Schneider Super-Symmar XL series haze and fog problems

[Harley Goldman]

In the thread below, many made reference to the "problems" Schneider had with this lens and stated those problems have been solved long ago. My experience indicates otherwise.

I first purchased the lens new Jan. '03. About a year later I sent it back to Badger Graphics, due to a fogging on the edges of the inside element. I was told it was a bad batch of glue. ??? They sent another. The first replacement would not focus properly. I could get the top or bottom of an image in focus, but not both. Back it went for another new lens. Just last month, I noticed that the SECOND REPLACEMENT was fogging, same as the original. First of October, it went back to Badger and Schneider. More glue issues.

I am now awaiting its replacement. I have a Yosemite trip coming up soon and it is not looking promising that I will have that lens for the trip. It is a great lens, sharp with a good sized image circle. I just hope Schneider can gets its glue together and get me a lens that won't fog and do it sometime soon.

If you have the 80mm, take a close look at it.

[Joseph O'Neil]

Okay, dumb question time.

First off, I understand the attraction of an Aspheric lens.

Secondly, every 2nd month when VC magazine comes out, I spend waaaaaaay too much time drooling over any and every ad that shoes off one of the newer Schnieder XL series lenses. I've never used an XL series lens, but iIf i win the lottery tonight, well, easy guess where some of the money will end up. :)

Still, after 2-3 tries, why wouldn't anybody somebody say to themselves "hey, that Nikon 80mm / 4.5 looks real sweet. Maybe I'll try it instead"?

Yeah, I know the Nikon is bigger lens (physically speaking) and so heavier to lug around, certianly when backpacking, but still, it seems to be there's some nice choices out there in the 75 to 80mm range. Is the XL that much better?

joe

[Harley Goldman]

Joe,

I persevere for several reasons. First, as you mentioned, is size. It is a relatively small lens combined with a good-sized image circle. I backpack and hike quite a bit, so size and weight mean a great deal to me. It is also a very sharp lens and for a wide angle, is pretty bright on the ground glass. It is a hassle, but I figure sooner or later Schneider will get it right. It is costing them a lot of dough each time they get it wrong. The bad publicity can't be too good for business, either, so I would assume they are highly motivated to correct the problem.

[Ugo]

Hi Harley,

I understand your frustrastion. I got the same problem with the 80XL and I got a new lens back. I don't want to even think about the possibility of having the same problem. I'll keep you, and the forum, posted.

Anyway, the worst was that I got the same problem with the...110XL. I was so amazed! But even more surprised, let's say, when I got back the same lens "repaired". I am now contacting someone at the Schneider to know what they actually "repaired".

The 110XL is my best lens and a Schneidder top lens. They really need to solve this problem.

Ugo

[John C Murphy]

I've noticed haze around the edge of one of the elements of my SSXL80 as well. I've been waiting until the fall foliage season is over before I ship it out.

So, where should I send it? Back to Badger Graphic whom I bought it from, or directly to Schneider in California?

[Harley Goldman]

John,

I would call Jeff at Badger and send it back to him. He sends them directly to Germany. I don't know anything about the local repair facility. The mother ship sounds like a safer bet, having the guys who make them deal with the issue.

[adrian tyler]

i have just sent my 80xl back too, it is from 2003, i thought mine was a one off case...

[paulr]

I just got back from the PhotoPlus expo in New York, and talked to the Schneider people. It was my favorite booth, because unlike others (including certain competitors) who had sent windbag sales people to the event, Schneider had genuine German engineers. A really friendly, helpful, no B.S. bunch of people.

Anyway, I asked about the problem with the 80mm lens, and they're well aware of it. It was a problem with the fundamental design of the coating in the earliest batches. The coating on on certain elements ended about a milimeter from the edge of the glass (for some design reason). This created a microscopic gap between certain elements. It's possible for moisture to get in there and get trapped, and spread a haze between the elements. The technician said the unfortunate thing about the problem was that the lenses would test perfectly, and the problem would emerge weeks or months after the lens had been in use in the field.

He told me the coating process for the lens was completely redesigned, and it's a non-issue with any lens made after the initial couple of batches. This is one case where buying a USA lens might have saved a pile of trouble ... the guys at Schneider are on top of it and would have known what the problem was, and what batch the replacement lens was from.

