Schneider Super-Symmar XL 110mm f5.6 v. Nikon Nikkor-SW 120mm f8

[Bernice Loui]

Schneider offered a 120mm f5.6 APO symmar, spec image circle of 189mm @ f22, often enough for 4x5 with camera movements.

If a slightly longer focal lenght can be tolerated/used, there are many 135mm ff5.6 modern plasmats that work good on 4x5.


Bernice

[Bruce Watson]

What the lens data sheets don't tell me are things like sharpness, contrast, rendering, etc... What are the qualities of the 110/5.6?

My sample is perhaps the sharpest lens I've used. The nearest challenger for that "title" would be it's 80mm SSXL little brother.

This lens is very sharp. If you're looking for a portrait lens, this probably isn't it. It has state of the art coatings (it's one of the last LF lenses designed/produced, so of course it does) so it has little in the way of reflection problems -- said another way it's nice and contrasty. This lens maximizes what TMY can do. And that's sayin' something.

If that's not what you want, than that's not what you want. But me, personally, I never got tired of it at all. Sorry Bernice. It pushed me and my image chain to the limit, and that's what I wanted.

On those rare occasions when I used it close enough to something so that I could actually see the bokeh, I have to say I liked the rendering of those out of focus areas with this lens too. Smooth.

The 110mm SSXL is my desert island lens. If I were forced to use only one lens, this is the one I would pick.

So yeah. It's a perfect lens for me. But will it be a perfect lens for you, or anyone else? Everyone has to answer that question for themselves. Sorry.

I should add that in all my years using it I never used it with a center filter. Same for the 80mm. Probably because all I was shooting was 5x4; with this much coverage that's about what you'd expect anyway. Said another way, light falloff in the corners with 5x4 isn't really a problem if you're usually in the center of the coverage circle, which most photographers typically are.

And if you want to use it with a filter, the lens barrel is a bit short -- your filter might touch the lead element right in the center which isn't good. I never found much use for filters so that wasn't a problem for me. If I had wanted to use filters I would have found a cheap broken filter of the right size (what it it -- a 72mm? 77? IDK), removed the glass, screwed in the empty ring, and magically had a "step forward" ring (like a step-up ring, but with only the one screw thread size) to add a mm or so of extra spacing between the lead element and the filter in question. But it's something to think about if you like using filters.

So, as usual I've gone on way longer than anyone wants me to. Good luck with it.

[Bernice Loui]

FYI, size comparison...

-Fujinon 125mm f8 NSW, Top Left.

-Schneider 120mm f8 Super Angulon MC, Top right.

-Rodenstock 115mm f6.8 Gradndagon N, Lower left.

-Schneider 110mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL, Lower right.
~by far the tiny_est of the four.




Bernice

[Salmo22]

My sample is perhaps the sharpest lens I've used. The nearest challenger for that "title" would be it's 80mm SSXL little brother.

This lens is very sharp. If you're looking for a portrait lens, this probably isn't it. It has state of the art coatings (it's one of the last LF lenses designed/produced, so of course it does) so it has little in the way of reflection problems -- said another way it's nice and contrasty. This lens maximizes what TMY can do. And that's sayin' something.

If that's not what you want, than that's not what you want. But me, personally, I never got tired of it at all. Sorry Bernice. It pushed me and my image chain to the limit, and that's what I wanted.

On those rare occasions when I used it close enough to something so that I could actually see the bokeh, I have to say I liked the rendering of those out of focus areas with this lens too. Smooth.

The 110mm SSXL is my desert island lens. If I were forced to use only one lens, this is the one I would pick.

So yeah. It's a perfect lens for me. But will it be a perfect lens for you, or anyone else? Everyone has to answer that question for themselves. Sorry.

I should add that in all my years using it I never used it with a center filter. Same for the 80mm. Probably because all I was shooting was 5x4; with this much coverage that's about what you'd expect anyway. Said another way, light falloff in the corners with 5x4 isn't really a problem if you're usually in the center of the coverage circle, which most photographers typically are.

And if you want to use it with a filter, the lens barrel is a bit short -- your filter might touch the lead element right in the center which isn't good. I never found much use for filters so that wasn't a problem for me. If I had wanted to use filters I would have found a cheap broken filter of the right size (what it it -- a 72mm? 77? IDK), removed the glass, screwed in the empty ring, and magically had a "step forward" ring (like a step-up ring, but with only the one screw thread size) to add a mm or so of extra spacing between the lead element and the filter in question. But it's something to think about if you like using filters.

So, as usual I've gone on way longer than anyone wants me to. Good luck with it.

Bruce - I was raised by a professional photographer that valued razor sharp and contrasty negatives - it is embedded in my DNA. My Nikkor SW 120/8 does a terrific job with respect to sharpness and contrast, but my unfamiliarity with the 110mm SSXL is a big reason for this thread. The only reason I gave the 110mm SSXL a second thought is Mark Citret employs the 110mm SSXL as one of four lenses he uses for his creative work. As a Mark Citret admirer, that got my attention. Thanks for your comments.

