New lens to me :)

[DwarvenChef375]

It’s so much larger than expected.Advertised as

“Schneider-Kreuznach 210mm f/5 370 f12 Symmar Linhof BT (38mt)”

232641

This was a spur of the moment buy and I really have NO clue what I have. Anyone able to educate this LF newbie? I have a Linhof Technika 4 currently sporting a 135 lens that is crazy wide for me.

[ic-racer]

210mm is a nice focal length for 4x5, I currently have a 210mm on my camera now.

I think you can use up to a 450mm lens with that camera, so that convertible lens should work just as well as the "TECHNICA" branded one on your camera.

Did it come with the correct dual aperture scale?

[DwarvenChef375]

Did it come with the correct dual aperture scale?
No clue what that would look like.
232651

Any where I can find the history of this lens set up? (I really need to finish reading A. Adams trilogy)

[Mark Sampson]

OK. You have a "convertible" Symmar lens, made (probably) in the early 1950s. It will be a nice complement to your 135 lens. "Convertible" means that you can unscrew the front group of the lens from the shutter, and the back half alone will give you a 370mm focal length (quite long for 4x5).
Due to the laws of optics, you'll have to extend the lens well beyond 370mm for it to focus at infinity... a quick test will show that. Converted, optical quality may suffer a bit; again, try it and see. The converted lens is also slower, @ f/12 max. That's why there are two sets of f/stop scales mounted on your shutter; the converted scale is usually marked in green, not always.
You have a fine lens there, enjoy it! And of course many people here will be happy to help with your questions.

[DwarvenChef375]

Thank you very much for the info. I’m digging through all my filters to see if any fit this bugger, front or back is no matter.

[jnantz]

hi

if you go here https://web.archive.org/web/20120127071723/http://www.schneideroptics.com/
look under "info" and "faq" and you will see information about your lens
you can figure out the date of manufacture as well as optics information in their "white papers" they have published.
the Schneider lenses badged LINHOF were the best of the Schneider lenses from what I have been told, they gave linhof first dibs.
the extra length Mark was referring to is about 450mm ... have fun, I've got the same lens.

[David Lindquist]

In particular this link will narrow down year of manufacture by serial number: http://web.archive.org/web/20121115075344/http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/service/serie.htm

(We have Dan Fromm to thank for the continued availability of this). Your lens was made between October 1954 and February 1957. It looks like a nice example, no dents or anything, a bit of "Schneideritis", those white specks seen in your first photograph. It's agreed this does not degrade the quality of image this will produce.

As far as the red triangle goes, when Schneider started coating lenses post WWII, they marked them with a red triangle. Carl Zeiss Jena did a similar thing, marking with a red "T", Wollensak used a "w" in a circle and Eastman Kodak, famously, an "L" in a circle. Eventually the lens makers who did this sort of marking either stopped doing so or just stopped making lenses altogether.

Don't know off hand if Carl Zeiss Oberkochen used a red "T" in their earlier years. Later they marked their multi-coated lenses with a red "T" and an "*".

This "Linhof Select" lens will look "correct" on your Technika IV.:)

David

[Paul Ewins]

There is a series of books that give the precise production dates for this era. Your lens was completed on 24 March 1955 which makes it a really early example. In this period the normal focal length (210mm) was usually marked in white and the converted (370mm) in gray - the green paint came later. With yours it appears that there is no differentiation so you would use the outer numbers - starting at f5.6 - for 210mm i.e. the complete lens, and the inner set - starting at f12 - when using just the rear cell for 370mm.

[David Lindquist]

There is a series of books that give the precise production dates for this era. Your lens was completed on 24 March 1955 which makes it a really early example. In this period the normal focal length (210mm) was usually marked in white and the converted (370mm) in gray - the green paint came later. With yours it appears that there is no differentiation so you would use the outer numbers - starting at f5.6 - for 210mm i.e. the complete lens, and the inner set - starting at f12 - when using just the rear cell for 370mm.

