Schneider Symmar-S vs Apo Symmar

[glrerun]

What is the difference between the Apo Symmar and and the older Symmar-S. I have been shooting with a 210 Symmar-S, but seen a 210 Apo Symmar for $150.00 at an estate sale this weekend. At first I thought about purchasing the lens, but then I thought this would be redundant.

What say you??? Should I go back and make the purchase, the lens is still available.

[diversey]

Symmar-S is good, but Apo Symmar is better. There is a post discussing these two lenses in this forum recently. You should go back and buy the Apo Symmar.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?130813-Symmar-S-v-Apo-Symmar&highlight=Apo+symmar

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?129951-FS-APO-Symmar-210-f-5-6&highlight=Apo+symmar

[BrianShaw]

For $150 I'd buy it and sell it for more.

[Drew Wiley]

"Better" depends on your priorities. Yeah, the newer Apo Symmars will be slightly sharper and more contrasty. Whether or not they're truly apo or just improved
for the sake of pegging this as a marketing slogan is another question, at least if you're comparing this to the more stringent standards of apo repro lenses. They were forced to change glass types due to EU rules about hazardous ingredients. But for some applications like portraiture, the marginally softer look of the older Symmar S might be preferable. I've still got a few 30x40 Cibachromes left over from exhibitions taken with the 210 Symmar S, and at the time they were shown everyone thought they were remarkably sharp. And that was 4x5 on older chrome film like Ektachrome 64. So yeah, with newer lenses and especially larger format film like 8x10 I can now made conspicuously sharper prints, at least by my personal standards. But this is all relative. Frankly, I be more concerned about the condition of older 210's rather than specific model. There are so many of them out there to choose from that you can afford to be picky.

[diversey]

Symmar-S 210/5.6 is my favorite lens for 4x5 portrait. It has everything you need for a portrait.

[Kevin Crisp]

I really question the opinion that an APO Schneider will generally be more contrasty and sharper than a MC S version. I've not seen that. I used the older ones then replaced them with the APOs after a burglary and saw no improvement. Both fine performers. Supposedly some of the APOs had a tiny bit more coverage.

[IanG]

Bob Salomon is the expert here, my memory is that Schneider upgraded the designs very slightly for the Apo Symmars but one I think the 210mm Symmar S was already the Apo design so efefctively is the same lens just re-badged.

The reality is alll the MC LF lenses from Schneider and Rodenstock are excelent and it's hard to chose between them.


For $150 I'd buy it and sell it for more.

At that price buy it as others have said then sellone of them for the more typical higher price.

Ian

[Drew Wiley]

Both Fuji and Rodenstock were ahead of Schneider in the tweaking of their plasmats. I don't know about Nikon. But they're all damn good. Symmar S were never
close to true apo. Back then they reserved that designation for the Apo Artar series and perhaps G-Clarons. Bob will know better than me. But as a salesman,
my brother claimed that Schneider was slightly later because they upgraded the manufacturing equipment last. Besides, the Symmar S was so popular that they
might not have had any pressing incentive. Rodenstock had Apo Ronars. Fuji had their "super apochromat" A series, equivalent to G-Claron.

[Pere Casals]

What is the difference between the Apo Symmar and and the older Symmar-S.


About pure Lp/mm performance... as always... you can find much more difference from one unit (lens copy) of the same model to another unit of the same model than the difference that there is between the average performance from one model to the other.

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html this is the famous Pérez / Thalmann tests.


A 210mm particular lens:
Fstop/cnt/mdl/edge

Schneider Symmar APO f/5.6 210mm f/11 76 76 60

This is at f/11 it has 76 Lp/mm performance at center, 60 in the corner and 76 in the midpoint of the line that goes from center to corner.




Look 2 copies of same APO Symmar model: one reachs 76Lp/mm in certain conditions and the other just 67.


Schneider APO Symmar f/5.6 120mm
f/11 54 54 48
f/16 76 54 54
f/22 60 54 48



Schneider APO Symmar f/5.6 120mm
f/11 67 67 38
f/16 64 64 54
f/22 60 60 42





Then look these APO Symmar vs Symmar-S measurements:


Schneider APO Symmar f/5.6 150mm
f/11 54 60 54
f/16 60 60 54
f/22 42 42 38



Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6 150mm
f/11 76 85 38
f/16 57 60 38
f/22 67 67 48



Here the Symmar-S reachs atonishing 85 Lp/mm at f/11 !!! while the in theory better APO reachs only 60 !!!



