Paul Kinzer
18-Aug-2022, 11:40
I own both of these lenses, and have been doing lots of reading. My intention is to build a 14x17 camera. (I know; I've been saying that for years, but it'll happen...***)
I've read in many places that the 360 convertible Symmar will cover the 560mm nominal diagonal of a 14x17 sheet of film, but the 1962 catalog from Schneider, which I found at Camera Eccentric (https://www.cameraeccentric.com/static/img/pdfs/schneider_7.pdf), claims it only has 500mm coverage. Some post around the internet use that 500mm image circle when discussing this lens. I trust those that say it will cover 14x17, since so many do say that who've actually used the lens on their 14x17 cameras. But I'd like a little more clarification. I realize that Schneider is conservative in their descriptions (I've found that to be true myself with some other lenses of theirs), but was there some justification? Are the corners soft, for instance? I only plan to do contact prints, so I don't need perfection.
And, after deciding to write and ask about this, I figured I'd bring up my 485mm (19 inch) APO-Ronar. Rodenstock say that the 480mm APO-Ronar has an image circle of 396mm in the catolog of theirs I found again, on Camera Eccentric (https://www.cameraeccentric.com/static/img/pdfs/rodenstock_3.pdf). I imagine there's little difference between that lens and mine (though I don't know why there are two so similar in focal length). But I'm wondering if anyone has used this lens for ULF, and how big its real-world image circle is. I imagine it will not cover 14x17, and if that gets confirmed -- not by catalogs but by someone who's used it, if possible -- I'll sell it. Knowing what it actually covers will allow me to let potential buyers know.
*** I have nearly completed the building of the 14x17's proto-type: an 8x10 camera with the ability to go from less than 180mm to about 1100mm of bellows draw. I hope to use it for macro work.
I've read in many places that the 360 convertible Symmar will cover the 560mm nominal diagonal of a 14x17 sheet of film, but the 1962 catalog from Schneider, which I found at Camera Eccentric (https://www.cameraeccentric.com/static/img/pdfs/schneider_7.pdf), claims it only has 500mm coverage. Some post around the internet use that 500mm image circle when discussing this lens. I trust those that say it will cover 14x17, since so many do say that who've actually used the lens on their 14x17 cameras. But I'd like a little more clarification. I realize that Schneider is conservative in their descriptions (I've found that to be true myself with some other lenses of theirs), but was there some justification? Are the corners soft, for instance? I only plan to do contact prints, so I don't need perfection.
And, after deciding to write and ask about this, I figured I'd bring up my 485mm (19 inch) APO-Ronar. Rodenstock say that the 480mm APO-Ronar has an image circle of 396mm in the catolog of theirs I found again, on Camera Eccentric (https://www.cameraeccentric.com/static/img/pdfs/rodenstock_3.pdf). I imagine there's little difference between that lens and mine (though I don't know why there are two so similar in focal length). But I'm wondering if anyone has used this lens for ULF, and how big its real-world image circle is. I imagine it will not cover 14x17, and if that gets confirmed -- not by catalogs but by someone who's used it, if possible -- I'll sell it. Knowing what it actually covers will allow me to let potential buyers know.
*** I have nearly completed the building of the 14x17's proto-type: an 8x10 camera with the ability to go from less than 180mm to about 1100mm of bellows draw. I hope to use it for macro work.