Schneider Symmar-S 210m F5.6 Lens - Will this work for 8x10?

[Dhanner]

I just acquired an 8x10 camera and would like to know if any has experience with this lens on 8x10? If so, how was it?

Originally I didn't think it would cover 8x10 and was considering looking for another 210mm that had mover coverage. However, after putting it on the camera it seems to cover it OK even with some movement. Now I'm not sure if I need a different one or not.

[Bernice Loui]

Properly cover 8x10, no. Illumination is NOT the same as proper image circle for a given sheet film format.. Previously on LFF..
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?33311-nube-question-SCHNEIDER-SYMMAR-S-210MM

Reality is proper lenses for 8x10 are few and no longer the bargains they once were.


Bernice



I just acquired an 8x10 camera and would like to know if any has experience with this lens on 8x10? If so, how was it?

Originally I didn't think it would cover 8x10 and was considering looking for another 210mm that had mover coverage. However, after putting it on the camera it seems to cover it OK even with some movement. Now I'm not sure if I need a different one or not.

[Alan9940]

The image cirlce of this lens at f/22 is 294mm. Therefore, not enough to cover 8x10 at infinity focus. However, other factors will play into its ability to cover 8x10 such as bellows extension and shooting aperture. If, for example, you're shooting at 1:1 at f/45 you might get away with it. Also, keep in mind that the quality of the image decreases as you reach the limits of the image circle.

[Dhanner]

Properly cover 8x10, no. Illumination is NOT the same as proper image circle for a given sheet film format.. Previously on LFF..
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?33311-nube-question-SCHNEIDER-SYMMAR-S-210MM

Reality is proper lenses for 8x10 are few and no longer the bargains they once were.


Bernice

That is what I was afraid of, thanks Bernice.

[Dhanner]

The image cirlce of this lens at f/22 is 294mm. Therefore, not enough to cover 8x10 at infinity focus. However, other factors will play into its ability to cover 8x10 such as bellows extension and shooting aperture. If, for example, you're shooting at 1:1 at f/45 you might get away with it. Also, keep in mind that the quality of the image decreases as you reach the limits of the image circle.

Thanks, I will leave that one for the 5x7 & 4x5.

[Tin Can]

Bernice is correct

However I break rules if possible

Since I shoot studio only, it is useful when close and if I can vignette even better

[rawitz]

I just acquired an 8x10 camera and would like to know if any has experience with this lens on 8x10? If so, how was it?

Originally I didn't think it would cover 8x10 and was considering looking for another 210mm that had mover coverage. However, after putting it on the camera it seems to cover it OK even with some movement. Now I'm not sure if I need a different one or not.

More coverage does not mean sharpness in the corners. The elder lenses like Fujinon-w have impressive 80` degrees light-coverage, but not for sharpness in the corners (only from minimum 32f).
I use my Symmar-S 210 on my 8x10 camera with excellent sharpness from 16f on even in the extreme corners. Not much room for movement as correctly said here. Schneider lenses are known to be very restrictive with IC specs.

And yes there are modern lenses like Sironar-W 210 or Super-Symmar HM 210 with 80`IC and with both coverage and excellent corner-sharpness, but they are unreasonably expensive compared to the normal 72`or 75`degree lenses like Symmar-S, Symmar, or Sironar-N and others.

regards
Rainer

[paulbarden]

The 240mm Symmar-S covers 8x10 with room to spare. It’s an inexpensive lens. I paid a dollar per mm for mine, in a Copal shutter, fully functional.

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52266296092_7167804e59_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2nCAqU5)Cuyahoga Falls 8x10 HP5 PMK 240 Symmar Ektalure R (https://flic.kr/p/2nCAqU5) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

240mm chrome Symmar Norma Barrel Mount 8x10 Norma HP5 PMK+ Contact print on 8x10 Ektalure R paper, processed in Ektonol. Covers no problem.
Try the 210mm for your purposes. Betcha it might work (Maybe). Try it! In other words, TEST IT and see for yourself and your uses. Sometimes I like corner vignetting. Depends on my goal; Cheap Great lens too; I paid $200 to Glenn Evans for mine. Worth every penny

[Drew Wiley]

Short answer, NO. The 210 S has a fairly large image circle, so should be OK for 5X7. I just can't imagine it being realistic for 8X10 unless you don't mind very small stops with funky corner performance. I shot one of those many years for 4X5. But moving from a 210 S to a 240 S is like going from a pony to a hippopotamus - one big clunker to haul around unless you're in a studio. The far more portable 240/250 lenses I have successfully used on 8x10 include the 250/6.7 Fuji W, the 250/9 Fuji A, and the 240/9 G-Claron.