[Salmo22]

FYI, size comparison...

-Fujinon 125mm f8 NSW, Top Left.

-Schneider 120mm f8 Super Angulon MC, Top right.

-Rodenstock 115mm f6.8 Gradndagon N, Lower left.

-Schneider 110mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL, Lower right.
~by far the tiny_est of the four.




Bernice

Thank you for the comparison photo Bernice. No doubt, the 110mm SSXL wins the diminutive contest.

[Bernice Loui]

If the image values are "sharp-contrasty-snappy" The 110mm SSXL is for you..

Do be aware, there was a rash of 110mm SSXLs with problems.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...m-and-110mm-XL

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...e-Serial-Range

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...Drops-the-Ball

~This was precisely why the paid pre-order happend for the 110mm SSXL when it was introduced. Waited for about a year for Schneider to deliver the 110mm & 150mm SSXL. Really liked what the SSXL did back then, sharp, excellent contrast, snappy.. Use both the 110mm & 150mm LOTs back then.. at some point in time, got tired of lens personality, went back to the 115mm Grandagon..

These are all excellent LF lenses, this discussion also serves as an example of how different image goals should drive lens choice based on image goals.


Bernice

Bruce - I was raised by a professional photographer that valued razor sharp and contrasty negatives - it is embedded in my DNA. My Nikkor SW 120/8 does a terrific job with respect to sharpness and contrast, but my unfamiliarity with the 110mm SSXL is a big reason for this thread. The only reason I gave the 110mm SSXL a second thought is Mark Citret employs the 110mm SSXL as one of four lenses he uses for his creative work. As a Mark Citret admirer, that got my attention. Thanks for your comments.

[xkaes]

-Schneider 110mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL, Lower right.
~by far the tiny_est of the four.


Bernice

The Schneider 110mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL wins in this size match-up, but both the Fujinon NW and CM-W 125mm f5.6 (neither are included above) are half the weight -- if weight is an issue.

[Mark Sampson]

I can understand Mr. Welker's conundrum. Long ago my "medium-wide" lens was a 135/6.3 Kodak Wide Field Ektar, a fine lens. Then I visited New York City and immediately ran out of coverage. So I went to Ken Hansen's (i think) and found a 121/8 Schneider Super-Angulon (a 1957 example). Well now, no coverage issues on 4x5. But it's about the same size and weight as the newer SA120/8, the Nikkor 120/8 SW, Rodenstock, et.al.; a real howitzer to carry around. Yet I've kept both the Schneider and the Kodak for maybe 25 years now... and use the Kodak when weight and pack size is a problem. But I've learned to prefer the 121mm f.l. ( yes that 14mm can make a difference). And now I live in Arizona and go on short hikes with my 4x5... where the Schneider stays home.
But I fully understand the attraction of a small modern lens... my advice will be to try that 110 Schneider XL and see if the saved half-pound makes a difference. After all the lens will not decline in value... and it may change your thinking about that big ol' Nikkor-SW. Feeling comfortable and confident in your gear is worth a lot!

[xkaes]

I've done a lot of "landscapes" in Arizona, from Organ Pipe to the Grand Canyon. My 8 ounce 125mm f5.6 has come in handy, of course, but I never needed more than 200mm of image circle on my 4x5.

Is your experience different getting those Saguaros straight?

[Salmo22]

I can understand Mr. Welker's conundrum. Long ago my "medium-wide" lens was a 135/6.3 Kodak Wide Field Ektar, a fine lens. Then I visited New York City and immediately ran out of coverage. So I went to Ken Hansen's (i think) and found a 121/8 Schneider Super-Angulon (a 1957 example). Well now, no coverage issues on 4x5. But it's about the same size and weight as the newer SA120/8, the Nikkor 120/8 SW, Rodenstock, et.al.; a real howitzer to carry around. Yet I've kept both the Schneider and the Kodak for maybe 25 years now... and use the Kodak when weight and pack size is a problem. But I've learned to prefer the 121mm f.l. ( yes that 14mm can make a difference). And now I live in Arizona and go on short hikes with my 4x5... where the Schneider stays home.
But I fully understand the attraction of a small modern lens... my advice will be to try that 110 Schneider XL and see if the saved half-pound makes a difference. After all the lens will not decline in value... and it may change your thinking about that big ol' Nikkor-SW. Feeling comfortable and confident in your gear is worth a lot!

Well said Mark. This isn't an easy decision for me. I've burned a ton of sheet film with the Nikkor 120/8 SW. Lots of satisfying images. I'm actually on my second copy. My first was tragically drowned in a canal in rural AZ - https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ight=arlington I'm confident that the 110mm SSXL is an excellent lens. Used prices indicate a strong following and popularity - twice the cost of the 120/8. The upside of that big Nikkor is I could beat a moose's brains out with it should I be charged by Alces alces gigas in anger.