Am I suffering from Schneiderphobia?

[picker77]

Traveling the web the past few days in search of sort-of-affordable lenses with good 4x5 coverage, I've come across many, many Schneider Super Angulons. One thing stands out in my search results: a surprising number of them seem to have problems of one kind or another: edge separation, glass "bubbling" or "bubbles" (not exactly sure what that is)--or what appears to be called "Schneideritis" (also not certain exactly what that entails). At the same time, not a single solitary Rodenstock, Nikon, or Fujinon I've seen for sale has noted similar problems, unless their sellers simply aren't owning up to it.

I started out looking for a Super-Angulon partly because there seem to be so many out there, which meant to me they must be pretty popular with LF users, which would mean they must be pretty good lenses, and also because there are so many they might therefore be more affordable used. But now I'm starting to wonder if I am seeing all these little "condition caveats" on used Super Angulons because there are simply so many, or is Schneider's LF lens build quality in general not quite up to that of Nikon, Rodenstock, and Fujinon?

[ic-racer]

I have noticed that also. I think it is just because they are popular lenses and the ones up for sale are 'well used' or have prior professional use ( or abuse :). If you see lenses of the 'other brands' in good shape, then go for those. That is what I have done. Specifically I like the Fujinon lenses. Used ones seemed to me to be in the best condition and have the lowest prices.

[catshaver]

Schneideritis in my Super Angulon is the white mottling on the interior black walls of the lens barrel. My example seems to have some of the black floating around between the elements as well. No impact of image quality. I have not seen this in the later multicoated examples though.

[neil poulsen]

The "Schneideritis" I've seen is in the non super-wide angle lenses.

Regardless of Schneider statements to the contrary, It's hard for me to believe that this affliction doesn't have some impact on the image. There must be a substantial amount of internal reflection, when one has these bright, highly reflective spots inside the lens. Otherwise, why would lens makers be so careful about painting the sides black?

Yet, I get quite nice results from lenses with this problem. Who knows, it could be a plus for black and white? I think I saw a comment by Ansel Adams that single-coated lenses could have an advantage in black and white images over multi-coated lenses, because they have a little higher level of flare.

Maybe all these comments are specularations. (OMG.)

[Gene McCluney]

I have a couple of Schneider lenses with this affliction. They are among the best, sharpest lenses in my inventory. I would not worry.

[Terence McDonagh]

Same here. Two lenses with it (G Clarons) and they are my sharpest and contrastiest (if that's a word) lenses.

[Toyon]

I have a Nikkor with "Schneideritis", yet is is blazingly sharp and contrasty. So I wouldn't worry about. In fact, enjoy the lower price for the lens.

[Gudmundur Ingolfsson]

I have a Fujinon W 300mm 5,6 with some "Schneideritis" but still a great lens. But 26 years ago I bought a 165 Super Angulon that I returned to SINAR and they sent to Schneider but was never any good. So I had quite some psychological barrier to cross before I bought a Super Symmar 150 XL which is excellent and my only Schneider lens.

[Jim Galli]

Am I suffering from Schneiderphobia? yes.

A bigger concern when shopping for Super Angulon is to avoid the earlier ones in the Compur 00 shutter. No replacement and they are to me at least, fussy. I don't ever recall seeing a Schneider lens that had element seperation of cemented elements. Now late 60's early 70's Rodenstocks are terrible for that, not Schneider. There's a couple new phobias for you to worry over.

[Kevin Crisp]

I have seen separation in some Schneiders from the 1950's, it usually appears as little stars or snowflakes -- not at all like the edge separation of a balsam-assembled lens. They worked great, but obviously you should be getting a discount if you buy one with the condition. I have seen Schneideritis in Rodenstock lenses and one Nikkor as well.

[Dan Fromm]

Kevin, the Rodenstock lenses that separate were cemented with modern synthetic cements, not with balsam. They separate at the edges -- spectacular Newton's rings at times -- and in the middle. So were the modern Schneiders -- Super Symmars of some type or other come to mind -- that had separation problems.

Cheers,

Dan

[Songyun]

I have seen many model Rodenstock lens, only one (90 f6.8)has Schneideritis. I have seen a very new fuji 90 f8 has Schneideritis. I don't get to see many fuji lens though.
Of course quite a few Schneider lens have Schneideritis. Never seen a Nikkor has Schneideritis.