[Corran]

Short answer, YES, it illuminates and covers 8x10 to the corner - I've used one as such. Is it the best 210mm lens for this purpose, no, but it absolutely does work and may be perfectly suited to your purpose.

Example image from 210mm Symmar-S on 8x10:

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hv7jVJhCDXM/T4TDttaTl8I/AAAAAAAAAuw/SFGvxjU5udQ/s600/0041s.jpg

[Mark Sampson]

Thank you, Bryan, for providing actual evidence. An interesting photo too.

[Corran]

Thanks Mark. While this older photo doesn't have the rebate as back then my scanner didn't allow for that, if it did it would show clearly defined edges demonstrating coverage all the way to the corner of the film. I was always pleased with the images from the 210mm Symmar-S. I did replace it with a Graphic Kowa later simply due to having a larger image circle for movements that I ended up using for architectural images.

[Drew Wiley]

Not so fast. That's a head-on shot, Bryan. Now show something with VC movements involved, and it will be more representative, unless of course, one only plans on using such a lens head-on, or at greater bellows extension for close-ups. I even have a 180 plasmat with a big enough circle of illumination to cover 8X10 head-on at infinity; but unless the result were reduced in scale like for the web, everything well into the margins and corners would look pretty funky, even in an 8x10 contact print.

What I do miss about the 210 Symmar S is the gentler out of focus rendering than later equivalents. And I also liked the extra rise I could get out of it in the mountains on 4x5 format. But it took 77mm filters, something of an oddball size compared to my other lenses. I have a few framed pictures taken with that lens in this room, both b&w and color Ciba. But I sure as heck wouldn't want anything enlarged that big if shot with that same lens using 8x10 film. It would stand out like a sore thumb. Just sayin'. Breaking rules can be fun; but know what to expect.

[Corran]

Not going to argue with you about it.

[Dhanner]

Short answer, YES, it illuminates and covers 8x10 to the corner - I've used one as such. Is it the best 210mm lens for this purpose, no, but it absolutely does work and may be perfectly suited to your purpose.

Example image from 210mm Symmar-S on 8x10:

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hv7jVJhCDXM/T4TDttaTl8I/AAAAAAAAAuw/SFGvxjU5udQ/s600/0041s.jpg

Very good, thank you for the sample!

[Dhanner]

Short answer, NO. The 210 S has a fairly large image circle, so should be OK for 5X7. I just can't imagine it being realistic for 8X10 unless you don't mind very small stops with funky corner performance. I shot one of those many years for 4X5. But moving from a 210 S to a 240 S is like going from a pony to a hippopotamus - one big clunker to haul around unless you're in a studio. The far more portable 240/250 lenses I have successfully used on 8x10 include the 250/6.7 Fuji W, the 250/9 Fuji A, and the 240/9 G-Claron.

Thanks Drew, I just picked up a 240 S as well so sounds like that one will cover better.

[Dhanner]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52266296092_7167804e59_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2nCAqU5)Cuyahoga Falls 8x10 HP5 PMK 240 Symmar Ektalure R (https://flic.kr/p/2nCAqU5) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

240mm chrome Symmar Norma Barrel Mount 8x10 Norma HP5 PMK+ Contact print on 8x10 Ektalure R paper, processed in Ektonol. Covers no problem.
Try the 210mm for your purposes. Betcha it might work (Maybe). Try it! In other words, TEST IT and see for yourself and your uses. Sometimes I like corner vignetting. Depends on my goal; Cheap Great lens too; I paid $200 to Glenn Evans for mine. Worth every penny

Thanks Daniel, I just picked up a 240 S as well so will test them both.

[Drew Wiley]

Wow. That's a nice combination to own. But at my age now, I gotta stick with lighter, more compact lenses for backpack purposes. I tend to favor longer focal length per format, so always have a tiny 250 Fuji A in the pack for 4x5 use, which doubles nicely as a wide for 8x10, with decent wiggle room. But the 240 Symmar S will have a significantly bigger image circle with slightly better resolution way out in the corners. Doesn't make much difference unless you're printing really big; but there is that ... ah... Symmar S look which is really nice at times - no quite so "clinically" hard-sharp as later lenses.

[Daniel Unkefer]

Thanks Daniel, I just picked up a 240 S as well so will test them both.

Good Deal. You'll like 'em.

[Bernice Loui]

Remarkable how much more image circle is available by going up 30mm more in focal length..

210mm f5.6 Symmar S image circle at f22 = 294mm..