Paul, can you tell from Hartmut Thiele's books when the first "modern" Symmar was made, that is the one with a maximum aperture of f/5.6 of Plasmat construction?
And as far as that goes, when was the last "original" Symmar made? That is the one with a maximum aperture of f/6.8 and a Dagor-like construction.

David

[peter brooks]

...Converted, optical quality may suffer a bit; again, try it and see...

Welcome to the wonderful (vast, and deep) world of LF! :)

Re Mark's comment above - I have a 300/500 convertible Symmar (from around 1962) and have read a little about it... Converted (at the longer length with the front unit removed) apparently these lenses have chromatic aberration. I think this means that the different colours (wavelengths) of light no longer converge at the same place on the image, and causes a softness in the corners away from the centre of the image. I'm intrigued myself, as I have an interest in softer focus lenses.

I have read that you can compensate somewhat for the loss in quality by using a yellow or orange filter (if the latter you would probably need to compensate by one stop). As you're unlikely to find a filter that will fit the front threads of the shutter you may have to just hang it there or bodge a filter with some tape to make it a 'push fit'. I think you would need to focus with the filter in place.

Just to emphasise - this is only when the lenses are converted (front unit removed).

[Dan Fromm]

OP, this site has resources. One, that is somewhat hidden, has links to the information you seek, and more. The first post in this https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?138978-Where-to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses discussion has a link to an annotated list of links. Take a look at it.

[ic-racer]

No clue what that would look like.
232651

Any where I can find the history of this lens set up? (I really need to finish reading A. Adams trilogy)
Nice, you indeed have the correct aperture scale. Next would be to see if the shutter fires correctly at the speeds and see if you have the correct rear cell and the lens elements are free of haze or separation. I see what appears as an Instax image in your avatar. If you can expose Instax film with your Linhof, that would be a great way to test the lens and shutter. The images could be distinctly blurry if the rear lens cell is not the correct one.

[Dugan]

Welcome to the wonderful (vast, and deep) world of LF! :)

Re Mark's comment above - I have a 300/500 convertible Symmar (from around 1962) and have read a little about it... Converted (at the longer length with the front unit removed) apparently these lenses have chromatic aberration. I think this means that the different colours (wavelengths) of light no longer converge at the same place on the image, and causes a softness in the corners away from the centre of the image. I'm intrigued myself, as I have an interest in softer focus lenses.

I have read that you can compensate somewhat for the loss in quality by using a yellow or orange filter (if the latter you would probably need to compensate by one stop). As you're unlikely to find a filter that will fit the front threads of the shutter you may have to just hang it there or bodge a filter with some tape to make it a 'push fit'. I think you would need to focus with the filter in place.

Just to emphasise - this is only when the lenses are converted (front unit removed).

I once used a convertible Symmar with the front element removed (converted)...the subject was a building facade, and was shot on color transparency film.
The result was not 'soft' ...the colors were distinctly out of register with each other.

[Robert Opheim]

My first 4x5 camera was purchased used in 1974 came with a 180mm Symmar convertible lens. My lens dates from around 1968. I didn't have any luck with the single element, but I have taken many fine images with the combined elements. I have taken both black and white and color images with it. The lens is not as clinically sharp as the later lenses but is a keeper.

[Daniel Unkefer]

If the glass is good and the shutter is working properly, you may have lucked into the perfect matching lens for your Linhof. Hope you enjoy it. 210mm is extremely useful focal length

It has some "Schneideritis" but if you test it, you will see that the black paint interior peeling has no optical effect.

[Bernice Loui]

210mm for 4x5 is IMO one of the most useful focal lengths..

Convertible Symmars are best Not used "converted" ala single element. The convertible feature was more marketing than optical performance as this was done during an era when the idea of getting two lenses for the price of one was desirable..

