PDA

View Full Version : CALTAR-S II 210mm f5.6 Vs Schneider Kreuznach Symmar 210 5.6



akfreak
30-Aug-2011, 13:24
I was hoping that those who know the differences of the two lenses and are willing to chime in.

I have Google'd, I have wiki'ed, I have done all the regular searches. Now I ask the people that know. I have cells for both lenses.

I want to know your thoughts on each of them. Which one is considered the better lens and why. The Caltar-S-II is considerably larger I know size doesn't mean much, it is just an observation.

I made a video (link here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzFppigvGUo)) to show you exactly what I am talking about. I know I will get the, "Just go shoot them and see what you get", so I will go ahead and take that out of the dialog,:p Thanks for taking your time to watch/read and respond to this thread, AKf

Ari
30-Aug-2011, 13:34
I think the Caltar has the larger image circle.
I have no experience with convertible lenses, but I've rarely heard people say good things about the "converted" lens' performance.
Apart from that, I would imagine it'd be difficult to see the differences until you make ginormous enlargements.
And, finally, you know what I'm gonna say... :), especially if you are going to make a Caltar/Schneider sandwich.

Chauncey Walden
30-Aug-2011, 14:51
Akfreak, I think the Caltar-S II is a Symmar-S. If it is one made after1977 if would be marked MC for multicoated. Unconverted, it would be a better lens than the plain Symmar. The Symmar-S is not generally considered convertible but perhaps with the early ones they marked them that way in case someone wanted to try it. The plain Symmar may be somewhat better as a converted lens.

akfreak
30-Aug-2011, 14:54
I pam to shoot each as a complete unit, then shot in the various combos, both good cells, both bad cells, and switch good/bad, vice versa.

Should be an interesting test. I wonder what a good still life subject would be good for testing? I thought a white on white, egg gradient. I need to drill a lens board from coapl 0 to 1, That should make a nice mess with a dremel tool. My Cambo boards are aluminum.

Louie Powell
30-Aug-2011, 18:28
Quoting Kerry Thallman's article on Caltar lenses in the May/June 2003 View Camera, "the Type S Caltars were simply privately-labeled versions of Rodenstock's own Sironar products." In Table 7 of that article, he described the 210mm lens a a six element (in four groups) design with a 70 degree angle of coverage, and 294mm image circle. It was mounted in a Copal 1 shutter, and required 77mm filters. The lens was offered by Calumet between 1976 and 1983.

akfreak
30-Aug-2011, 19:06
Quoting Kerry Thallman's article on Caltar lenses in the May/June 2003 View Camera, "the Type S Caltars were simply privately-labeled versions of Rodenstock's own Sironar products." In Table 7 of that article, he described the 210mm lens a a six element (in four groups) design with a 70 degree angle of coverage, and 294mm image circle. It was mounted in a Copal 1 shutter, and required 77mm filters. The lens was offered by Calumet between 1976 and 1983.

So it is not a Schneider, now this is of opposite of all I have read. Off to research more the information you made. Thanks for your time.

Kerry L. Thalmann
30-Aug-2011, 20:57
So it is not a Schneider, now this is of opposite of all I have read. Off to research more the information you made. Thanks for your time.

Actually, if your lens is a Caltar-S II, it is a Schneider, identical to the comparable vintage (1976-83) Schneider Symmar-S. It covers 70 degrees, for an image circle of 294mm in the 210mm focal length and takes 77mm filters.

To help straighten this all out, you really need read the entire article (Caltar Lenses: Past and Present, May/June 2003 View Camers). From 1965 through 1984, Caltar lenses were made by five different OEMs on three continents. The period from 1976-1984 was especially full of upheaval.

Adding to the confusion, there were three different Caltar "S" lines. The original S-Series Caltar wasn't really a "series" as it consisted of a single lens - the 8 1/2" f4.8 S-Series Caltar was made by Ilex, had 71 degrees of coverage for a 307mm image circle. It was made from 1967-1977. The Type S Caltars (1970-1976), as quotes by Louie, were made by Rodenstock and identical to the original Sironar series. Coverage was 70 degrees with an image circle of 286mm in the 210mm focal length with a 58mm filter size. And, as mentioned in my first paragraph, the Caltar-S II line was made by Schneider.

I hope that helps straighten it out for you. In summary:

Series-S Caltar (1967-1977) = Ilex
Type S Caltar (1970-1976) = Rodenstock Sironar
Caltar-S II (1976-1983) = Schneider Symmar-S

Kerry

rdenney
30-Aug-2011, 21:13
I can't watch videos here. Can't you just post a picture of the two lenses? Surely that would take less time than making a video to ask a question.

The Caltar S-II is a Schneider Symmar-S. The Caltar II-N is a Rodenstock Sironar-N. There is no Caltar II-S that I know of. Yes, it's confusing. The Schneider Symmar (with no "S") is a Symmar Convertible, which is an older design than the "S". I would prefer the one in a newer shutter and with better coatings, whichever one that is. But even the old Symmar Convertible is a fine lens.