240mm f5.6 Symmar S image circle at f22 = 337mm

https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/02157/02157.pdf

BTW, a 50mm lens covers 8x10 tooo.... ponder how many 35mm film images have been projection enlarged to 8x10 prints over the decades... Will any given lens cover dependent how how it will be used, the specific lens design formula... and fully understanding the limitations and abilities of any given lens design formula, it's capabilities and it's limitations.


Bernice


Bernice



I just picked up a 240 S as well so sounds like that one will cover better.

[rawitz]

Whats remarkable here?
The math. faktor for focal from 210 to 240 is 1,143 and for IC from 294mm x 1,143 = 336 mm. 1mm extra bonus?

Rainer

[Bernice Loui]

For those seeking a lens for 8x10, 240mm or 250mm Plasmat cost a bit more or about the same as a 210mm Plasmat yet the 240mm / 250mm (exception being the 250mm f6.3 Fujinon W) Plasmat actually covers 8x10 properly..

~That is what is "remarkable"... 30mm increase is essentially insignificant in the overall view for 8x10 compared to 210mm..

The numbers appear to be insignificant, it is the real world differences that are significant and remarkable here..



Bernice


Whats remarkable here?
The math. faktor for focal from 210 to 240 is 1,143 and for IC from 294mm x 1,143 = 336 mm. 1mm extra bonus?

Rainer

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52435012271_cc2f8c22ae_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2nTv9kH)Old Man's Cave Falls (https://flic.kr/p/2nTv9kH) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Old Man's Cave Falls 8x10 Sinar Norma 240mm Norma Symmar, 8x10 HP5 (not +) D76 1:1 fibre 8x10 print Fortezo Dektol

[Drew Wiley]

rawitz - your hypothetical nonsense numbers are way off. With respect to real world 8x10 circle of coverage, the difference between a 210 and a 240 of similar plasmat design tends to be very significant.

[ic-racer]

My first 8x10 camera used a $125 Symmar-S 210. As long as you are smarter than the people that say it won't work, it will work fine.
For example, my camera with no front tilt, was modified to increase rear tilt by rotating the rear 'standard' 180 degrees. This, of course magnifies the image circle for complete coverage.
Also, without enough image circle for front rise, converging verticals can be corrected in the darkroom.
I made many great images with my Symmar-S 210 on 8x10, four are shown here:

236382
236383
236380

236384
236381
236385

[rawitz]

rawitz - your hypothetical nonsense numbers are way off. With respect to real world 8x10 circle of coverage, the difference between a 210 and a 240 of similar plasmat design tends to be very significant.

Well, if mathematics is nonsense you are right. Every fool (like me) can calculate the IC difference between 210 and 240 focal with the same lens construction, so whats "remarkable" with the info I asked.

[Bernice Loui]

Mathematics alone does not result in emotionally expressive images.. Mathematics functions best in the abstract.. as mathematics requires and demands some means to churn abstract into tangible stuff..


Bernice



Well, if mathematics is nonsense you are right. Every fool (like me) can calculate the IC difference between 210 and 240 focal with the same lens construction, so whats remarkable with the info?

[rawitz]

Mathematics alone does not result in emotionally expressive images.. Mathematics functions best in the abstract.. as mathematics requires and demands some means to churn abstract into tangible stuff..
Bernice

I fully agree! But I and many others here regret the statement, that there is a sharp borderline in useability between 210 and 240 focal for 8x10.
I myself have a Symmar-S 210 and a Sironar-N 240, but for my 8x10 photography I mostly prefer the 210 for the "remarkable" more wide-angle effect, because anyway i (and many here) can do corrections in digital post.
Once again: The Symmar-S 210 DOES cover 8x10 without vignetting.

regards
Rainer

[Bernice Loui]

..."The Symmar-S 210 DOES cover 8x10 without vignetting"...

~vignetting.. kinda depends on interpretation, expectations, image goals and... Yes, your definition, expectations, demands and goals might be absolutely acceptable for you... might not be acceptable or workable at all for another... yes/no _?_


Which is subject to image/film plane dependent.. as previously mentioned a 50mm lens easily covers 8x10.. dependent on subject to image/film plane distances..

Now, take that 210mm Symmar S, make the subject distance at infinity to the 8x10 film plane then apply no less than 10x optical enlargement to the very edges of the image circle AND apply no less than 50 to 75mm of camera shift and rise/fall and front tilt and swing.. What might the results be_?_

Point being, there are very real reasons why Schneider published image circles at f22... why might this be_?_

BTW, if you're serious about using a 200_ish mm lens for 8x10, the 200mm f6.8 Rodenstock Grandagon, 210mm f8 Schneider Super Angulon or 210mm f6.8 Angulon and others wide angle lenses specific formulas WILL do better than abusing and pushing the image circle of the 210mm Symmar S..


