PDA

View Full Version : Symmar-s 360/6.8 vs Symmar 355/6.8 convertible



Christopher Nisperos
1-Jun-2007, 15:46
I'm sure this has already been hashed-out here somewhere in the past, but I can't seem to dig-up any old threads on it. I'd appreciate your input:

Which one is "better", overall (at the 360ish focal length)?

Which, if either, will really cover 11x14, even with minimal movements? (I'm looking for comments from actual users on this point, if you please ... thanks anyway for Schneider's specs, but I already have them).

Anybody use either of these lenses for portraiture on 8x10? What plusses and minuses have you found?

Thanks for any help.

Best,

Christopher

Gene McCluney
1-Jun-2007, 23:09
I can only speak theoretically, but most 360mm lenses (unless Tessar types) are intended to cover 11x14.

Later model lenses have better anti-reflection coating which can result in snappier images, with less tendency to flare.

Ole Tjugen
2-Jun-2007, 07:43
Isn't the 355/6.8 the old "dagor-type" Symmar? My Symmar convertible is a 360/5.6...

All these lenses have image circles approaching 500mm.

360mm is the "normal focal length" for the old 24x30cm format (9.5x12"), a bit smaller than 11x14". So that's what the 360mm lenses were designed to cover - long after the film format was essentially "dead".

Steve Hamley
2-Jun-2007, 19:21
Ole.

I'm going out on a limb here, but the early plasmat convertible Symmars were in Compound #4 shutters and were f:5.6. When they put them in Copal #3 as Symmar-S, they were f:6.8 because the Copal #3 was smaller than the Compound #4.

Steve

Oren Grad
2-Jun-2007, 20:06
Christopher - from a friend's experience with the 360 Caltar S-II (Symmar-S) and mine with the 360 Apo-Symmar, I can tell you that both cover 7x17, which requires a larger image circle than 11x14. I've also used my 360 Apo-Symmar for a few sheets of 11x14, with some front rise. I can't speak for the convertible.

I think you'll find that Schneider's specifications for coverage are reliable.

Ole Tjugen
3-Jun-2007, 02:35
I'm going out on a limb here, but the early plasmat convertible Symmars were in Compound #4 shutters and were f:5.6. When they put them in Copal #3 as Symmar-S, they were f:6.8 because the Copal #3 was smaller than the Compound #4.

Steve

Steve, the earliest Symmars were Dagor-type f:6.8. I don't know if any of the later Plasmats were ever sold in #3 shutter - the 360mm/5.6 is in a Compound V; in a Copal #3 the max aperture would be smaller than 6.8. The 360/6.8 Dagor-type Symmar was in a Compound IV, so even that would lose speed if mounted in a Copal.

Christopher Nisperos
5-Jun-2007, 03:53
Gene, Ole, Steve, Oren ... kind thanks to all of you. I now have he coverage information I need.

Any thoughts on overall sharpness between the two? Or is that splitting hairs? Fact is, I own a Symmar 355 convertible that is quite sharp. I got it cheaply because it is cosmetically horrible (It even has a "dent" in the glass.. a chip missing! Strangely, the tiny missing chunk doesn't seem to make any difference!). In addition, it's mounted in a Compur electronic shutter without a battery compartment. I've had to jerry-rig a battery pack and connect the poles using tiny alligator clips. Total Frankenstein, but it gives very sharp images and has extremely accurate speeds (per my shutter tester).

Now I have the possibility of replacing the 355 with a "normal" condition 360 —no more mini "starter cables"—, hence the thread-starter question. The thing is, in spite of my little monster's appearance, I don't want to use a less sharp lens in her place (yes, lenses are female to me, so perhaps I'll change her name to "bride of Frankenstein"). Anyway, your input is again welcome.

(By the way, the 360 is in a Compur #3, if that helps with any evaluation).


Best,

Christopher

.