Help With 165mm Symmar

[Old-N-Feeble]

I realize this is surely an ignorant question but I have a 165mm Schneider Symmar. I've never seen another one. Can someone please provide a little more info on this lens? Sorry for the dust... it's been sitting on a shelf in a loosely closed plastic bag for years.

128524

[Old-N-Feeble]

Thank you, TAG. Do you know where I can find more information? There don't seem to be too many of these around.

[djdister]

Once again, cameraeccentric.com to the rescue:

http://www.cameraeccentric.com/img/info/schneider_3/schneider_3_13.jpg

http://www.cameraeccentric.com/img/info/schneider_3/schneider_3_14.jpg

[Ari]

Kool! I must admit, I've never seen nor heard of this lens previously.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Once again, cameraeccentric.com to the rescue:

Thank you :)

[ic-racer]

Its needle sharp definition allows for the making of negatives which can be greatly enlarged.

Manufacturer's sales literature is hardly a benchmark standard. You own the lens, can't you tell us about it? How big is it? Light or heavy? What size filters does it take? Is that a standard copal X shutter? Any shims? Is it sharp or blurry? How big is the image circle? How is light falloff? How does it work as a convertible? Front only or rear only how do they compare? How much was it? How about some subjective comments? Is it worthwhile to use or something to get rid of?

[Mark Sampson]

A pre-war design, Schneider made it post-WWII as well. The later ones were coated. Minor White used a 210mm version and spoke highly of it (on a 4x5 Sinar Norma). The design was replaced in the mid-50s by the convertible Symmar. I've often wanted to try one, but have never had the chance.

[Dan Fromm]

Mark, a relative of the design lived on for a while in G-Clarons. Up to around 1972 they were Dagor types.

[Paul Ewins]

By the look of the lettering yours probably dates from the mid thirties. After WWII the range was pared back and the "extra" focal lengths like the 165, 195, 270 and the ones below 135mm were dropped. These lenses were convertible, but mostly it is the post-war lenses that have the different aperture ranges marked on the shutter. Sometimes the individual cells will have the focal length marked, sometimes not. I collect these lenses, but usually there isn't much reason to use them as for most of them there are better modern alternatives. The exception is the longest focal lengths, the 300 and 360mm, which are pretty useful ULF lenses, particularly as they usually come in a shutter.

[MDR]

It looks more like forties as the lens appears to be single coated (bluish sheen)I could be wrong though. Symmar both older and new are good lenses. The new ones are of plasmat design they are also sharper and multicoated personaly I prefer the older single coated Dagor design ones but for technical or Optimum architecture photography a new one is probably a better choice. The focal length was the standard for 10x15cm (ca. 4x6in Postcard) cameras which were still made for some time after the war. The aperture is pretty much modern Standard nothing weird like f9, f12 etc...

[Old-N-Feeble]

By the look of the lettering yours probably dates from the mid thirties. After WWII the range was pared back and the "extra" focal lengths like the 165, 195, 270 and the ones below 135mm were dropped. These lenses were convertible, but mostly it is the post-war lenses that have the different aperture ranges marked on the shutter. Sometimes the individual cells will have the focal length marked, sometimes not. I collect these lenses, but usually there isn't much reason to use them as for most of them there are better modern alternatives. The exception is the longest focal lengths, the 300 and 360mm, which are pretty useful ULF lenses, particularly as they usually come in a shutter.

Neither cell is marked with an individual focal length. There is no serial number on the front cell but the SN on the rear cell indicates an early to mid 1938 manufacture date. The front cell appears to be lacquered brass on the outer edge of the ring, not painted black like the rest of the metal. It doesn't look like the paint was worn off via use of slip-on adapters.


It looks more like forties as the lens appears to be single coated (bluish sheen)I could be wrong though. Symmar both older and new are good lenses. The new ones are of plasmat design they are also sharper and multicoated personaly I prefer the older single coated Dagor design ones but for technical or Optimum architecture photography a new one is probably a better choice. The focal length was the standard for 10x15cm (ca. 4x6in Postcard) cameras which were still made for some time after the war. The aperture is pretty much modern Standard nothing weird like f9, f12 etc...

I can't tell for certain if there is any coating on the glass. If there is it's extremely light. I can see just a bare hint of color but it's not enough for me to say it's coated.

[Jim Noel]

I wish I still had mine. It was a very useful lens and with both elements certainly sharp enough. Single elements make nice portrait lenses as there is an acceptable degree of softness. I prefer its images to those made with more modern sharp cut-off lenses because people look like people and trees look like trees, nice and round not cut and pasted. If you don't want it let me know and I will certainly be happy to once again be able to photograph with one.