By the way, I asked if they'd consider some kind of presence in these online forums, and they liked the idea a lot. It would make answers to these questions easier to come by. they asked me to send them websites worth looking at. I'll send them this one, of course, and photo.net, but if anyone has other suggestions I'll pass them along.

[Harley Goldman]

Paul,

Thanks for the info.

Unless something strange is going on, that does not jibe with my experience. I bought the lens, noticed the problem a year later and sent my lens back to Badger. Badger sent me a new lens, which a year after my first purchase, should not have been from one of the initial batches. The replacement lens developed the same problem. Mystery to me. I just hope the lastest replacement solves the problem, when I get it that is.

[paulr]

Did you check the serial numbers on Schneider's site? It will give you an idea of the manufacturing date ... not sure if it will pin it down close enough to let you know if it's an early batch or not.

My question is, where does Badger get the lenses? Directly from Kreutznach? From a big German reseller? It could well be that their supplier sees an American gray market retailer as a perfect opportunity for getting rid of the early batch of lenses (which have no detectable manufacturing defects, but which have a good chance of developing problems and getting returned). Just a thought.

[Anthony Lewis]

I live in Australia and I bought the 80 mm SS XL in December 2002. Eight months later it developed fogging in the front element exactly as you guys have described. It was sent back to Germany and came back repaired. Nine months after this the fogging reappeared again. Again the lens was repaired. Because of two repairs I lost confidence in using the lens, so it then spent most of its time stored in a dehumidity cabinet that I bought because of this problem. Could not be better protected. I took it out in January to see if it's fine - I could not believe my eyes. After being stored in a prefect environment for over 12 months it had again fogged up. I am a professional cinecameraman and have literally dozens of high quality lens stored in an upstairs dry attic. Over the decades not one other lens has ever developed moisture in it at all, and none have been stored in a dehumidifier cabinet.

This third time I knew there was something wrong so I searched the forums and came accross you guys. Thank goodnes for forums because I would have believed it was all my fault and the lens would have never seen any use. What a waste!! The lens is now back in Germany. I am demanding a new lens, but I am still waiting Schneider's reply. Hopefully you guys can lend me some support in the problems you have had with this lens.

Wonder how many others who are out there, blaming themselves for the moisture occuring in their 80mm? I will certainly keep you posted on the outcome of my dealing over this.

[Anthony Lewis]

Postscript.

Within a couple of hours of posting the above message, I got an email from Schneider promising me a brand new lens. I really must thank them very much. I must say they do take an active interest in problems like this to ensure their products are up to standard and to please us photographers. I personally buy Schneider because they are the only large format lens manufacturer that has upgraded their film lenses recently, and in fact introduced new lenses, like the classic series, the super symmar XL. And when we do have a problem, they appear to be a good company to deal with - they fix the problem.

Anyway they explained the problem with the 80mm to be:

"The problem which we had indeed was, in easy words, an evaporating lens surface in an closed air gap. Unfortunately this "evaporating" did appear after weeks or month. After the research and a complete new calculation of the lens we now can supply a Super-Symmar 4,5/80mm aspheric with no haze or fog in the front element."

I must say if I ever see what looks like moisture in a new lens again, I will be a lot more questioning from the start. From what I gather what we were seeing was evaporated lens coating due to a faulty process - in simple terms. If anyone is dealing with a similar problem I feel don't just leave it up to the local agent that you bought it from, but email Schneider directly as well. I feel my local agent didn't really take the problem seriously - they thought I had just mishandled the lens. I was very demanding to my agent yesterday and almost instantly Schneider fixed the problem - I guess it was the first time that my emails were brought to Schneider's attention. I have the email address of the Schneider guy to deal with for this problem.

Anyway full marks to them for replacing this lens.

Anthony Lewis

[Brian K]

This problem is on going.. I bought my 80mm new in 2007...

So at first I thought I had condensation in my 80mm XL Symmar. So I put it in a dry box with a kilo of silica gel. After nearly a week of this no improvement. So then I thought maybe it's fungus. So I checked with Jeff at Badger graphic. Turns out that Schneider had an issue with the adhesive used on the 80mm XL and 110mm XL lenses. He says he's had about 50 cases of this and that Schneider refuses to take any responsibility and will only fix it at a cost of $1200. Suffice to say he no longer carries the XL lenses.

