PDA

View Full Version : Symmar-S v Apo-Symmar



12pmc
8-May-2016, 12:43
Can anyone comment on the practical performance of a Symmar S 210mm over it's successor the Apo for 4x5 use.
Thanks
Peter

12pmc
8-May-2016, 12:51
I meant Symmar in title not summary.....

MODERATOR'S NOTE: fixed!

Mark Sampson
8-May-2016, 17:19
I have never used a Symmar-S in direct comparison to an Apo-Symmar but have experience with both lens types; the first a 300/5.6 Symmar-S (single-coated, early version) and a 135/5.6 Apo-Symmar from c.1991. This was while I worked as an industrial photographer at a major corporation... the 300 was a superb lens in every respect. The 135 Apo added higher contrast and thus more color saturation. Never reached the limits of either lenses' resolution despite doing some fairly demanding work. I would not hesitate to use a lens of either formula for anything I might photograph today... multicoated Symmar-S lenses and Apo-Symmars would be my choices if I had those choices to make, but there would never be a need to make excuses for the single-coated version.

neil poulsen
8-May-2016, 21:18
I can't recall the member's name, but he was a Symmar-S user and commented that, he thought he had sharp optics, until he tried the Apo-Symmars. (Hearsay, of course.)

I've been a user of 100mm, 150mm, and 180mm Symmar-S lenses. Based on his comment, I've swapped out the 150mm for an Apo-Symmar, and will eventually do the same for the 100mm and 180mm lenses.

EdSawyer
9-May-2016, 13:36
Chris Perez likely has some of those comparisons on his site. Basically the APO version is better in all ways.

Oren Grad
9-May-2016, 13:45
Chris Perez likely has some of those comparisons on his site. Basically the APO version is better in all ways.

He has only one head-to-head comparison between a Symmar-S and an Apo-Symmar in the same focal length (150), and that one is equivocal:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

diversey
9-May-2016, 13:54
I do not have an APO-Symmar 210mm lens, but I like my Symmar-S 210mm/f5.6. Here is a photo i shot recently.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LfzaCW06pWc/Vyy5Hlj_zrI/AAAAAAAACGk/623dmblLB2AIq9MjJhgAEck9Lm5Bu6kkACLcB/s1600/Chevron%2Bweb.jpg

EdSawyer
10-May-2016, 06:14
You can also compare the MTFs from Schneider.

Drew Wiley
10-May-2016, 08:36
I dunno. I look at my old Symmar S prints from time to time, and no, they didn't have quite the same degree of sharpness and contrast as newer plasmats; but there was a certain look that was more pleasing in cases, esp how background blur was handled, even though these were already in modern Copal shutters with
a limited number of aperture blades. As usual, the numbers don't tell it all.

12pmc
11-May-2016, 10:51
Thanks, when did the model change from S to Apo can someone advise?

Peter

Oren Grad
11-May-2016, 11:16
Thanks, when did the model change from S to Apo can someone advise?

Early 1990's, I think 1992.

12pmc
11-May-2016, 12:30
Thank you

Kevin Crisp
11-May-2016, 12:47
Having used both lens series extensively (thanks to a burglary -- had to replace four of them) I find it really hard to believe that anyone could reliably pick out a print from a MC S lens versus an APO Symmar. Both were outstanding.

Drew Wiley
11-May-2016, 13:17
Schneider was really the last of the "big four" to modernize their plasmats and lens production in general. Fuji, Nikon, and Rodenstock were ahead. This also allegedly coincided with stricter Euro rules on glass types per harzardous or radioactive ingredients. In other words, Schneider was forced to redesign the series.
I switched to Fuji just from a wear and tear standpoint, since my Schneider gear had gone through utter hell in terms of a lot of hard mountaineering and desert
use. I was fairly astounded at the increase in sharpness and contrast. But the older Symmar S is no slouch, and no large format photographer should be ashamed to use these. They are a real bargain at the moment, provided you can find something clean. A bit of peripheral "Schneideritis" won't affect the image.

Drew Wiley
11-May-2016, 13:29
... Oh, I should have added that, at the time, German currency was high and the Yen low, so I basically got brand new Fuji lenses for the sale price of my beat up old Schneider ones. Timing has a lot to do with such decisions, since the general quality of all these brands is superb. Of course, as I've gotten older I tend to place
a premium upon sheer portability, so tiny little Nikkor M's, Fuji A's, G-Clarons, and Fuji C's have become my preference. Now my beloved 250 G is nearly worn out,
but I have a functionally very similar 240 A waiting to replace it, bought at the right time per exchange rates.

Kevin Crisp
11-May-2016, 14:46
Good to know that I need not feel ashamed to use my Schneider lenses. I think Fuji makes some fine lenses, but to suggest that they are 'astoundingly' better than Schneider is not credible.

Drew Wiley
11-May-2016, 15:16
My first Fuji was the 250/6.7, not even their latest and greatest. But compared to traditional 250 plasmats, it was a luxury to have something in a lightweight no.1 shutter. After a couple of trannies around evening in extremely clear air, once in Kauai and once looking over Comb Ridge in Utah, I got worried about the lens because, upon magnification, I could see a rainbow-like separation of hues around sharp edges. Then the next time I encountered a similar situation, I saw it with my own eyes! The phenomena was actually due to natural diffraction around sharp landscape edges. My Symmar S never picked up that kind of thing because it was not corrected to the same degree. Now I certainly wouldn't be nitpicky about this with any large format film print. Where these newer lenses really come into their own is the opposite direction. If I grab the same lens that is routinely used as a "wide" on 8X10, like a 250, and long-ish "normal" on 4x5, then decide to use it for a roll-film back too, it would be make or break. My new lenses perform wonderfully. The old school Symmar S and Super-Angulons just wouldn't do it for me. That slight improvement becomes crucial with the greater degree of magnification in print. My own brother used the best of gear in his time, a Linhof Super Technika and the best Schneider lenses of that era. But oh my gosh, those roll-film back shots were not in the same league at all. Made no
difference on a magazine or book spread. But in a big picture frame, or in a portfolio box with large format prints mixed in, it sure does. But if I happened to stumble on a clean old 210 Symmar-S somewhere at a good price, I'm sure I'd find a use for that too. Sometimes being clinically sharp and contrasty isn't what
the doctor ordered. In the world of Fuji, I'd really like to get my hands on a 300 L for the same reason.