Bernice



I fully agree! But I and many others here regret the statement, that there is a sharp difference in useability between 210 and 240 focal for 8x10.
I myself have a Symmar-S 210 and a Sironar-N 240, but for my 8x10 photography I mostly prefer the 210 for the "remarkable" more wide-angle effect, because anyway i (and many here) can do corrections in digital post.
Once again: The Symmar-S 210 DOES cover 8x10 without vignetting.

regards
Rainer

[Drew Wiley]

Well, if you happen to actually like the illumination falloff effect of a shorter lens, that is an esthetic decision. It doesn't change the real-world image circle, which need to factor that in too. And if the falloff is simply too much, you can't recover what's not even there by post-digital means, any more than you can dodging the corners of the print when enlarging. But that's generally more an issue with true wide-angle lenses that pressed into serve 70-degree plasmats. Vignetting versus falloff, just as matter of degree, and at what aperture. Different strokes for different folks; and one man's medicine is another man's poison. I rarely like blatant illumination falloff myself, relative to my own work, and trying to beat into submission corner density and gradation that's not so good in the first place - well ...

I have no problem with math per se; but in this case, it's garbage-in/garbage-out. You want to compare a best-case 210 spec under the most liberal set of parameters, to a 240 under the most restrictive. That's not a fair fight.

[rawitz]

Point being, there are very real reasons why Schneider published image circles at f22... why might this be_?_

BTW, if you're serious about using a 200_ish mm lens for 8x10, the 200mm f6.8 Rodenstock Grandagon, 210mm f8 Schneider Super Angulon or 210mm f6.8 Angulon and others wide angle lenses specific formulas WILL do better than abusing and pushing the image circle of the 210mm Symmar S..
Bernice

Schneider lenses are known for being very restrictive with there lens specs, so why is it not credibly here when real users here make statements profunded in their practical work?
You wont believe, I have a Schneider Super-Angulon MC 210! As long as I can do corrections in digital post, I prefer the Symmar to the SA 210 monster. But yes for my 9x15`camera the Symmar failes and the SA 210 shines.

[Bernice Loui]

Take away your ability to do software/digital corrections.. in any way..

Then what?


Bernice




As long as I can do corrections in digital post, I prefer the Symmar to the SA 210 monster. But yes for my 9x15`camera the Symmar failes and the SA 210 shines.

[rawitz]

Take away your ability to do software/digital corrections.. in any way..

Then what?


Bernice

Take away the technic of photography - then what? We have to be a painter and all our problems are gone.

[Drew Wiley]

Anything that can be "corrected" digitally can be done so in a darkroom, often even more easily. I could cite multiple methods in this case, but personally prefer preempting even the need to jump through those extra hoops.

Don't get me wrong, rawitz - I can think of numerous other photographers whose field of view falloff strategy is very compelling in their own work. I just don't like it for mine. And intermediate digital workflow defeats the whole point anyway, since for me, real optical prints are the endpoint.

[Corran]

..."The Symmar-S 210 DOES cover 8x10 without vignetting"...

~vignetting.. kinda depends on interpretation, expectations, image goals and... Yes, your definition, expectations, demands and goals might be absolutely acceptable for you... might not be acceptable or workable at all for another... yes/no _?_


Bernice

Vignetting is defined as black corners or an area not receiving light from the lens. As stated, the 210mm Symmar-S simply does NOT vignette on 8x10.

One can argue till the cows come home about fall-off or resolution in the corners and of course that kind of thing is more subjective based on the photographers needs. Reminder that most 8x10 image makers are not making 10x enlargements, so it doesn't matter that the resolution is slightly less. Since you insist on asking constantly 'what are the image makers goals?' why would you also insist that a lens MUST give good 10x enlargement quality all the way to the corners when the photographer doesn't need anything near that _? _

[Bernice Loui]

That would be your definition of Vignetting.. and all related.

What about this definition of vignette..
"a : a picture (such as an engraving or photograph) that shades off gradually into the surrounding paper."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vignette

~Note the word "gradual"..

Question is, why would Schneider or any other view camera manufacture publish any image circle data at all if they are of zero value?



Nuff said..
Bernice


Vignetting is defined as black corners or an area not receiving light from the lens. As stated, the 210mm Symmar-S simply does NOT vignette on 8x10.

[Corran]

And your reasoning for insisting resolution allowing 10x enlargement of an 8x10 negative defines whether a lens 'covers' the format??

