"Sinar" name on Symmar lens

[lenser]

So I picked up a beautiful vintage 150/265mm convertible Symmar yesterday. It's got the name Sinar in green on the info ring. Anyone out there that can tell my the significance? I'm guessing that this was made specifically to be marketed with the Sinar system, but I've never encountered this before.

Thanks for the help.

[Frank Petronio]

Supposedly Sinar (and Linhof) bought testing equipment and selected the better Schneider and Rodenstock lenses for their own premium-priced brand. They're worth a little more for resale. They're sort of the opposite of Calumet Caltars, which supposedly were the rejects ;-)

I've owned all of them and I never noticed a difference but I never tested them critically. My assumption is that the quality control of Schneider and Rodenstock is pretty darn excellent, at least since the 1980s, so it is hard to get a dog.

[Jerry Bodine]

I've always ASSUMED that what Frank said is the reason for Sinar engraving their name on a lens, because it makes sense. If you really want to be certain, email the U.S. Distributor and see what they say.

http://www.sinarbron.com/sinar.php

[lenser]

Thanks guys. Something new every day. Nice to know I got a seriously good deal on this beauty.

Frank: Just wanted to say I'm a big fan. Wonderful and fascinating work.

[Phil Hudson]

They're sort of the opposite of Calumet Caltars, which supposedly were the rejects ;-)

I'm wondering who supposedly rejected the lenses that ended up as Caltars? Rodenstock or Linhof/Sinar?

[Frank Petronio]

Thanks.

That was a joke, I doubt Caltars were the rejects. They may have been in the bottom 50% of the their class, 900 on their SATs.

[dave_whatever]

I've got a 150mm Symmar and 65mm SA which are both sinar select. To be honest I bet for most users shooting at f/16-32 the difference between a sinar or linhof select and a regular lens is subtle at best, if not non-existant. You've got to remember that Sinar of Linhof will have tested your lens maybe 50 years ago, and they've got no control on what might have happened in the interim, i.e. knocks, drops, fungus, lens out of alignment etc. Overall condition is probably more important, although you're probably sure of a slightly higher sale price when you come to sell the lens on.

[lenser]

Frank,

I figured you might be blowing a bit of smoke on the Caltars. I've got a 210mm and a 90mm, both big glass Caltar II's that knock me out on their quality. I actually bought this Symmar with the idea of selling it, but it sure looks nice on my Super Graphic, so who knows. I keep switching that with the 10" Veritar that came in the same deal and wondering which do I shoot first this weekend and why do I need two Veritars.

Maybe I'll build a stereo soft focus portrait camera. (Not really!!!!)

[BrianShaw]

That was a joke, I doubt Caltars were the rejects.

Ha ha... I was laughing at you while reading that post. :)

Unfortunately that guess (assumption?) has been presented as fact often enough on the internet that people actually believe it and repeat it. I'm not complaining, though, since it helps keep that line of lens affordable... so those of us who aren't sticklers for specs end up with great lenses at affordable prices.

[rdenney]

As I recall from experts, neither Sinar nor Linhof actually did their own testing. They did request a specific testing regime from the manufacturer, and the manufacturer certified that the lenses met the requirements of Sinar and Linhof. There is nothing to suggest that their normal run of lenses did not also meet those requirements.

Calumet-branded lenses are just out of the normal run of lenses from that manufacturer.

Thus, every likelihood is that they all meet the same standards. That does not mean they are all equal. Some will be more excellent than others, but the more excellent ones are as likely to be Calumet-branded lenses as Sinar.

What Calumet did do is contract with manufacturers for cheaper lens designs that they could offer at lower price points, while Sinar and Linhof always contracted for the best lenses available at the time to offer at higher price points. So, the Caltar Type Y is a Rodenstock Ysaron--a tessar design--while a Sinaron would have been a Rodenstock APO-Sironar-N--a more expensive and faster plasmat design. But there are plenty of Caltars that are also Sironars, and as excellent as the contemporary Sinarons.

The Symmar Convertible was the original modern plasmat in large production, and was the best lens of its type available in its day. They are still excellent, but they have been surpassed by later designs, including the Symmar-S, and so on.

Rick "who would much rather specify a manufacturer's testing standards than do his own testing" Denney

[Bob Salomon]

As I recall from experts, neither Sinar nor Linhof actually did their own testing. They did request a specific testing regime from the manufacturer, and the manufacturer certified that the lenses met the requirements of Sinar and Linhof. There is nothing to suggest that their normal run of lenses did not also meet those requirements.

No. I have been in the factory testing facilities at Linhof and yes, they did their own testing.

Linhof, and Sinar, both purchased a Siemens Star generator from Rodenstock and used that for most of their testing. It projects a series of Sieman's stars onto a large wall. The tester can rotate the lens in the projector by remote control and see problems that show up as the field rotates. The wall that they are projecting on is several feet high and wide.
In another room technicians are examining assembled and finished lenses for imperfections, dirt, smudges, dust, etc. within the optical system. Find any and, if it can't be easily cleaned out the lens is returned. Another technician tests shutter speeds.

All lenses tested by Linhof, from Rodenstock, Schneider or the few from Nikon that they used, had passed all of the manufacturer's tests. If Linhof rejected a lens it was still a lens that met all of the lens manufacturer's requirements.

For some special application Linhof cameras, like a Technorama 612 or 617 system, a tested lens might have defects outside the live image area that the camera used but the lens was a perfectly good lens within the application field of the camera. Lenses that performed particularly well in the live image area of these cameras were set aside for use only on these cameras. Since these lenses had helical focus mounts and special lens cones and len boards they were not usable as a view camera lens.

Linhof also had specially corrected lenses for their aerial cameras which were designed specifically for use at legal minimum aerial altitudes or above. The highest altitudes these off the shelf Linhof aerial lenses were used at were in the Space Shuttle during flights.

There were also other procedures used by Linhof over the years. Before they used this system they had a wall sized chart like the USAF test chart that they inspected lenses on optically.

I have not visited the factory since the current owner bought it but have had no indication or reason to believe that they no longer perform their own tests. They just would not be doing it in the volumes that they did in the past thanks to market conditions.

[Arne Croell]

I don't know about Sinar, but I have seen the actual Linhof testing Bob describes during a factory tour as part of a workshop in the early 1990's - they certainly did it then. They also demonstrated certain lens aberrations at the time for us using the Siemens star projector and certain lenses.