150mm 5.6 T Navitar Or Linhof Symmar-S MC 5.6?

[Stanley Kubrick]

Hi, just wondering if anyone has any advice on these lenses. I want a 'standard' lens for 5x4, iv been shooting with a wide angle (Nikkor SW 90mm 4.5) but im fed up of the distortion, so I want another lens to go with it. The Navitar and Linhof are whats on ebay at the moment, the Navitar at £100 and the Linhof at £170. They are both quite cheap, I dont want to spend too much money at the moment with them. Does anyone know how they compare to the lovely Nikkor 90mm which cost me £400? Im not going to print anything over 11x14/12x16 or whatever those are when sized for a 5x4 frame.

The Linhof Schneider Symmar 210/370mm 5.6 is also on ebay, its a little longer but around the same price (£150). Does anybody know anything about this one?

All lenses are in acceptable condition and have been serviced prior to sale.

Thank You!

[Ari]

The Navitar seems like it would be overly sharp, more of a lens for digital scanning backs. And there's no indication of coverage (does it cover 4x5?).
You can't go wrong with a Symmar lens; just make sure the shutter works well and is not in need of a CLA, and that the glass has no haze or fungus; Schneider-itis (look it up) is ok.

[Stanley Kubrick]

Right, thanks for the info, il go with the Symmar!

[Dan Fromm]

Ari, if you'd used Google you'd have learned that the lens in question was mentioned in the 12/83 issue of Popular Photography. Not a lens for anything digital.

You'd also been handed an assertion by the late H. Lynn Jones to the effect that it is a tessar type like the Fujinon LS. What Google won't tell you is that Prof. Jones wasn't always a reliable source of information.

Stanley, here http://sdrv.ms/1i4czGa is a link to a list of links to lens catalogs and such. Use it, you might learn a little. If you Google Kubrick and "Barry Lyndon lens" you'll understand why you should consider changing your screen name.

[Ari]

I'm more than happy to be corrected, Dan; my Google results told me very scant information, certainly nothing on coverage, while the Symmars are a known quantity.
Was the Navitar the "Barry Lyndon Lens"? I thought that lens was made for S. Kubrick by the aerospace division of Zeiss, or something equally preposterous.

[Stanley Kubrick]

Thanks, il check those out too. Photography allows for a little more time on each exposure than shooting moving images, so I dont think il have as much difficulty shooting scenes under candlelit as the genuine Mr Kubrick!

[Dan Fromm]

Ari, the Barry Lyndon lens started life as a fast Zeiss lens. The Navitar beastie isn't a close relative. However, the late Prof. Jones seems (I may have misread his post) to have asserted that it is the same design as a Fujinon LS. These are better known and Fuji published coverage claims for them.

[Bob Salomon]

Navitar was a house brand for D.O. Industries who was the importer of the Fujinon lenses through the early 80s. Navitar is most commonly found as a name on OEM lenses for surveillance cameras, machine vision cameras, etc. Next time you make a deposit at the drive up window at the bank look at the name on the video camera. There is a pretty good chance that it is a Navistar.

The Navitar 150mm is not a lens formulated for digital applications.

[Mark Sampson]

You should note that the 240 (convertible) Symmar that you mention is a 1950s design that was replaced c.1972 by the Symmar-S- which was multi-cated by the late 70s and in production until 1991 or so. I have extensive experience with both types and would prefer the Symmar-S, all else being equal. It's a little sharper and has more contrast than the older lens- but not enough to make me reject a convertible example in good shape.