I have sked him to compile a list of those photographers affected and will attempt to see what can be done when a large group takes action against Schneider. Imports into the US are regulated in various ways and maybe a government agency can be of assistance. If anyone has had this type of issue with a Schneider lens please let me know.

In further conversation with Jeff, he also states that Rodenstock has far better QA than Schneider and that he has experienced many Schneider lenses having unacceptable QA issues right out of the box. All I can say is that one had better think twice before buying a Schneider lens....

[Richard Wasserman]

Brian, I don't know if this is relevant to the problem you are having—I have a 110mm Super Symmar that developed haze, which may be the adhesive issue you mentioned. I spoke to Jeff at Badger who informed me that Schneider would not service the lens for that problem under warranty. They used to offer a lifetime warranty, but no longer do. I took it to Bob Watkins (Precision Camera Works) and he cleaned it for a reasonable charge. I don't know if the haze will return, although I assume it will. I agree that Schneider has some manufacturing and customer service issues.

[Brian Ellis]

I owned an 80mm XL for several years, from about 2003 - 2006. I never had any problems with it, it was a great lens and a nice compromise between carrying both a 75mm and a 90mm.

[RJC]

I have a Schneider Super Symmar 80XL which was manufactured in 2002. It has slowly been developing haze on one or more of the internal elements over the last few years, but does not seem to have markedly affected image quality possibly because I tend to use very small apertures. However, the haze is now quite extensive and I have resolved to return it to Schneider in Germany, having studied the Service info at -

http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/service/service_e.htm

I don''t much fancy a bill for $1200 equivalent to fix the issue so I will send the lens for an estimate and see what they say about the problem since it is a well-documented fault with the lens.

Rob

[Bob Salomon]

"but does not seem to have markedly affected image quality possibly because I tend to use very small apertures."

Very small apertures could mean that you are in diffraction anyway. What happens at f22?

[RJC]

"very small apertures." ... perhaps I should have said 'relatively' - I'm talking about f/16~22.5 (as opposed to f/4.5) where there is no discernible loss of quality (I am well aware of being diffraction limited)

[Steve Hamley]

I just checked mine and it's fine. I bought it shortly after the first batch that had fogging issues, and I spoke with Jeff at Badger Graphic I believe, to ensure it wasn't a gen1 lens. Checked the 110mm too and it's also fine. They stay stored in conditioned space.

I concur with Harley about the merits - small, not too heavy, lots of coverage (even 5x7), and flare resistant. You can't do better.

But oddly enough, I did have a G-Claron that wouldn't stay clear. Nice, black Copal original, mint lens, and it would fog up after 4-6 months after a cleaning. No other G-Claron I ever owned did this.

Cheers, Steve

[Rich D]

I just checked mine and it's fine. I bought it shortly after the first batch that had fogging issues, and I spoke with Jeff at Badger Graphic I believe, to ensure it wasn't a gen1 lens. Checked the 110mm too and it's also fine. They stay stored in conditioned space.

I concur with Harley about the merits - small, not too heavy, lots of coverage (even 5x7), and flare resistant. You can't do better.

But oddly enough, I did have a G-Claron that wouldn't stay clear. Nice, black Copal original, mint lens, and it would fog up after 4-6 months after a cleaning. No other G-Claron I ever owned did this.

Cheers, Steve

Well, I just noticed my SS 80mm XL's hazing yesterday. What a drag. Called Jeff at Badger Graphics where I bought it to see if he could help and he told me not to even bother contacting Schneider since they quit doing any warranty work on this problem some time ago. Great! Jeff did say he heard that there was an outfit in Colorado that was able to work on that lens for a reasonable price. Anybody know anything about that? Best, Rich

[John Schneider]

Jeff did say he heard that there was an outfit in Colorado that was able to work on that lens for a reasonable price. Anybody know anything about that?

