I am reading right now by Kramer in 1976 Modern
Photography, the improvement, in terms of image sharpness--is definate.
I know I used to own a Symmar which couldn't get a sharp image no matter
what I did (no flames please, my experience only).

  #4  
Old April 9th 04, 08:47 PM
Bruce Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Schneider Symmar's

I bought a used Symmar 180mm f/5.6 convertible several years ago.
Made some photographs with it, but it was not crispy sharp, and the
shutter was sluggish. Shadows were also cloudy, with little detail.
After looking closely at the lens elements with a bright light behind
it, there was a film on some of the internal elements. Sent it to
Schneider in New York for cleaning. They were very prompt and
thorough. The lens was over 20 years old when I bought it, according
to the Schneider web site serial number log.

When the lens came back, it was very clean, with no visible gunk on
the internal elements and the shutter worked perfectly, even in low
temps. The photographs made thereafter were crisp and sharp, with no
noticeable flare even in direct sunlight. Deep shadows, clean
highlights and no visible flare. Overall center to edge coverage is
excellent on 4x5 film, even with significant shift/rise/fall
adjustments. With the 6x9 120 back, I can almost tear the bellows
with adjustments and see no fall off in coverage in the outer edges of
the image. It appears to have a multi coating, and flare in direct
sunlight is not an issue as long as a decent lens shade is used. I
use a flexible, square Lee Filters shade that cost a lot, but is worth
every penny.

To Schneider's credit (and my gratitude), they even marked the lens
barrel for f/64 and f/90 above the f/45 marked during manufacture. I
am quite impressed and happy with this lens, and would buy another one
in a heartbeat.

Have not tried it after cleaning with the front lens group removed to
increase the focal length to 315mm, but it was not very sharp in early
trials before cleaning. It is interesting, however, to use a 315mm
lens with a 6x9 120 film back on the view camera.

A Kodak publication on Large Format Photography mentioned that
convertible lenses were sharpest at or near minimum apertures. After
using the Symmar for table top product photography from f/8 to f/45, I
have not been able to see any difference in sharpness at any aperture
setting, using visual inspection with high quality 4x and 10x loupes
on a light table, or with drum and flat bed scans of 4x5 Ektachrome
transparencies at high resolutions.

We finally have cable modem service in our hood but have not changed
my e-mail address in this forum. If you would like to discuss
anything more about the joys of large format photography, please
e-mail me at: .

Best regards and Happy Easter!

Bruce aka Opusstuf

"AArDvarK" wrote in message news:[email protected]
As far as less costly lenses go on the used market,
older Symmar convertibles and the later "S" type,
were either one apochromatic?

And what was the "S" improvement about? Was it
a supreme difference?

Thanks all,

Alex

  #5  
Old April 9th 04, 10:06 PM
P. MacGahan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Schneider Symmar's

"AArDvarK" wrote in message news:[email protected]
As far as less costly lenses go on the used market,
older Symmar convertibles and the later "S" type,
were either one apochromatic?

And what was the "S" improvement about? Was it
a supreme difference?

Thanks all,

Alex


I don't believe that Schneider ever claimed that the Symmar-S was
apochromatic. I only tried a 210mm Symmar-S and found it good. I
didn't compare it with a Symmar, though. Subsequently, there are
Multicoated Symmar-Ss. That is probably a further improvement.

Several have mentioned that quality control seems to improve with time
at Schneider and others. Also, with a more recent design, it might be
easier to get a history of the particular lens that convinces you that
damage hasn't been concealed.

Still, both types are not the latest. With any lens, one test is better
than opinions.
  #6  
Old April 10th 04, 04:16 PM
CamArtsMag
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Schneider Symmar's

As far as less costly lenses go on the used market,
older Symmar convertibles and the later "S" type,
were either one apochromatic?

And what was the "S" improvement about? Was it
a supreme difference?

Thanks all,

Alex



View Camera published a two part article on Schneider lenses about a year ago.
The series traced the history and evolution of these lenses.

There is no way I can summarize such an article down to a paragraph or two. If
you are intrerested in gettign the back issues let me know.

steve simmons



  #9  
Old April 10th 04, 09:36 PM
Alecj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Schneider Symmar's

Hey, JJS, I don't think the questions were simple at all. [Question #1 had
already been answered - Q #2 isn't clear]. Steve gave him a source for
info.

People are just too damned lazy these days to do a little work on their own
to inform themselves. Who knows, he just might learn something in the
process.

Besides, who the hell knows what "supreme difference" means anyway? Do you?

You said: "Make a contribution here!", so if you're so d****d smart, answer
it yourself.



"jjs" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(CamArtsMag) wrote:

As far as less costly lenses go on the used market,
older Symmar convertibles and the later "S" type,
were either one apochromatic?

And what was the "S" improvement about? Was it
a supreme difference?




[... snip usual advertisment ...]

There is no way I can summarize such an article down to a paragraph or

two. If
you are intrerested in gettign the back issues let me know.


He posed two simple questions. He didn't ask for a tome, a history of
Schneider, you moron. You have all the answers, so ANSWER HIS SIMPLE
QUESTIONS with a simple answer or two. Make a contribution here!



  #10  
Old April 10th 04, 10:14 PM
jjs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Schneider Symmar's

In article , "Alecj"
wrote:

Hey, JJS, I don't think the questions were simple at all. [Question #1 had
already been answered - Q #2 isn't clear]. Steve gave him a source for
info.


Downright embarassing to see a grown man kiss SS's ass in public. Killfile!
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Schneider Componon HM Apo 60mm 4.0 JCJeski In The Darkroom 2 May 10th 04 10:47 AM
Schneider dust & cleaning Collin Brendemuehl Large Format Photography Equipment 5 March 10th 04 05:08 PM
Schneider Componon-S 100mm f5.6, double iris Suibu Liu In The Darkroom 2 February 24th 04 05:20 AM
Schneider Componon-S 150mm Lens for Copy Work??? Dr. Slick Large Format Photography Equipment 17 February 21st 04 09:40 PM
Schneider Kreuznach lenses also labeled "Sinar" cor Large Format Photography Equipment 11 January 21st 04 05:49 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.