Convertible Symmars are lower contrast than the last generation of Symmar L or APO offerings from Schneider. Difference being lens coatings, single coatings for the Convertible Symmars -vs- multi-coatings for the Symmar S, Symmar APO, Symmar L... and Glass types used in lenses n general, they have changed over time. Don't be fooled into believing "sharper-higher contrast" will instantly result in better or superior images, this is simply not true and not a factor to be overly concerned about.

Have the shutter checked for speed accuracy and repeatability, get the shutter serviced if needed, then make images...



Bernice

[Paul Ewins]

Paul, can you tell from Hartmut Thiele's books when the first "modern" Symmar was made, that is the one with a maximum aperture of f/5.6 of Plasmat construction?
And as far as that goes, when was the last "original" Symmar made? That is the one with a maximum aperture of f/6.8 and a Dagor-like construction.

David

The first prototype Plasmats were a batch of 5 of the 135/5.6 in February 1952, followed by the 150 in May 1952 and then the others in December 1952.
The last of the Dagors was a batch of 50 of the 180/6.8 in March 1953, ending with serial no 3337403.
The first production batch of Plasmats was a run of 70 of the 135/5.6 in November 1953 (starting at serial no 3643193). Production of the other Plasmats started in 1954.

I should also note that there was another type of Symmar prior to the Dagors that had varying maximum apertures. These were made in very small batches, often just 1 or 2 at a time, right up to 1921 and in prototype form as late as 1925. The first prototype f6.8 Dagors appeared in late 1919 with full production (a whole 47 lenses!) commencing in 1921. Total production of the Dagors was around 3,850 lenses and I would estimate 800 units at the most for the earlier type. By comparison total production of the first Plasmat Symmars was around 120,000 lenses.

[jnantz]

I once used a convertible Symmar with the front element removed (converted)...the subject was a building facade, and was shot on color transparency film.
The result was not 'soft' ...the colors were distinctly out of register with each other.

bummer
Might have been a QC issue? I have a chrome barreled one too documented a factory building for a client (stopped to 16 ) with it all chrome and c41 came out as nice as my unconverted lenses. shot a lot with 5x7 too covered to 370 stopped down 2 f16 .. can't complain.

[Mark Sampson]

And to round things out, the 'convertible' Symmars were replaced by the Symmar-S lens series in 1972-3. I used to have a brochure announcing the Symmar-S series dated 1972; in it they explained that the convertible feature had been discontinued in order to provide better quality in the complete lens. Those first ones were single-coated; at some point in the '70s the barrel engraving was changed to read "multicoating". Fine lenses, all of them.

[David Lindquist]

The first prototype Plasmats were a batch of 5 of the 135/5.6 in February 1952, followed by the 150 in May 1952 and then the others in December 1952.
The last of the Dagors was a batch of 50 of the 180/6.8 in March 1953, ending with serial no 3337403.
The first production batch of Plasmats was a run of 70 of the 135/5.6 in November 1953 (starting at serial no 3643193). Production of the other Plasmats started in 1954.

I should also note that there was another type of Symmar prior to the Dagors that had varying maximum apertures. These were made in very small batches, often just 1 or 2 at a time, right up to 1921 and in prototype form as late as 1925. The first prototype f6.8 Dagors appeared in late 1919 with full production (a whole 47 lenses!) commencing in 1921. Total production of the Dagors was around 3,850 lenses and I would estimate 800 units at the most for the earlier type. By comparison total production of the first Plasmat Symmars was around 120,000 lenses.

Thank you very much for this Paul. I continue to hope to get Thiele's three books on Schneider production. It does look like the two on Carl Zeiss Jena and the one on Carl Zeiss Oberkochen were re-printed a couple of years ago. These I have.

David

[Paul Ewins]

Thank you very much for this Paul. I continue to hope to get Thiele's three books on Schneider production. It does look like the two on Carl Zeiss Jena and the one on Carl Zeiss Oberkochen were re-printed a couple of years ago. These I have.

