new vs. used Schneider

[Once]

I hold with those saying that any testing of these lenses is meaningless in regard to the OP's question. Our cameras are hardly made to function as testing devices and whatever subtle difference there could be it will be lost in the sea of inevitable mechanical imprecision of the individual elements that influence the resulting picture.
I think the OP is a victim of the frequent amateur boasting about lenses performance that has nothing to do with their real qualities. Best is to concentrate on the picture content you intend to catch and forget about technicalities you have no way to compare. Just my two cents.

[Mark Woods]

Hello Once, not to be offensive, but I do believe our cameras can be tested and the "mechanical imprecision of the individual elements" is a result of sloppy technique. Otherwise, shooting with them is a real crap shoot with no guarantees if one is very careful in the technical aspects of making the shot.

[Once]

Hello Once, not to be offensive, but I do believe our cameras can be tested and the "mechanical imprecision of the individual elements" is a result of sloppy technique. Otherwise, shooting with them is a real crap shoot with no guarantees if one is very careful in the technical aspects of making the shot.

Hi Mark, you probably meant "our lenses" can be tested, not cameras. Yes, they surely can be tested but our cameras are not done to test the subtle differences in them. The inevitable mechanical imprecision is inbuilt in our cameras and is there regardless of our technique (which can make it even worse, sure). Bulging film, different focusing precision, standards being not exactly parallel etc. those are just some elements that our cameras are subjected to. That's why lenses are tested on testing devices if they're examined and not on our cameras.
And the guarantees of our pictures quality come from lens qualities that are independent of our bad testing technique. The lens has the quality that it has even if my bad testing cannot find it, no?
But if testing lenses is as easy as trying shoes (just by 3 of them and try them the best is the best) then by now every single amateur must be well informed about what lenses are at what level on the scale of lens qualities. Schneider X is better than Schneider L and that is better than Schneider Xenar etc. Evidently, it is not so easy and therefore nobody has the authoritative answers, just guesses more or less probable. Well, at least I never thought I could decide on my cameras if Nikon 300mm is a better lens than my Nikon 150mm. And who knows the answer on this forum? Nobody. You will get as many "opinions" as many "testers" there are.

[rdenney]

Hi Mark, you probably meant "our lenses" can be tested, not cameras. Yes, they surely can be tested but our cameras are not done to test the subtle differences in them.

The point of such testing, however, is not to identify the performance of the lens in absolute terms, but to determine which lens is most suited to the intentions of the photographer. If the photographer's technique and other equipment is insufficient to reveal those differences, then for that photographer there are no differences worth spending additional money to obtain.

As for my own lens collection, I have Super Angulons in 47/5.6, 65/5.6, 65/8, 90/5.6, and 121/8. They range in age from the late 50's to the early 90's. The 90/5.6 is multicoated, and produces very subtly less flare than the single-coated versions. But in terms of raw performance, they are all excellent, and fully up to my own technique. The f/5.6 versions provide more coverage than the f/8 versions with respect to their focal lengths. I would expect similar generational differences with the Symmars over the same time period.

It should be noted that the manufacturers did take a significant step forward with their latest designs, as a result of computer-aided lens design and other advances. The differences are still quite subtle, merely because these lenses are simple enough to have achieved very high levels of design even without such tools. But the newer designs provide more coverage and perhaps better performance at wide apertures. If those features are important in the anticipated application, then one knows what to do. For example, a 47mm Super Angulon XL covers 4x5 and mine does not. A 72mm Super Angulon XL provides ample movements in 4x5 while the 65/5.6 does not. Again, I'm sure there are similar differences in the Symmar line.

Rick "whose kit only includes one old Symmar Convertible, which, by the way, is excellent" Denney

[Jim Jones]

The point of such testing, however, is not to identify the performance of the lens in absolute terms, but to determine which lens is most suited to the intentions of the photographer. If the photographer's technique and other equipment is insufficient to reveal those differences, then for that photographer there are no differences worth spending additional money to obtain. . . .

Yes, indeed. Relying solely on lens tests done on a test bench is a little like buying tailor-made clothing fit to a generic dummy. Also, the process of lens testing can be a valuable education to many photographers.

[Once]

Just to add that modern lenses don't need to be "tested" for coverage as that is stated by the manufacturer and is widely available on the net. Unless you want to add to the urban legends and proclaim (with the wise a$$ face) that "Schneider is very conservative in their coverage numbers" bla bla bla - you know what I mean. Oh sure, you beat Schneider right on their back, how does that feel? What would this forum be without legends? A sad place for many.

[GeorgesGiralt]

Hello !
IMHO standard lenses (by standard I mean lenses of the "normal" focal lens for the format without extreme opening or coverage power) are good and very good since WWII.
In that focal lens, design matter less than build quality.
So at first, choosing buying from Schneider or Rodenstock or the BIG Japanese is a sound decision as these will have got a very good quality control.
Of course the more recent the design is, the better, lighter, slimmer, the lens is.
A 6 lenses design of the 70's will be beaten by a lens of the 80's etc... But beaten by what ?
IMHO : a little more contrast because the design has been fine tuned, and the coatings are better... The coverage could be improved a little because the glasses are better (this has to be proven) but nothing exceptional.
a friend of mine says there is more difference between brands than between lenses generations : Rodenstock are more "brutal" and Schneider are more "smooth" if that make sense...
So try to find the more recent and IN PERFECT SHAPE, in it's original shutter, try it making some transparencies (to test for shutter speed and lens stop accuracy) and the in a very fine B&W film which you will look at using a 10x loupe to see if the lens is performing well. If yes, buy it, and keep it.
I own a 150 Xenar, a 150 Sironar N, a 150 Nikor W, a 150 Komura and a 150 Symmar and a 120 Apo-Symmar. On B&W I can't tell which lens took which picture without looking at my notes....
Hope this helps.

[Richard Rau]

Not to add fuel to the fire, but the reality is that even the same manufacture of the same focal length can vary by some margin, in spite of stringent quality control, meaning you could have tested 4 different new 210 Apo-Symmars, and one out of those four could out-perform the other three. Certainly the same holds true for used lenses. Not all glass is created equal, but this is splitting hairs, and very few of us here have the resources nor the inclination to go through the trouble. However, I do know several photographers who do just that when they buy lenses, they'll pick up several of the same make, test them, and keep the cream of the crop. I'm not one of them. Some folks swear by the performance of their Dagors, and I for one have trouble telling the difference between my 1960 ~ 14" Commercial Ektar and my 1970 ~360 Nikkor, other than I think the Ektar is more contrasty. I buy the best I can afford, and I don't use any of them often enough to justify the entry fee into this crazy sport!