So first try to know what kind of Symmar-S performer do you have. It can happen that you have a very good glass and you are to replace it for a better model glass (in theory) that it is worse. And sure there are a lot of factors than can improve the "sharpness" of your photography better than glass Lp/mm

I can tell that I have an old Symmar 360mm (Technika selected) (not APO, not S...) that it is damn, damn sharp, I'm to measure how much it is. Not multicoated so when sun is in the framing it can flare a bit.


And, well... near all of us have, (or have had) G.A.S. : Gear Acquisition Syndrome. This is buying gear and not making art. :)

[Bob Salomon]

Both Fuji and Rodenstock were ahead of Schneider in the tweaking of their plasmats. I don't know about Nikon. But they're all damn good. Symmar S were never
close to true apo. Back then they reserved that designation for the Apo Artar series and perhaps G-Clarons. Bob will know better than me. But as a salesman,
my brother claimed that Schneider was slightly later because they upgraded the manufacturing equipment last. Besides, the Symmar S was so popular that they
might not have had any pressing incentive. Rodenstock had Apo Ronars. Fuji had their "super apochromat" A series, equivalent to G-Claron.

Without going into sources, the Apo Ronar was the lens series supplied on much more then 70% of all western horizontal process cameras. Schneider was the leader for vertical process cameras as they required a wide coverage design then the Apo Ronar provided.

[Drew Wiley]

Pere - I don't know why people keep referring to certain internet threads as authoritative, when nobody has seriously evaluated their own methodology or questioned their ridiculously small alleged "batch variation" sampling. Seems strange how random tests can be done by certain individuals possessing far less instrumentation than engineers in actual optics factories. So excuse me if I take these kinds of references with a grain of salt. I can understand their budget limitations, and how they've rendered a favor just by handling a sheer variety of lenses. But it doesn't make such figures reliable. The degree of lens consistency or quality control might well be related to price point, just as in many kinds of machined products. For example, it wouldn't take much error at all to ruin the reputation of a process lens. Something intended for students or amateur darkroom enthusiasts would not need to be as stringent. But on this thread, we're talking about relatively late professional lenses. I did recall three decades ago a well-informed large format salesman claiming his had never seen a bad Fujinon lens. This implies he might have indeed encountered a lemon once in awhile from one of the other major manufacturer. But it can hardly have been common. There was no talk of fiddling around trying to find the best sample, regardless. It would have been a fluke. The reputation of these products, even the extant
Symmar S line, was well established by thousands of them already being in use for professional applications. Nothing I'd worry about.

[Kevin Crisp]

I'd take the word of a well-informed salesman any day over actual testing, especially when it merely qualifies as an implication. Good point.

[Drew Wiley]

Alas, the days of pro lens and LF salesmen seems to be a thing of the past. Now its min wage students discussing the merits of Holga versus Diana cameras. But
some of them do experiment with LF, when they can afford the film.

[Mark Sampson]

Having professionally used both Symmar-S and Apo-Symmar lenses (but not in comparison tests against each other), I'll say that your technique will have to be extremely exacting in order to reach the limits of either lens. They are both very, very good. Neither one is the magic bullet.

[Pere Casals]

Pere - I don't know why people keep referring to certain internet threads as authoritative, when nobody has seriously evaluated their own methodology or questioned their ridiculously small alleged "batch variation" sampling. Seems strange how random tests can be done by certain individuals possessing far less instrumentation than engineers in actual optics factories. So excuse me if I take these kinds of references with a grain of salt. I can understand their budget limitations, and how they've rendered a favor just by handling a sheer variety of lenses. But it doesn't make such figures reliable. The degree of lens consistency or quality control might well be related to price point, just as in many kinds of machined products. For example, it wouldn't take much error at all to ruin the reputation of a process lens. Something intended for students or amateur darkroom enthusiasts would not need to be as stringent. But on this thread, we're talking about relatively late professional lenses. I did recall three decades ago a well-informed large format salesman claiming his had never seen a bad Fujinon lens. This implies he might have indeed encountered a lemon once in awhile from one of the other major manufacturer. But it can hardly have been common. There was no talk of fiddling around trying to find the best sample, regardless. It would have been a fluke. The reputation of these products, even the extant
Symmar S line, was well established by thousands of them already being in use for professional applications. Nothing I'd worry about.