For Schneider recent lens, I have seen quite a few fogged Super symmar XL. 80, 150, and 210. Of course 80 is more famous for that. I have been told that some big APo symmar has the same problem, but I have never seen one. For the super symmar xl lens, no matter what Schneider told you, it doesn't look like they fixed the problem. I have purchased a 80 ssxl with fogged front with serial number 149*****. The lens was returned, and seller (original owner) told me that Schneider will send it to the factory in Germany to fix it for free. If you believe what Schneider said it only occurred in the first batch, it was fixed afterwards, how can you explain that a lens with serial number 149***** still has the same problem? If you searched the forum, different ppl give different explanation for that, some said the coating vaporized, some said that maybe steam was trapped in the front element. I have called Schneider, they didn't give any information other than the first batch explanation. All I can do is to hope that my super symmar lens won't have fog in the future. You never know.

[Tim Povlick]

I have seen many model Rodenstock lens, only one (90 f6.8)has Schneideritis. I have seen a very new fuji 90 f8 has Schneideritis. I don't get to see many fuji lens though.
Of course quite a few Schneider lens have Schneideritis. Never seen a Nikkor has Schneideritis.

For Schneider recent lens, I have seen quite a few fogged Super symmar XL. 80, 150, and 210. Of course 80 is more famous for that. I have been told that some big APo symmar has the same problem, but I have never seen one. For the super symmar xl lens, no matter what Schneider told you, it doesn't look like they fixed the problem. I have purchased a 80 ssxl with fogged front with serial number 149*****. The lens was returned, and seller (original owner) told me that Schneider will send it to the factory in Germany to fix it for free. If you believe what Schneider said it only occurred in the first batch, it was fixed afterwards, how can you explain that a lens with serial number 149***** still has the same problem? If you searched the forum, different ppl give different explanation for that, some said the coating vaporized, some said that maybe steam was trapped in the front element. I have called Schneider, they didn't give any information other than the first batch explanation. All I can do is to hope that my super symmar lens won't have fog in the future. You never know.

I had a 110 Super Symmar XL bought used that had the haze. It is not trapped moisture as I put the lens in a 25" vacuum and 250F degree oven for 1 hour and it had no effect. Sent it to Schneider German and they covered it under warranty. Very nice folks. The new lens is serial #15xxx. My opinion is there was something in the glass that caused this. I asked the folks at Schneider-Germany how to prevent this and they said it won't happen again. So far good, even with temperature / humidity changes. I think the problem is behind them. My newer Symmar APO L 480/8.4 is not showing any signs of this problem happening. I don't think it will personally.

Regards,

Tim

[sgelb]

my xenotar 2.8 on my rolleiflex is hands down one of the sharpest lenses i own. the other cool thing is that the lens has fantastic bokeh when shot wide open. a true gem. wish i could afford the same for 4x5.

[aduncanson]

Am I suffering from Schneiderphobia? yes.

A bigger concern when shopping for Super Angulon is to avoid the earlier ones in the Compur 00 shutter. No replacement and they are to me at least, fussy. I don't ever recall seeing a Schneider lens that had element seperation of cemented elements. Now late 60's early 70's Rodenstocks are terrible for that, not Schneider. There's a couple new phobias for you to worry over.

How to know?

Is any 90mm/8 Super Angulon mounted in a Compur shutter to be avoided or are some in Compurs of another size. Is there an easy way to distinguish the ones to be avoided?

Thanks

[Peter K]

Is any 90mm/8 Super Angulon mounted in a Compur shutter to be avoided or are some in Compurs of another size. Is there an easy way to distinguish the ones to be avoided?
The older SA f/8 90mm are mounted in Compur shutter #00. Later Schneider has switched to size #0 and #1. But my SA 90, also in Compur #00, isn't so bad.

[picker77]

Well, I just bought a very nice looking older version (lettering on the front ring vice around the side) Super Angulon 90/8 in a Copal 0 that has a light haze on the front element. Because of that I got it for an embarrassingly cheap price. Now to see when it gets here if I can live with it, or if I have to do something about it. In the long run it might turn out to be a great bargain--or an expensive paperweight.

[picker77]

I received the 90mm SA, and it turned out to be (I think) a wonderful bargain. The "front element haze" the seller was concerned about as a defect does not exist, instead he was apparently referring to a very light grey discoloration on the black paint surrounding the aperture inside the lens. The glass is 100% perfect, and the Copal 0 looks and works great. Having shot all my images so far with an Ektar 203mm, this one dazzled me with it's viewing angle when I put in on the old Speed Graphic. Wow. Looking forward to trying this lens out.

[Frank Petronio]

I think it is partially the design, and poor paint, that causes the Schneideritis to show more than in other lens designs. I don't associate separation problems with Schneiders -- it does seem that a lot of early Rodenstock Sironars from the 70s have edge separation.