[rawitz]

Question is, why would Schneider or any other view camera manufacture publish any image circle data at all if they are of zero value?
Bernice

Because the Schneider lens-specs are measured and published for most professional critical work, also Schneider IC-specs for coverage and corner sharpness have to match most critical specs for prepress and others. In reality corner falloff for lightning and sharpness does not go down from 100% to zero at any fixed number. There are general standards for lens-specs like MTF-measures for 5 and 20 l/mm and illumination falloff for different apertures. Thats NOT choosend for special lenses maybe to hide construction failure or else.

[Corran]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vignette


A follow-up on this. Over the years I've seen many discussions on lens "vignetting" as well as lens "fall-off." Sometimes the language gets in the way and obfuscates the meaning.

There is clearly two scenarios for lens coverage in the corners - either a hard cut to black, with no light hitting the film, or a darkening of the corners from less exposure than intended due to angle of light, usually in reference to wide-angle lenses. This is not about resolution or anything like that, I'm just talking about light creating an image - you either don't have any light, or you have some light but not as much as in the "center" of the lens.

If we take this into account, using the two above words, I find it makes much more sense in conversation to talk about "vignetting" as hard cut to the light, and "fall-off" as being a gradual darkening but still having an image, just underexposed. The words seem very clear to me, and usually talking with other LF photographers over the years, this language is taken as fairly sensible. The "dictionary" definition I find to be irrelevant as it is for general usage, not specific. Do you have a source for authoritative definitions related to vignetting / fall-off in LF vernacular? I can crack open my copy of Adams' "Camera" later and see what he says about it.

Even if one wants to talk about specific resolution numbers or use-cases, I think it can be said that the lens definitely, no arguments, throws light onto the film all the way to the edges of 8x10, when centered on the film. This is a simple test, and empirically proven by several on this thread. Anything beyond that can be quibbled with, but it's a fact that light is hitting the film. As far as Schneider's lens coverage claim, rawitz sums it up well above.

[Vaughn]

I sure wish I could tell by the images presented on my screen if the corners are sharp or not. Some corners do not look particularly sharp, though I would not necessarily call them soft...just semi-soft dark corners the eye should be avoiding anyway to keep within the image.

I do like my Fuji W 250/6.7 for 8x10. If I feel the need to go to 210mm, I have a little barrel lens, a Graphic Raptar, I can break out.

[Drew Wiley]

Two things : most of these lens circle specs are relative to f/22, whereas most 8x10 shots are likely to be at much smaller apertures unless a very shallow depth of field is desired.
So the real world image circles are quite a bit bigger. Second, manufacturers own standards of what is acceptable is different, with the German brands being way more conservative than the Japanese ones, especially Fuji. Stricter still are specs for lenses intended for graphics applications.

Mere circle of illumination is a poor common denominator of comparison. But what the heck - some of the most compelling large contact prints of the 19th C look miserable in the corners due to less corrected lenses of those days. I prefer full performance way out there, but admittedly rarely use even a 240 or 250 for 8x10 format, preferring the perspective of longer ones. One of my favorites is the 80 degree 360 Fuji A - has about twice the diameter of real image circle as the 210 S under question; but still, sometimes I've been out in the redwoods wishing I had the even more rise capacity of a 355 GC. But ya can't own and carry em all.

Point blank head-on shooting, no movements, well .... that's a rare thing for me. That's the kind of thing a 300 Nikkor M can do extremely well on 8x10, but darn little else on film that big at infinity, except if some rear tilt is involved, or the corner resolution starts drifting quickly. And its rated around 330 or so image circle.

[DwarvenChef375]

236705

Just got one of these at a garage sale, not a scratch on it… Thanks all who contributed to this thread, I found it most enlightening.

[Rick A]

I think this entire thread is "much ado about nothing". People can argue tech specs 'till the sun dies but if you have the lens on your camera and YOU like the results, nothing else matters. Use the lens, enjoy the process.

[ic-racer]

236718

[Daniel Unkefer]

Aaaah. A Friend of mine has a Sinar Norma 210mm F8 Super Angulon (he has never used it!) and it's going into my Norma collection. It's a GIGANTO lens, I'll be using it for tabletop sweep table stuff mostly. Maybe outside. BTW the 210mm F6.8 Sinar Norma Angulon is a goodie. I have gleaned from studying that Ezra Stoller used the 210mm F6.8 on an 8x10 Norma for B&W. A Dagor formula of high repute. Recently I bought a second one cheap from Igor Reznik, it's in a barrel for my 4x5/5x7 TLR Norma cameras. The 210 5.6 would be good for carrying. Horses for Courses.