PDA

View Full Version : 360mm f6.8 Symmar-S MC Copal



Mark Sloane
15-Jul-2008, 17:15
Thinking about buying this lens, 360mm f6.8 Symmar-S MC Copal, from a reputable dealer.

It's rated condition is 9+ and it's priced at $725. The price seems steep to me but I'm not sure.

Any opinions?

Thanks.....Mark

BarryS
15-Jul-2008, 17:26
It's a good lens, but I've seen them go for much less. I have the 240mm Symmar-S MC and I got it with a camera for less than that price. The big plasmats in Copal #3's aren't in big demand these days--probably because they're big heavy studio lenses, and they're very common. I just bought a Sironar N 300mm in a Copal #3 for $300.

neil poulsen
15-Jul-2008, 17:36
You might consider waiting a bit. I sold the same Schneider lens, a Caltar-S II, for less than $400 on EBay. The above Caltar version of this lens comes in both MC and non MC.

This is a huge, heavy lens. It has a filter size of something like 121mm. That's why I sold it. It covers well, though. 490mm or above.

Brad Rippe
15-Jul-2008, 17:39
Mark,
You might help us by telling us the format, and what you plan to do with it. I worked in a studio for several years using this lens on 4 by 5 and 8 by 10 and its a great lens, big and heavy too.
There are many smaller choices available, not as fast, but easier to carry around.
It seems the price might be a bit high for this lens. I have a Fuji 450C and a Nikkor 300M that are in the same price range new, (Nikkor only available used). They both cover 8 by 10 and are far smaller than the Schneider.
-Brad

Mark Sloane
15-Jul-2008, 17:54
I just purchased a used Canham Traditional Camera with both 4x5 and 5x7 backs.

I currently have a Sinar F2 that I lug around in the woods in a "car case". Obviously this is not a good solution therefore the Canham. I use a 90mm, 150mm and a 210mm, (all Schneider), on the Sinar and often wish I had a longer reach.

I thought the 360mm might be a good next move but I really don't want to buy all new filters for 110mm filter thread on top of the cost of the lens. I currently use step up rings for my other lenses so I only need to have 77mm filters.

Can I find a quality 360 mm lens with a 77mm filter thread or smaller?

Oren Grad
15-Jul-2008, 18:03
The Symmar-S is humongous.

Smaller, and much smaller: 355 G-Claron, 360 Apo-Ronar. Both meet your 77mm filter criterion.

Warren Clark
15-Jul-2008, 18:04
Mark,
You may already be aware of the Schneider 14"(355) gold dot and the
360 Fuji A. Both are great lenses with adequate 8x10 coverage but with
$ 1000+ price tags. It will take some time and effort to locate either.

Good shooting,
Warren Clark

Mark Sloane
15-Jul-2008, 18:19
Oren,

Should i assume that quality of the 355 G-Claron and 360 Apo-Ronar are close or equal to Symmar?

Oren Grad
15-Jul-2008, 18:41
Should i assume that quality of the 355 G-Claron and 360 Apo-Ronar are close or equal to Symmar?

The short answer is yes.

The long answer is that the G-Claron and the Apo-Ronar were both designed as process lenses for the graphic arts industry, though ample experience has shown that they can work very well indeed as general purpose lenses for distant subjects, especially when stopped down. And as you'll see if you spend much time here, many people happily use them that way. It's possible to have the cell spacing on either tweaked if performance at infinity is the primary concern, but most users never feel a need for that.

Also, there may well be subtle differences in image character - microcontrast, out-of-focus rendering - among the three that some people groove on and others don't care about at all. I've used the 355 G-Claron and I'm not especially wild about it because of subjectively nitpicky considerations like that; for 8x10 I'm happier with my big, heavy 360mm Caltar II-N (Sironar-N). But that's way overkill for a 4x5/5x7 Canham in the field. If I needed a 360 for a 4x5/5x7 field camera, the first lens I'd want to try would probably be the Apo-Ronar.

Mark Sloane
15-Jul-2008, 20:42
Oren,

I will begin a search for a well maintained Apo-Ronar.


It's possible to have the cell spacing on either tweaked if performance at infinity is the primary concern.

Not sure what this means.

Great information and i really appreciate your time.

neil poulsen
15-Jul-2008, 21:08
It's possible to have the cell spacing on either tweaked if performance at infinity is the primary concern, but most users never feel a need for that.

