Old Symmar v. new Nikon

[Ed Richards]

I am thinking about replacing my 1950s Symmar 150 with new Nikon 150, but I am wondering if that would really make much difference in the sharpness of my 4x5 images.

[Bill McMannis]

Ed: I have a Nikon 150 and it performs wonderfully. I picked up the lens late last year when I was retiring some older Schneiders. I have never regretted going with modern optics.

[tor kviljo]

I have never had any bad feelings about old lenses, having good experiences with 90/6.8 angulon, old symmars & Xenars etc. However, as fortune & time have allowed me to gradually renew glass (I have reached up to Nikkor W & M, Fuji & Rodenstock of about 1985-95 vintage so far...) , I see that I benefit a lot from that in my landscapes - as these very often include highly lit areas. I guess this is mainly due to the superior coating/multicoating on modern optics as opposed to the single coating on older lenses, including Your symmar. The symmar is a 6-lens design with a total of 8 air-to-lens surfaces if I recall right (Two elements semented together & one single in each lens cell), thus a system susceptible to flare if a pointed or othervice strong light source enteres lens. The small amount of flare caused by internal reflections in the lens softens the image ("less sharp"), and I see now that images taken the last years show more of something I can best describe as more saturated colors/contrast than images taken with older lenses in comparable conditions. In a desk-top or controled studio environment using light from softboxes or umbrellas - maybe it will be no difference at all between old & new lenses of same construction, but most of us do it outdoor I suppose...

I guess You can buy a 150/5.6 Nikkor W for modest sum these days (used $$ 250-300 or so?), and if You use that focal lengt a lot & photographe in sunlite outdoor, I think You should go for it & You will probably not be dissapointed. As a very "standard" lens, it would also be very easy to resell if You find no difference between them (but I think You will...). By the way: it would be nice to hear about Your experiences if You go for that upgrade.

Good luck!

[Doremus Scudder]

I replaced a single-coated symmar 135 with a new Nikkor-W for exactly the reason given above: Flare. The older lesn was equally sharp, but gave disappointing results when the sun or areas of bright sky were in the picture. The newer lens (multi-coated) performs much better in this respect. On the other hand, I use an older Ektar 203mm extensively and love it. It also has some flare problems and can be unsharp at the edges of its image circle, but is one of the sharpest lenses I own.

Lenses, like people, have their own personalities. If you find one you really like and "get along with well" it is possible, often desirable to ignore the faults... So, If you are quite happy with your current 150, I would keep it. If you have a reason to upgrade then that would certainly be a worthwhile option.

[Gem Singer]

Hi Ed,

I cannot imagine a fifty year old shutter operating as smooth and crisp as a new Copal. That would be my primary motivation for upgrading to a newer lens and shutter. It probably won't be noticeably sharper, but the Nikkor 150W f5.6 will be brighter and easier to focus than your 1950's Symmar. The image on the ground glass seems to jump into focus when I use one of my Nikkors. I have been told that it is a function of the improved coatings on those lenses.