Symmar normal lens choices

[Anupam]

Hello, I am trying to buy a first lens for my new 4x5 camera. It will be my only lens for a while. I have to choose between a 150/5.6 Symmar-S and a 135mm symmar convertible.

Now, I am tempted by the convertible lens for a few reasons:
- first, it should make a usable portrait lens.
- my second lens, when I buy one, would be a wideangle
- 49mm threads let me keep using my current 52mm filter
- one caveat, the lens offered to me by a forum member here has a few 'dings' on the rear element but that should not realy affect image quality.


The Symmar-S has 58mm filters - and I am not sure if a step-down ring will affect coverage - I want maximum possible movements.

So, is the like new Symmar-S worth the inconveniences I have listed? Or should I just go with the versatality of the convertible? FWIW, I don't expect more than 5% of my shooting to be color.

Thanks for any help,
Anupam

[Ron Marshall]

Filter size should not be a determining factor unless you plan to eventually have a very light lens kit all using small filters, which is possible. If not you will eventually need larger filters, and would be better served to standardize on one size such as 67mm.

Is the convertible coated? If it is uncoated it will be more prone to flare, which will reduce the contrast of images taken with a bright light source in the frame.

[Anupam]

Filter size should not be a determining factor unless you plan to eventually have a very light lens kit all using small filters, which is possible.

Ron, I would lean towards as light as possible but for now 52mm would let me use my 35mm filters, which is important as I cannot afford to spend much right now. In a couple of years, it might be easier to upgrade.

-A

[Dan Fromm]

Not as relevant as you'd like because they didn't do a 135 convertible Symmar, but look at the tests on 150 Symmar-S and convertible.

I shoot a 135 convertible on 2x3, am happy with it even though it is at best marginally better than a 127/4.7 Tominon. I can't use it converted to 235 because its back focus converted is longer than 235 and my little cameras can't focus even a 235 mounted normally on board. Before you buy one, if you decide to go that way, make sure that your 4x5 camera will focus it usefully close when converted.

Given my preferences and budget, if I had to get a relatively inexpensive decent used normal lens for 4x5 my first choice would be a convertible 150 Symmar. I'd also think about a 152/4.5 Ektar, understanding that its shutter would need an overhaul. Your preferences and budget probably differ from mine.

Cheers,

Dan

[Ole Tjugen]

There's a plethora of capable 150mm lenses for very little money - or very much, whatever you want.

I've owned a 150 Symmar convertible, but sold it since besides the "convertability", it didn't offer anything I didn't already have well covered. The Symmars are decent lenses with good coverage, and the "covertability" can actually be useful at times. They are typical of the Plasmat lenses - all-over capable, good coverage.

The other main group are the Tessar derivatives. They are generally very sharp, but offer limited coverage. Most of them are single-coated, and honestly they don't need any more than that. I have (and use) tessar-type lenses from 135 to 500mm, and find them all very good indeed. Even the old uncoated ones.

There's a third "mainstream" group: The Dagors - and other 6-in-2 cemented double Anastigmats. These have turned legendary, as have the prices. Some are great, some are good, some are barely decent.

Your original question was about two slightly different Plasmat-type lenses.
IMO there's not much difference in performance between the Symmar and the Symmar-S. Both are just about as good when converted, except that the -S doesn't have the second aperture scale. Neither have the smoothness that is associated with "portrait lenses", not even when converted. So make your choise on basis of practicability - and resale value. The Symmar 135/5.6 is cheap, and you will get back about what you paid for it. The Symmar-S 150/5.6 is a little more expensive, but you'll get back what you paid for that too...

[Dan Fromm]

Sorry, didn't paste the link in. See http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

[Anupam]

IMO there's not much difference in performance between the Symmar and the Symmar-S. Both are just about as good when converted, except that the -S doesn't have the second aperture scale.

So are you saying, that at a pinch the S variety can be 'converted' too? Of course, only at a very tight pinch!

Also, any comments on using a 58-52 step down ring on the 150mm? Will it affect the coverage. or reduce the effective aperture. Right now, since there seems to be little other difference, I am leaning toward the 135 simply because I won't have to buy a new set of filters immediately. But the 150 is tempting, because it is in better condition among the two samples I am choosing from.

-A

[Amund BLix Aaeng]

My 150mm Symmar-S sure is convertibe, I have tried it.
Why is the filter size so important to you, you sure don`t need filters to make good photographs.... My Symmar-S has quite good coverage, so a 58-52 step-down might work...

[Ron Marshall]

I am leaning toward the 135 simply because I won't have to buy a new set of filters immediately. -A

If you really want to conserve money you can get by with only a light or medium yellow filter, ie. Wratten #8 or #12.

I only ever use #12, #13, #25 or polarizer. But my most used is #12.

[Anupam]

Why is the filter size so important to you, you sure don`t need filters to make good photographs....

In many situations I need filters to make the particular photograph that I want, especially with BW film. And I don't think my shooting style for BW is going to change very much due to the change in format.

Thanks for the information. I will probably go with the 135 for now.

-A

[Ken Schroeder]

I have 58 to 52 step down rings with my 150 (and 180) Symmars. I haven't noticed problems. I should add the caveat that neither lens gets much use. My workhorses are the 135 and 200. Step down rings are readily available and inexpensive. I would give it a try. Do some test shots with differing amounts of rise and/or tilt to test the limits.

[erie patsellis]

As an aside, the older Sironars can be converted too, though I don't remember what the focal length of my 150 is converted ( I made a label that's on the lens board, with effective aperture, etc.)

erie