This is interesting. Who can do this.

Is it the spacing between the front and rear groups, or is it a spacing within a group?

I've heard the some of the Red Dots came with spacers that altered the lens between it's being optimized for infinity or for closer distances.

Oren Grad
15-Jul-2008, 21:16
Oren,

I will begin a search for a well maintained Apo-Ronar.


It's possible to have the cell spacing on either tweaked if performance at infinity is the primary concern.

Not sure what this means.


Briefly, the exact spacing between the front cell (the glass in front of the shutter) and the rear cell (the glass behind the shutter) affects whether the optical correction of the lens is optimized for close work or distant work. The spacing can be changed by installing a shim between one of the cells, typically the front cell, and the shutter, or by removing a shim that was installed at the factory. However, it's not something you'd do yourself - the manufacturer (Schneider or Rodenstock) would have the tools needed to make sure the thickness of the shim was correct for the particular sample of the lens.

See, for example, this thread...

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=14422

...and this one:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=9113

I don't think this is something you need to worry about now, just a fact to stuff in the back of your head for future reference. Once you've gained more experience, you'll know enough to judge for yourself whether it matters for your work, and you can take action, or not, accordingly.

Peter K
16-Jul-2008, 01:47
This is interesting. Who can do this.

Is it the spacing between the front and rear groups, or is it a spacing within a group?

I've heard the some of the Red Dots came with spacers that altered the lens between it's being optimized for infinity or for closer distances.
It is the spacing between the front group and the shutter or barrel.

To adjust a lens like an Apo-Ronar or G-Claron for infinity work one can follow the procedure described in "Internationale Phototechnik" 8/1993.

Focus the center of your ground-glass on fine structures in the distance like leafless trees or high grasses with a strong loupe at wide open aperture.

Shift the rear frame of your camera to the left and the front frame to the right up to the point you can see the structures get blurry.

Unscrew the front group of the lens circa 2 mm (1 line or 0.08 inch) from the shutter or barrel and look for the fine structures, twigs or leafs. Adjust the distance between the front group and the shutter up to the point the structures are as sharp as possible without any coma and blur. Refocus if necessary during the adjustment.

Place a steel or brass shim of the determined thickness between shutter and front group. If the thickness of the shim is the correct one there is no difference in image quality between the center and the edge of distant subjects. For close-up work remove the shim or place a much thinner one.

Peter K

Mark Sloane
16-Jul-2008, 08:32
Guys,

You haven't mentioned the Tele-Xenar 5.5/360mm in your recommendations. Any reason why? It appears to be small enough for backpacking, will cover 5x7 (?) and has a 67mm filter size.

Mark Sloane
16-Jul-2008, 11:15
I think I got my answer to the Tele-Xenar question. Although the lens is a 1990s vintage, it is a telephoto lens and not a process lens and therefore not as sharp. Do I have that right?

I don't expect to make large prints...I like 8x10 and smaller and expect to make contact prints with the 5x7 back.

If I did want to make 16x20 prints, would I notice a difference in sharpness/resolution between a telephoto lens and a process lens?

David Vickery
16-Jul-2008, 23:42
I think I got my answer to the Tele-Xenar question. Although the lens is a 1990s vintage, it is a telephoto lens and not a process lens and therefore not as sharp. Do I have that right?

I don't expect to make large prints...I like 8x10 and smaller and expect to make contact prints with the 5x7 back.

If I did want to make 16x20 prints, would I notice a difference in sharpness/resolution between a telephoto lens and a process lens?

Yes. Most likely or at least probably. I would not buy the tele lens. My opinion only, but forget the tele! I have one that I used a few times and it has been in a cabinet for years. It is not as sharp or versatile or as easy to use as the other, regular lenses.

I Happily use a 355 G-Claron on 8x10 and 11x14. It is great! The Symmar is also a great lens but not the best choice for what you want to do at this time, as others have said - large and heavy. I bought my 355 in an enlarger barrel and I took it out of that and put it in a copal-3 shutter.

The Ronar would be an excellent choice as well, due to its superb sharpness and small size.

Some other excellent choices (except for the filter problem) would include the 14" Commercial (or Eastman) Ektar, 14" Dagor (barrel lenses are much more affordable than the ones in shutters), the Artar (red dot or not), and there is probably a fuji lens in that focal length.