Hello Drew,

Yes... Symmar-S line is trusted... Also APO Symmar. OP was asking is it was worth going APO... my answer was not because Lp/mm, because the sample to sample variation...


The sample to sample variation is very real, and long debated and stated here. If any single element in the lens is not perfect it degrades all, also the lens have an assembly process that can bring on degradation.

Look these APO Symmar vs Symmar-S measurements:

Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6 150mm
f/11 76 85 38


That specimen had a superb 85 Lp/mm at midpoint while a very low corner performance of 38. By adjusting position of the gropus you can correct very well at one point (85) but there is the drawback of worse correction in another point 38 (corner).

Every lens unit is different.

Drew, I've been reading every word that Thalmann has in his web page (I've some Fujinon glasses... ), those tests perhaps are not perfect but they are very consistent. My opinion if that the "85" measuring would be 86 or 78 in a top notch lab, but not 70.


Another issue is "Technika selected", "Sinaron Sinar selected" Rodenstocks and "Linhof selected". Technika, Sinar and Linhof were not amateurs (like me :) ) and they knew what they were buying. You can find "not selected" glasses that are as good as the selected ones, but it is clear that the lower quality units (still very good lenses) were not in the "selected" crop.

I've no doubt that a Symmar-S unit can be tecnically better than an APO Symmar... or the counter... don't you agree with this?

I guess that near 50% of the times a Symmar-S is better than a APO Symmar, and the counter. It can be 40-60, but I don't think 30-70.


And then it happens that photographers tend to sell worse units and to keep the better ones, so what it is "in circulation" it is not always very good. But also right now there are much more good units at ebay because people adandoning film.


Another thing is knowing when having 76 Lp/mm or 50 Lp/mm makes a difference or not. I think that the main debate is there. Of course nobody outside a lab will notice if a lens has 68 or 75. Perhaps MC vs SC will be noticed more in certain shots...

I'd prefer a collection of Sironar-S glasses instead N? Of course !!!


Regards

[Pere Casals]

Having professionally used both Symmar-S and Apo-Symmar lenses (but not in comparison tests against each other), I'll say that your technique will have to be extremely exacting in order to reach the limits of either lens. They are both very, very good. Neither one is the magic bullet.

Completely true, IMHO.

[Bob Salomon]

Hello Drew,

Yes... Symmar-S line is trusted... Also APO Symmar. OP was asking is it was worth going APO... my answer was not because Lp/mm, because the sample to sample variation...


The sample to sample variation is very real, and long debated and stated here. If any single element in the lens is not perfect it degrades all, also the lens have an assembly process that can bring on degradation.

Look these APO Symmar vs Symmar-S measurements:

Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6 150mm
f/11 76 85 38


That specimen had a superb 85 Lp/mm at midpoint while a very low corner performance of 38. By adjusting position of the gropus you can correct very well at one point (85) but there is the drawback of worse correction in another point 38 (corner).

Every lens unit is different.

Drew, I've been reading every word that Thalmann has in his web page (I've some Fujinon glasses... ), those tests perhaps are not perfect but they are very consistent. My opinion if that the "85" measuring would be 86 or 78 in a top notch lab, but not 70.


Another issue is "Technika selected", "Sinaron Sinar selected" Rodenstocks and "Linhof selected". Technika, Sinar and Linhof were not amateurs (like me :) ) and they knew what they were buying. You can find "not selected" glasses that are as good as the selected ones, but it is clear that the lower quality units (still very good lenses) were not in the "selected" crop.

I've no doubt that a Symmar-S unit can be tecnically better than an APO Symmar... or the counter... don't you agree with this?

I guess that near 50% of the times a Symmar-S is better than a APO Symmar, and the counter. It can be 40-60, but I don't think 30-70.


And then it happens that photographers tend to sell worse units and to keep the better ones, so what it is "in circulation" it is not always very good. But also right now there are much more good units at ebay because people adandoning film.


Another thing is knowing when having 76 Lp/mm or 50 Lp/mm makes a difference or not. I think that the main debate is there. Of course nobody outside a lab will notice if a lens has 68 or 75. Perhaps MC vs SC will be noticed more in certain shots...

I'd prefer a collection of Sironar-S glasses instead N? Of course !!!


Regards

You do know that the test results you are referring to will vary with film, exposure, emulsion batch, development, drying and washing times, loupe quality, viewers eyes, atmospheric conditions, lighting, and a myriad of other variable. It simply isn't a scientific or repeatable test. That is why camera and lens manufacturers went to MTF testing. Furthermore, the lenses under discussion were not designed to photograph flat test charts or walls but that is what the test is.