John Van Stelten
Focal Point Inc.
1355 South Boulder Road
Suite F-180
Louisville, Co 80027
Phone: 303/665-6640
Web-Site: www.focalpointlens.com
Email: john@focalpointlens.com

[kleinbatavia]

Hello all,

As many of us know, the Schneider XL lenses are nothing short of spectacular. When they work... Unfortunately, a fair number of them have a tendency to develop fogging. In some cases this is easily removed by the more technically inclined amongst us, however, in many cases it is not. I was recently offered a fogged schneider at a price that was almost too good to be true. Restraining myself from jumping on it right away, I decided to write a quick mail to Schneider Germany to see what they had to say. The reply is below. It is in German (I figured I would talk to people in their own language). The long and short of it is that they openly admit that the problem results from the type of glass used (lead-free, apparently prone to fogging when exposed to environmental influences). Where to me, it would make perfect sense to cover this under guarantee or have an open recall for anyone affected, they boldly indicate that there is a cost in excess of EUR 860 involved in fixing it. This is excluding shipping, etc. I asked a quote for a 110, but imagine others would be similar. Alas, I will pass on the 110XL offered as I do not want to take the risk of disassembling it and concluding I can not remove the fog. That would make for an expensive shutter! Alas, the transcript is below, please use google translate to get it in your own language if interested.

Sehr geehrter Herr,

leider ist eine Reinigung nicht möglich.
Das Vorderglied muss komplett ersetzt werden.

Ungefähre Kosten:

Vorderglied #1055577 712,60 €
Umbau 150,- €


Auf Grund der RoHS-Richtlinie wurden von den Glasherstellern bleihaltige Gläser durch bleifreie Gläser ersetzt. Das verwendete Ersatzglas hat sich entgegen den Katalogangaben als wenig klimaresistent und sehr fleckempfindlich erwiesen.
Die Flecken auf den Linsenflächen entstehen durch Umwelteinflüsse (hauptsächlich Luftfeuchte) erst nach relativ langer Einwirkdauer, weil die Entspiegelungsschichten einen gewissen Schutz bieten.
Diese Glasschäden konnten in der aktuellen Ausführung erst durch Verwendung eines anderen Alternativglases und zusätzlicher Maßnahmen verhindert werden.
Der Reparaturaufwand ist deshalb so hoch, weil, infolge abweichender optischer Eigenschaften des Ersatzglases vom ursprünglich eingesetzten Glas, die Linsen und die Fassung im Vorderglied geändert werden mußten.
Bei früheren Versionen muß deshalb im Reparaturfall das komplette Vorderglied ersetzt werden.


Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Best regards l
Kundendienst
Customer Service
Sachbearbeiterin
Service Administrator

[StoneNYC]

My German translator program won't seem to translate this, would you be kind enough to help us out who speak English and not German? Thanks!

[kleinbatavia]

Hi Stone, the basic message is already in the original description. Schneider indicates the glass used had to be lead-free (I assume for environmental reasons?). This glass was and is known to fog when exposed to air and humid air in particular. They are non-descript in their mention "over longer periods of time". Recent lenses have repair costs as indicated. Older ones are even more expensive as they require a switch of more parts for new glass to fit.

I'm surprised that schneider deals with their customers this way. Heck, the while XL range was never exactly cheap.

Anyway,I'll stay away from them, but it seems like studio samples are your safest bet...

Could do a full translation, but the above is the general message.

[kleinbatavia]

Home now, here's a direct google translate (sorry, I did not fix the errors, particularly like the "antecedent" which is obviously the "front element" and "tag" which is "conversion"):

Dear Mr. X,

Unfortunately it is not possible to clean it.
The antecedent must be completely replaced.

Approximate cost:

Antecedent # 1055577 € 712.60
Tag 150, - €


Due to the RoHS Directive leaded glasses were replaced with lead-free glasses by the glass producers. The replacement glass used has, contrary to the catalog specifications as little air resistance and proved very sensitive spot.
The stains on the lens surfaces caused by environmental factors (mainly humidity) only after a relatively long exposure time, because the anti-reflection layers provide some protection.
This glass damage could be prevented in the current run only by using a different alternative glass and additional measures.
The repair cost is so high because, had to be changed due to differences in optical properties of the replacement glass from the originally used glass, the lenses and the wording in the forelimb.
In earlier versions, the complete front member must therefore be replaced in case of repairs.


Best regards
Best regards l
Customer service
Customer Service
Sachbearbeiterin
Service Administrator

[Kodachrome25]

I keep considering this lens due to it's legendary sharpness but because I work for days on end in some pretty harsh climates, discussions like these steer me away from it.