Rick "video deprived" Denney

akfreak
30-Aug-2011, 23:41
Sorry you cant see video. Its the wave of the future, that magic box that plays talking pictures. I asked more than a few questions in the video, and the view of the lenses speak for themselves. It is actually Less time to make the video than to load up pictures and type a post, actually.

The little G12 is awesome for quick video and it uploads without any conversion at all in a couple of mins to the Utube.

I will post pics for you in a bit. Thanks for the great info Kerry. It seems to clear things up. I have 2 different lenses for sure. I bought the Schneider in the hopes to replace the bad front cell on the Caltar. Dont think that is going to happen, I am just going to play with all of the glass and see what looks best. What a shame. :)

edtog
30-Aug-2011, 23:44
I've got a Caltar 210mm and always assumed it was a rebadged Rodenstock.
It's a great lens and I've never had any problems with sharpness, for the price compared to the main brands I think it's a no brainer.

akfreak
31-Aug-2011, 00:22
Ok The Caltar-S II is a Symmar-S 100% no doubt about it. Exact match. The old silver Symmar 210 5.6 came in a compur shutter, I only have the cells of the Symmar 210 f5.6 convertible lens, but they look exactly like below.

Now to show you guys the images to define them.
My Caltar-S II 210 f5.6
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6088/6099363094_fa29ed6ca7_b.jpg
Now the Symmar-S 210mm f5.6 (Identical to me)
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6075/6099374738_3219d0beb6_b.jpg
And the old Symmar 210 5.6 (looks exactly like mine, minus the shutter)
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6084/6099363110_6cbf2150aa_b.jpg

So I think this thread is finished. With your help I feel that I have 100% identified the Caltar-S II . I hope I have also made it clear (for the green ones like me) that not all Symmar's are created equal, Ha!



So the Symmar-S would be the better lens from my reading, as compared to the the old Symmar. It will be interesting to see how the various elements resolve images all mixed and matched. I am sure they will resolve an image in the GG.

What the actual Focal lengths will be and image circles have yet to determined.

I still have to cut a darn hole in an aluminum board (an extra copal 0 board I have). Thinking of cutting a large hole and mounting wood blanks to experiment with various lenses on my Cambo 540.

Thanks fellas, and to the video challenged, here are the images after the fact, I dont want you to feel left out:D

rdenney
31-Aug-2011, 06:13
Sorry you cant see video. Its the wave of the future, that magic box that plays talking pictures.

With all due respect, it takes you less time, maybe, but it takes some of us more time. Wasn't it you looking for free answers from nice guys on the Internet?

Also, I pay for the excess bandwidth I use. Don't assume everyone has the same level of Internet connectivity you do.

Of course, I needn't have bothered anyway--Kerry, who is second only to Lynn Jones as an authority on early Caltar lenses, was answering while I was trying to get your video to download enough to see more than two seconds at a time.

Rick "who'd have Fios in an instant if Verizon would fill up those orange fiber ducts they installed and then abandoned five years ago" Denney

rdenney
31-Aug-2011, 06:31
So the Symmar-S would be the better lens from my reading, as compared to the the old Symmar. It will be interesting to see how the various elements resolve images all mixed and matched. I am sure they will resolve an image in the GG.

What the actual Focal lengths will be and image circles have yet to determined.

Thanks for the pictures. They do make it easier. They also make it easier for me to point something out to you. See the lettering in green on the old Symmar? That is the focal length of the rear cell when used alone--370mm. The original shutter would have had two scales for the aperture, one for both cells and the other for using the rear cell alone. What makes the original Symmar convertible is its near symmetry (hence, Symmar). But a completely symmetrical lens will be optimized at 1:1. The Symmar-S and newer Symmars are optimized for much lower magnifications and thus the rear cell used by itself does not perform as well.

If you end up with a Convertible and use it only with the rear cell, remember to check focus after stopping down--the aperture in front of the glass in use will cause a focus shift as you stop down.

But were it me, I would want a Symmar Convertible to be useful as a convertible, and would therefore want to buy it in its original shutter with both aperture scales. For general-purpose use, the Symmar-S will be a better lens.

Rick "who'll stop complaining about the video now" Denney

BrianShaw
31-Aug-2011, 07:10
With all due respect, it takes you less time, maybe, but it takes some of us more time. Wasn't it you looking for free answers from nice guys on the Internet?

Also, I pay for the excess bandwidth I use. Don't assume everyone has the same level of Internet connectivity you do.

Of course, I needn't have bothered anyway--Kerry, who is second only to Lynn Jones as an authority on early Caltar lenses, was answering while I was trying to get your video to download enough to see more than two seconds at a time.