David

While they are very useful books to quickly investigate a lens via its serial number, trying to get any sort of overview of production is quite tedious and prone to error as your eyes glaze over looking at page after page of identical looking print. There was a new book released in 2020 that concentrates on the lenses sold to other manufacturers, so he does still seem to be active. What I really need is the whole lot sorted by lens name, focal length, aperture and then date or serial number which would tend to make any prototypes and oddities really stand out and make tabulating production numbers much easier. I wrote an article for my local camera collector's group and it took days of going backwards and forwards to make sure I had found every batch of Symmars made and even now I wouldn't be surprised to come across one I missed.

[peter brooks]

I once used a convertible Symmar with the front element removed (converted)...the subject was a building facade, and was shot on color transparency film.
The result was not 'soft' ...the colors were distinctly out of register with each other.

I guess that's the chromatic aberration? I should have said implicitly that I was referring to shooting B&W images (the OP doesn't state what use it will be put to).


bummer
Might have been a QC issue? I have a chrome barreled one too documented a factory building for a client (stopped to 16 ) with it all chrome and c41 came out as nice as my unconverted lenses. shot a lot with 5x7 too covered to 370 stopped down 2 f16 .. can't complain.

I wonder could the amount of chromatic aberration when coverted vary from model to model (210/370, 300/500 etc.)? So some could perform better converted than others? Maybe one of the lens design experts here would know... The film size used would be a factor also (worse aberration further off-axis).

The '62 lens I have is in a Compound shutter, whereas the OP's seems to be in something newer (although it is older). Were they all available in a choice of shutters, or is it just because the Compound has a larger opening?

[Dan Fromm]

Peter, chromatic aberration affects sharpness in b/w too.

For the same prescription, aberrations scale with focal length. The greater the focal length, the larger the aberrations at the same aperture.

Use "the list" to learn about shutters' maximum openings by make and model. As far as I know the generally available cock-and-shoot shutter with the largest maximum opening is the Compound #5, followed by the Ilex #5. But there were tiny Compounds too.

If you don't know what "the list" is, ask.

[jnantz]

I wonder could the amount of chromatic aberration when coverted vary from model to model (210/370, 300/500 etc.)? So some could perform better converted than others? Maybe one of the lens design experts here would know... The film size used would be a factor also (worse aberration further off-axis).


not sure Peter .. just know my converted specimens ( I have a hand full of convertible and triple convertible and a casket set ) seemed to be OK. maybe im blind and the chromes / negatives I alluded to were terrible (I've been called worst things than blind) ... I know the client didn't complain, they actually seemed to like the work enough to steal it, not pay me and publish it. LOL. I'll let the people who know about physics and optics and lens specs &c do their thing, ... I know nothing about these things other than point lens move I back and forth and something behind it will be in focus &c. as you can see with my posts in the recent thread about scanners, I should probably care about these things, I don't and probably never will.

[peter brooks]

Peter, chromatic aberration affects sharpness in b/w too.


Thanks Dan, yes, I'm aware of that - chromatic and/or spherical aberration being utilised in soft focus lens design.

The effect in B&W would be somewhat less distressing though I would hope!

[peter brooks]

not sure Peter .. just know my converted specimens ( I have a hand full of convertible and triple convertible and a casket set ) seemed to be OK. maybe im blind and the chromes / negatives I alluded to were terrible (I've been called worst things than blind) ... I know the client didn't complain, they actually seemed to like the work enough to steal it, not pay me and publish it. LOL. I'll let the people who know about physics and optics and lens specs &c do their thing, ... I know nothing about these things other than point lens move I back and forth and something behind it will be in focus &c. as you can see with my posts in the recent thread about scanners, I should probably care about these things, I don't and probably never will.

:)

I'm just glad to (potentially) have a 500mm lens in a shutter - beats trying to rig up the 480mm Apo-Ronar and a Sinar shutter to the front of a wood camera...

[jnantz]

:)

I'm just glad to (potentially) have a 500mm lens in a shutter - beats trying to rig up the 480mm Apo-Ronar and a Sinar shutter to the front of a wood camera...

:)