[Drew Wiley]

My biggest issue with do-it-yourself lens testing on sheet film is that, more often than not, people are evaluating variance in film flatness in the holders rather than lens performance itself! This kind of task should be done true optical bench style, by real optical engineers. I am aware of "selected" lenses one upon a time. My brother claimed this occurred with Commercial Ektars, and even know the grading system, when he sold LF gear himself; and of course, Linhof and Sinar selected lenses. I doubt it would make much difference at all once the assembly lines were all modernized. Somebody might have a bad day or grudge; but we're not talking about truly mass-produced product when it comes to this kind of thing, even in the heyday of large format. Certain cemented designs like dagors infamously required a lot of personal fuss to get truly matched front and rear components. But this kind of task was perfected some time back. And by now everyone knows about the unsuccessful cementing innovation used on earlier 80 and 110 Super-Symmars. Stuff happens. But really, how many of us would
stay awake at night worrying if a late private-label Calumet plasmat was up to the task of the identical factory-branded one?

[Sal Santamaura]

My biggest issue with do-it-yourself lens testing on sheet film is that, more often than not, people are evaluating variance in film flatness in the holders rather than lens performance itself...Perhaps more often than not, but not always. Some of us do account for factors like that. :)


...This kind of task should be done true optical bench style, by real optical engineers...I disagree. If real world photography using a large format camera and sheet film is the environment in which a lens will be used, testing it in that situation provides more meaningful information to the user.


...I am aware of "selected" lenses one upon a time...but we're not talking about truly mass-produced product when it comes to this kind of thing, even in the heyday of large format...When one seeks absolute maximum optical performance, there can be visible variation in even the most elaborately factory-optimized modern production lenses. That's why Sexton tested a number of Nikkor samples in each focal length before deciding which one to keep. It's also the reason anyone reporting on their DIY test results must qualify them with "my sample."

With respect to the OP, I previously had a 210mm Symmar S and (not simultaneously) obtained a 210mm Apo Symmar. Results from my two samples were clearly different, with the Apo Symmar delivering much sharper images. Other samples might provide different outcomes.

[Pere Casals]

You do know that the test results you are referring to will vary with film, exposure, emulsion batch, development, drying and washing times, loupe quality, viewers eyes, atmospheric conditions, lighting, and a myriad of other variable. It simply isn't a scientific or repeatable test. That is why camera and lens manufacturers went to MTF testing. Furthermore, the lenses under discussion were not designed to photograph flat test charts or walls but that is what the test is.

Hello Bob,


Mr Pérez says: "This is at best a relative (not absolute) comparison between these lenses."

This is not a top notch lab test but it was made by people that knew what they were doing. Not perfect but we have to guess that all test were made in consistent conditions. They were measuring even 85 Lp/mm so at least they had the capability to measure that resolution, so at least all measures of say 70Lp/mm may be consistent.



Please NOTE:

>This is at best a relative (not absolute) comparison between these lenses. Kerry and I are simply looking for the Pick of the Litter.

> All lenses tested at 1:20 magnification (a typical working distance).

> Test setup was TMax100, D76 processed to my system's calibrated exposure/time/temp

> Canham DCLH(?) metal field 4x5, Linhof Tech III, Linhof Master Technika, Linhof Master Karden, and Tachihara wood field 4x5

> Edmond Scientific Lens Resolution Chart

> The negatives were exposed for Zone 7-8 for detailed white and Zone 3 for detailed shadow.


About manufacturers... well, the sample to sample variation exists for sure, so their charts can be more or less an average, or a political information.

I've not found another source that was as extensive.


To me this is not an ultimate test, but it is the most relevant I've seen, and we can conclude iinteresting points from it.


Mr Pérez said there: "This has been a long project and I hope people find merit in being able to review this information on-line." I find that merit...



Regards
Pere

[Armin Seeholzer]

My APO Symmar 210mm was for a long time my reference lens in sharpness on my 4x5!

[Pere Casals]

Hello Drew,


My biggest issue with do-it-yourself lens testing on sheet film is that, more often than not, people are evaluating variance in film flatness in the holders rather than lens performance itself!


At f/5.6 1:3 you are evaluating film flatness, at f/11 1:20 magnification you are evaluating the lens, if Mr Pérez measured 85 LP/mm in some cases this is because methods were really good.