Darn.

[Oren Grad]

Threads merged.

kleinbatavia: thanks for sharing your recent experience on this.

[Jac@stafford.net]

So to add to Schneideritis we have Schneiderfog.
Is Schneider just lazy or delinquent?
What other manufacturer is having such issues?

[Ari]

I don't know how widespread this issue might be; I've owned two 72XLs and currently a 150XL, and none have shown any kind of problem.
I'm not the first owner of any of them, and as luck would have it, they all came from much more humid climates than mine.

[Kevin Crisp]

I bought one of the very early ones and it is fine. But then in So. Cal. our humidity is rarely as high as 50%. This does sound like a manufacturing (or design) defect.

[Oren Grad]

Ari, the 72 is a Super-Angulon, not a Super-Symmar. There appears to have been a design (choice of glass) issue specifically with the Super-Symmars, possibly just with the 80 and 110.

[StoneNYC]

Hmm, so from the wording it sounds like the replacement glass does NOT suffer this problem?

So the question remains, did they use the new-improved-non-fog glass in any of the SS XL lenses? And if so, when did they start? What manufacture number is "safe" or are they all "bad"?

Am I reading that right? The new research to make a glass that doesn't suffer this issue is why they are charging so much for the "fix" correct?

[Ari]

Ari, the 72 is a Super-Angulon, not a Super-Symmar. There appears to have been a design (choice of glass) issue specifically with the Super-Symmars, possibly just with the 80 and 110.

Quite right, Oren; thanks for pointing it out.
Still, I do have the 150XL, it came from wet 'n' humid Vancouver, and it looks great.

[Bernice Loui]

Own both the 110mm and 150mm SSXL since the mid 1990's. Neither has ever had any problem what so ever to this day. These two were from the initial production batch with the "hand ground aspheric element". Memory says Schneider altered the production method for the aspheric element after this initial batch of lenses according to the Schneider sales rep. All these discussions about problem with the SSXL's has me wondering how much this lens design has changed since it's introduction.


Bernice

[Bernice Loui]

Question of serial numbers came up. Here are the serial numbers for when SSXL's first began customer delivery.

The SN for 110mm is 14 624 959

The SN for 150mm is 14 637 811

Making them about Nov. 1996 according to http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/age_of_lenses/


These serial numbers are within the first 5-6 SSXLs delivered to the US market by Schneider.


Bernice

[StoneNYC]

Does anyone know the end dates/serials for the 150 or 110?

[Heroique]

I recently saw a 110mm at Glazers with the tell-tale signs of the widely reported haze issue – basically a whitish, translucent, cumulus-cloud-like swirl, circling the area of the glass about 3/4 away from the center, traveling maybe 160-170 degrees around.

Its serial number was: 14769xxx :(

My beloved 110mm has never had this problem (knocking on wood, Tachi cherry wood).

Its serial number is: 15021xxx :)

[StoneNYC]

I recently saw a 110mm at Glazers with the tell-tale signs of the widely reported haze issue – basically a whitish, translucent, cumulus-cloud-like swirl, circling the area of the glass about 3/4 away from the center, traveling maybe about 160-170 degrees around.

Its serial number was: 14769xxx :(

My beloved 110mm has never had this problem (knocking on wood, Tachi cherry wood).

Its serial number is: 15021xxx :)

*sigh* well there goes my hope... My 150mm is 14 673 xxx ....

Thankfully none of that haze business just yet...

Maybe I should buy a backup lens now while they still exist!

[Old-N-Feeble]

I wonder if anyone has researched best storage and usage practices with these lenses. Are these particularly susceptible to heat or cold... long-term, short-term or rapidly changing temperatures?

[karl french]

This has been gone over many times on the forum in the last 10 years...

[Oren Grad]

This has been gone over many times on the forum in the last 10 years...

We'd welcome any suggestions of related threads that should be merged with this one.

[Kodachrome25]

We'd welcome any suggestions of related threads that should be merged with this one.

+1, unlike the oft used term would imply, "Google is your friend" is not always the case.

I am right on the cusp of getting a 110XL, but my working conditions are often harsh so I am understandably hesitant, I'll likely keep my 90/8 Nikkor just in case....