[rdenney]

I have several old Super Angulons, the oldest of which is a 121/8 in a Compur which is about the same age as I am (50 years old). It has a very slight bit of Schneideritis, but no lens separations or other faults at all. My 1970-ish 47/5.6 Super Angulon suffers only from being mounted in a Compur 00. Compurs are relatively easy to rebuild and it's a good thing--the slow speeds on this one are a bit draggy again. (Not so the much older integrated Compur shutter on the 121). This one would get more use if it wasn't so hard to focus on my Cambo, so when I need that focal length on medium-format (all the old 47 covers), I use my Pentax 6x7 and do without movements.

The Super Angulon design has been with us a long time, and the years have only slightly improved its performance (other than increasing the coverage). Considering the general problem of retrofocus wides from the 50's such as Curtagons and Flektogons (of which I have a number and all of which are very sharp in the center and very soft in the corners), the Super Angulons are remarkable indeed. But given their age compared with wide-field designs from other makers, and given their wide use as being the best wide-angle designs available for many years, it's no surprise that some now on the used market are showing the effects of considerable experience.

In general, I don't mind this, and I particularly enjoy the price such experience allows. I'd rather provide a quiet and luxurious retirement to a lens that someone loved enough to nearly wear out than to obtain a lens that always stayed in the bag in deference to other optics.

Regarding bubbles--I recall many discussions of old Schott-glass lenses having the occasional bubble. It was never considered a problem for image-making, and I always thought it part of the personality of such lenses.

I have great respect for the Fujinon (in particular) and Nikon lenses, and for the later Rodenstock lenses. But I have never regretted getting a good price on a well-experienced Schneider lens.

Rick "whose oldest Schneider lenses date from the early 50's" Denney

[jb7]

None of my Super Angulons exhibit any of the plague symptoms described-
but then again, none of them are for sale...

[mrpengun]

While we are on the subject of lens-maladies, has anybody ever shot with a supremely "damaged" lens?
I am far from an expert at this stage, but I have never been able to spot any of my lens issues (included Massive scratching in the center of the element on an early 1900's lens) on negatives.
I had a lens with some huge separation problems covering about 20% of the front and rear elements, but unless I used a fairly large tilt, it never came into play...
So, are we all just being a little too cautious about our lens care? or do I still just have a lot to learn ;-)

[erie patsellis]

While we are on the subject of lens-maladies, has anybody ever shot with a supremely "damaged" lens?
I am far from an expert at this stage, but I have never been able to spot any of my lens issues (included Massive scratching in the center of the element on an early 1900's lens) on negatives.
I had a lens with some huge separation problems covering about 20% of the front and rear elements, but unless I used a fairly large tilt, it never came into play...
So, are we all just being a little too cautious about our lens care? or do I still just have a lot to learn ;-)
Sure, I used a 210 Componon for a couple of years as my wide on 8x10, had a huge chunk out of it, 5 mins with flat black paint and I never looked back:

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r181/epatsellis/DSCF7412.jpg


image shot with this lens:
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r181/epatsellis/stream.jpg

[rdenney]

While we are on the subject of lens-maladies, has anybody ever shot with a supremely "damaged" lens?
I am far from an expert at this stage, but I have never been able to spot any of my lens issues (included Massive scratching in the center of the element on an early 1900's lens) on negatives.
I had a lens with some huge separation problems covering about 20% of the front and rear elements, but unless I used a fairly large tilt, it never came into play...
So, are we all just being a little too cautious about our lens care? or do I still just have a lot to learn ;-)

I saw a thread on a small-format forum that showed a series of images of decent quality. Then, they showed the lens that made the images. It looked as though the front element had been hit with a hammer, with a chuck out of the middle of it and cracks radiating from the center out to the edges in about 10 directions. The only time the damage was really visible was when shooting into the sun. The black paint shown in the previous post would correct that for a chip by preventing the spurious reflections.

I bought a Nikkor 105/2.5, which is on of the storied lenses for the old Nikon F series, and it has a fungus bloom about 1/8" in diameter in the front group. As a result of that, I got it for about a quarter the normal going rate. If it affects the image, I can't tell it.

(Something I forgot to mention previously on the topic of Schneideritis--Zeiss Jena Flektogons also routinely suffer from similar flaws in the paint on the inner element spacers and edge treatments, and it's generally considered to be a non-issue among those who use them.)

It is really amazing how much we obsess over lens perfection.

Rick "who'll have to remember the black paint trick" Denney

[CatSplat]

I saw a thread on a small-format forum that showed a series of images of decent quality. Then, they showed the lens that made the images. It looked as though the front element had been hit with a hammer, with a chuck out of the middle of it and cracks radiating from the center out to the edges in about 10 directions. The only time the damage was really visible was when shooting into the sun. The black paint shown in the previous post would correct that for a chip by preventing the spurious reflections.


http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.10.30/front-element-scratches

[rdenney]

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.10.30/front-element-scratches

Yes, that was it; thanks.

Rick "appreciative" Denney