"Linhof and Sinar selected lenses. I doubt it would make much difference at all once the assembly lines were all modernized.


Process was more accurate, but also specs were higher, so same old situation with some units not reaching top performance.





Somebody might have a bad day or grudge; but we're not talking about truly mass-produced product when it comes to this kind of thing, even in the heyday of large format. Certain cemented designs like dagors infamously required a lot of personal fuss to get truly matched front and rear components. But this kind of task was perfected some time back. And by now everyone knows about the unsuccessful cementing innovation used on earlier 80 and 110 Super-Symmars. Stuff happens. But really, how many of us would
stay awake at night worrying if a late private-label Calumet plasmat was up to the task of the identical factory-branded one?


Calumet and Sinar pointed different commercial targets, not same price. There is no doubt Technika, Linhof and Sinar had a 2nd Q.C. and that minimum performance level was slightly higher than the original brand one, in the case of Calumet branded glass I can't say, but price can make guess something about it.

Anyway... do you think it can be noticed by a photographer if a lens has 67 or 75 Lp/mm ?

Also at f/22 the difraction ceiling is 75 Lp/mm and some 65 are not easy to obtain, a sharper lens will make little difference.


Regards

[Bob Salomon]

Hello Bob,


Mr Pérez says: "This is at best a relative (not absolute) comparison between these lenses."

This is not a top notch lab test but it was made by people that knew what they were doing. Not perfect but we have to guess that all test were made in consistent conditions. They were measuring even 85 Lp/mm so at least they had the capability to measure that resolution, so at least all measures of say 70Lp/mm may be consistent.



Please NOTE:

>This is at best a relative (not absolute) comparison between these lenses. Kerry and I are simply looking for the Pick of the Litter.

> All lenses tested at 1:20 magnification (a typical working distance).

> Test setup was TMax100, D76 processed to my system's calibrated exposure/time/temp

> Canham DCLH(?) metal field 4x5, Linhof Tech III, Linhof Master Technika, Linhof Master Karden, and Tachihara wood field 4x5

> Edmond Scientific Lens Resolution Chart

> The negatives were exposed for Zone 7-8 for detailed white and Zone 3 for detailed shadow.


About manufacturers... well, the sample to sample variation exists for sure, so their charts can be more or less an average, or a political information.

I've not found another source that was as extensive.


To me this is not an ultimate test, but it is the most relevant I've seen, and we can conclude iinteresting points from it.


Mr Pérez said there: "This has been a long project and I hope people find merit in being able to review this information on-line." I find that merit...



Regards
Pere

That even says that they don't know if it was under consistent conditions.
And one of those cameras is extremely old. How do you know that all of those cameras were within manufacturer spec? That would also skew the results. Especially if the tests are done, as they were, at different times and with different equipment.
You may have heard of Bill Ziegler. He built the ZigAlign system for verifying and checking parallelism with view cameras, copy set ups and enlarger's because he discovered that as he focused his view camera it would change alignment. And, for his needs, he needed to maintain parallelism, to within 0.005", which is what his original system was accurate to. Varyations as small as that would effect his results. His camera was the Linhof Kardan BI system.

[Pere Casals]

That even says that they don't know if it was under consistent conditions.
And one of those cameras is extremely old. How do you know that all of those cameras were within manufacturer spec? That would also skew the results. Especially if the tests are done, as they were, at different times and with different equipment.
You may have heard of Bill Ziegler. He built the ZigAlign system for verifying and checking parallelism with view cameras, copy set ups and enlarger's because he discovered that as he focused his view camera it would change alignment. And, for his needs, he needed to maintain parallelism, to within 0.005", which is what his original system was accurate to. Varyations as small as that would effect his results. His camera was the Linhof Kardan BI system.

About alignment...

Mr Perez do not explain it, but to remove alignment as a factor I'd used best focus in the three positions. If he was using the 24"x35" chart at 1:20 (specified by Pérez) this would be 1.2" on the negative, so I guess there were 3 separate shots for each lens, one for each point, with individual focus check, this removes alignment factor. http://www.edmundoptics.com/test-targets/resolution-test-targets/resolving-power-chart/1665/

This is the way to make an accurate test without precission equipment.

Presently I'm (informally) checking my lenses with a Nikon D3300 in the back of a Norma, the D3300 has 255 pix/mm in the sensor and it has no low pass filter (D3200 had it). I concluded that I had to make an individual shot for each point, so I guess Mr Pérez had to do the same.