[Old-N-Feeble]

I didn't intend to make this a "for sale" thread... and it's not. I no longer sell on forums. I don't mind folks asking though. I'll clean it up, evaluate the condition and list it on eBay... probably this Sunday evening. I'm sorry but no member-to-member sales anymore.

MODS: If this post is pushing it then please delete it.

[MDR]

Even uncoated it should be a better than decent lens.

[Corran]

Thanks for posting this thread. I had a similar question but here are the answers.

I recently had a 210mm f/6.8 Symmar come into my possession as part of a large kit. It's in a newer Compur shutter, so probably very late production. I figured it was an older Dagor design and the cameraeccentric article confirms that.

I wonder what the (if any) differences between a Goerz Dagor and this lens would be? In terms of both design and performance. Considering coated Dagors seem to fetch a premium, I wonder what an "identical" coated Symmar would be valued at . I can't find any recent sales of one of these Symmars. I will likely be refurbishing the kit and selling it (this is not an ad, just mentioning my reason for asking).

[Ari]

Have you tried to ascertain an image circle? The Dagor is well-known to cover almost 400mm at small apertures.

[Corran]

I have not put this lens on a camera yet but I was planning on looking at the IC on my 8x10. One datasheet mentions it covers 10x12 at small stops, which would be ~400mm, while another says an 11 13/16 IC at small stops (~300mm). A lot of variance in Schneider's own literature. I suppose it might have a sharp circle of 300mm but usable for contact printing up to 400mm, or something like that.

I know I tried a 12" Dagor on my 8x20 and it covered just fine with room to spare so a 210mm should get well past 350mm of IC, at least for contact/small enlargements.

Another thing I just noticed. The CE article shows a symmetrical design, but this lens is marked as a triple-convertible with different FL's for each single element. Wouldn't that be a different design then? And what about being a double-anastigmat? Mine doesn't say that but the original lens from the OP does.

Edit:
I just found a lens on eBay that is identical to mine. The seller clearly doesn't know anything about LF lenses, which is why it's sat unsold for a while:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/251857722932

If it IS basically a coated Dagor, it seems pretty cheap. But as with most things, perhaps the DAGOR name is what makes a real Dagor worth 2-4x that.

[Louis Pacilla]

I have not put this lens on a camera yet but I was planning on looking at the IC on my 8x10. One datasheet mentions it covers 10x12 at small stops, which would be ~400mm, while another says an 11 13/16 IC at small stops (~300mm). A lot of variance in Schneider's own literature. I suppose it might have a sharp circle of 300mm but usable for contact printing up to 400mm, or something like that.

I know I tried a 12" Dagor on my 8x20 and it covered just fine with room to spare so a 210mm should get well past 350mm of IC, at least for contact/small enlargements.

Another thing I just noticed. The CE article shows a symmetrical design, but this lens is marked as a triple-convertible with different FL's for each single element. Wouldn't that be a different design then? And what about being a double-anastigmat? Mine doesn't say that but the original lens from the OP does.

Edit:
I just found a lens on eBay that is identical to mine. The seller clearly doesn't know anything about LF lenses, which is why it's sat unsold for a while:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/251857722932

If it IS basically a coated Dagor, it seems pretty cheap. But as with most things, perhaps the DAGOR name is what makes a real Dagor worth 2-4x that.

The Symmars that are Dagor copies just don't bring close to what the Goerz Dagor bring. Right or wrong it's Just how it is. A good deal is had by the user but it's not a "JAKE POT" for the reseller.

[Corran]

Yeah I figured. Either way this seems like a relatively uncommon lens. Besides which the "jackpot" lens is one of the others in the kit :).

[Paul Ewins]

...Another thing I just noticed. The CE article shows a symmetrical design, but this lens is marked as a triple-convertible with different FL's for each single element. Wouldn't that be a different design then? And what about being a double-anastigmat? Mine doesn't say that but the original lens from the OP does....


It is symmetrical in the sense that both front and rear cells are of the same design although they are different focal lengths. Both cells are anastigmats, so two of them put together becomes a doppel-anastigmat. Although each cell is a functioning lens in its own right when you combine them you get a better corrected and faster lens. Pre-war Symmars are usually labelled Doppel-Anastigmat but that was dropped postwar and they are just labelled Symmar. Production of the Dagor Symmars stopped in mid 1952 while the Plasmat Symmars started volume production in 1954. All of the Dagor Symmars are uncommon, but the 135 and 210 are probably a little less uncommon than the others.

[Corran]

Thanks for the clarification and info!