Symmar 210 convertible performance.

[David K.]

I am thinking about a 210 Symmar convertible lens, and I'm wondering if people like these older designs for any particular "look" compared to today's multicoated designs.

I am thinking about both the symetrical design of the lens, and the single coating, especially for B&W work.

Anyone have any experience/preference for this design?

[Ed Richards]

I have a 150 Symmar convertible and I see no old lens look. It is as sharp as any of my new lenses. I do not use the convertible part, so I cannot speak to that, but I suspect that it is not as sharp converted. I have not had any problems with flare for my black and white. As other folks have pointed out, while the design is fine, you might find problems with individual lenses, esp. with older ones that have been kicking around for 50+ years - test it if you can.

[Kevin Crisp]

The only old lens look is the same image for less money, and a little less coverage. The coverage issue is largely a non-issue for 4X5 shooters. (The original Symmar 150mm, for example, has not covered 5X7 when I have tried it, but the APO version is rated for 5X7 and will.) If you shoot straight into the sun, the multicoating is nice and helps some; I am not saying it has no effect. Straight into the sun is straight into the sun, otherwise a lens shade helps. What I am saying is that for situations that are not presenting that extreme I don't think you can see a difference in contrast or sharpness, and I have tried tests with the 150's and the 210's new and old side by side. Watch out for lenses that are having separation problems (shows up in these as little snowflake-like bright spots, usually) and shutters that are worn out and not repairable. (For the cost of a new copal you could get a much newer lens, so the shutter really matters.) Quite a number of these are fogged up inside, which is something different from fungus. The former appears as a ring of smoke-like haze. Easy enough to clean off IF you can get the lens apart. If the rim is dented and the retaining ring won't come off (front or back element) or, on the front it is painted, I would avoid the lens because getting it apart for the inevitable cleaning can be a real problem. (Why painted? Because the front housing is bright chrome and people wanted to eliminate reflections. But then you can't disassemble it.) There are so many of these around don't bother with the wounded. Fungus can inflict permanent damage and I would pass on any lens unless you gave it to me.

The performance of even the 1950's versions of the original Symmars really is excellent.

It seems a generally accepted fact that using the real element alone, the image will be soft and fuzzy and good only for portraits. (And I think the portrait comment was even in the Schneider literature) I suggest you try this for yourself at a small aperture like f:32 or f:45, double checking focus when stopped down, you may be presently surprised.

[Ole Tjugen]

"soft and fuzzy"???

Far from it! Here is a picture shot with a converted 150/265mm symmar on 4x5" Ektachrome. The second picture is an enlargement of the top left corner. There's a little bit of chromatic aberration there, but the test scene is rather "ruthless" and was chosen for that exact reason.

I have plenty of B&W pictures shot with the same lens in "complete" configuration, but they have no special "signature" which would let me find out which they are.

[John Kasaian]

Isn't the "old" Symmar an updated Dagor?

Ain't nuthin' wrong with a Dagor!

[Ole Tjugen]

Isn't the "old" Symmar an updated Dagor?

No.

Or maybe "yes": The very first triple convertible Symmar f:6.8's were "Dagor type".

But the f:5.6 Symmars are Plasmats.

[jnantz]

i use a 210 / 370 all the time converted and uncoverted.
both are sharp stopped down and open the 370 is nice for portraits.

--john

[David Vickery]

The convertible symmars are excellent lenses, especially since they are usually a little bit less expensive than the newer multi-coated lenses. The single coating can be helped vastly by using some sort of lens hood, even if it is just the dark slide from the film holder. But I don't usually worry about flare with single coated lenses and use the same amount of effort to control flare as I do with multi-coated lenses.
I don't really think that you would notice any particular look from these lenses either. "Looks" typically come from slightly noticeable (or more pronounced--whether on purpose-portrait lenses--or not) aberrations that were not corrected for in the lens design or manufacture of the particular lens example, and in the size and shape of the aperture. The more modern lenses, including the convertible Symmars, have been so well designed that they are usually diffraction limited at or near the widest aperture, and you really have to go looking hard to find evidence of any remaining lens aberrations, as Ole pointed out in his photos--and that is with the single group!