Rick "who'd have Fios in an instant if Verizon would fill up those orange fiber ducts they installed and then abandoned five years ago" Denney

Some of us, as a matter of principle -- or maybe just rejection of "future trends" -- won't click mysterious links or watch videos even with sufficient (excessive) bandwith and fiber connectivity. Don't feel awkward, Rick, you are not alone!

Mark Sampson
31-Aug-2011, 07:50
OK, back to the original question. Here's my take, having used both Symmar-S and convertible Symmars. They are both excellent lenses. The -S version is newer, a bit sharper, and has a little more contrast. The caveat being that to see the resolution difference, you'll need the finest grain film, have the most impeccable technique, and make big enlargements. and then do an A-B comparison. The convertible lens has the advantage of being convertible; the longer FL is surprisingly usable if you focus carefully and stop down. (Schneider meant the converted FL to be used for portraits, where corner sharpness is presumably less important.) A brochure I had (now lost) from the Symmar-S intro c.1972 stated that they had eliminated the conversion feature on the new design, in order to improve correction at the regular FL.
As far as coverage goes, I used a 180 Symmar, and never came close to running out of coverage on 4x5. I would think the -S would be as good in that respect; I've only used -S lenses of longer FLs, so can't offer any real experience there. So... unless you need the convertibilty of the older lens, go with the -S model.

akfreak
31-Aug-2011, 10:54
@ Mark The newer Sym- is convertible also, the shutter has marks for both focal lengths. I portrait at f12 or so that should be fairly sharp, I would have to keep my subject 20 feet from the backdrop and use the compression of the 400mm focal length to have much OOF on the backdrop, (that is my first thoughts).

@rdenney I was just making jokes about the magic box, videos for me are much easier to express tone vs typing a forum post. I have a difficult time with this in a forum. Especially when conversing with those who are observe every detail. It seems I find myself having to apologize and clarify meaning of some of the misinterpreted text.

If a picture is worth a thousand words then to me a video is worth a encyclopedia set of words. Yes people will interpret all forms of media differently. In video it is much easier for me to express myself.


I guess I am just spoiled and always look for video tutorials for training vs a book when I want to learn something quickly. This is not to say forums, books, printed media in general aren't a major part of my learning, because certainly they are. I have a vast collection of books and pdf documents. Most of the great information is only written text. I use all available information and make my own deductions form it.

As to the bandwidth usage of users, I am spoiled i suppose. I have the latest and greatest home and mobile connections available to the public. My connection speed on the net http://speedtest.net/result/1301009960.png

rdenney
31-Aug-2011, 11:18
My connection speed on the net http://speedtest.net/result/1301009960.png

I run Speedtest when I want to get depressed. My numbers are similar, except you have to move the decimal point two places to the left of yours.

The Symmar-S was not convertible. If yours is mounted in a shutter that has the second set of markings, the shutter was intended for an earlier Symmar. It will work with the front cell removed, but not optimally. Remember that f/12 or so is wide open for the converted lens, and will show minimum depth of field (and minimum correction of any weakness in the rear cell of that lens when used by itself). For portraits that may not be a problem. Also remember that you'll need the bellows draw to support the converted focal length.

Rick "who can read much faster than talking speed" Denney

Chauncey Walden
31-Aug-2011, 11:42
Interestingly, both this 1972 Schneider Symmar-S brochure:
http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/pdf/symmar_s_72.pdf
and this 1973 brochure:
http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/pdf/symmar_s_73.pdf
show a 300mm Symmar-S in a shutter with dual scales, the second beginning with f/12.
The last plain Symmar sheet says the converted length for the 210 is 1.75x giving the familiar 370mm. Afreak says his Symmar-S is marked 400mm or 1.9x the 210. My guess is that he has a very early Symmar-S (like the first year?) and Schneider figured users would try it converted no matter what they said so they marked the shutters with the converted info.

akfreak
31-Aug-2011, 21:40
My Caltar S II has dual aperture on the shutter, also it has a pc sync not a bi-pole as shown in those schneider PDF's

jackpie
1-Sep-2011, 01:42
As to the bandwidth usage of users, I am spoiled i suppose. I have the latest and greatest home and mobile connections available to the public. My connection speed on the net http://speedtest.net/result/1301009960.png

Sorry, but I can't resist posting my bandwidth:

http://speedtest.net/result/1460452918.png

akfreak
1-Sep-2011, 02:00
Sorry, but I can't resist posting my bandwidth:

http://speedtest.net/result/1460452918.png

Ok I ran a new one LOL. You have a nice fast connection

http://www.speedtest.net/result/1460485335.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

Ken Lee
1-Sep-2011, 04:01
My home "broadband" connection is worse than yours, but the one at work is pretty nice.

There will always be someone smarter, taller, slimmer, richer, better looking, etc.* - So there are probably much faster connections out there.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/speedtest.jpg

* The corollary to that statement (attributed to Carl Weese) is "You can never be too rich, too thin, or have too many film holders."

Using Safari rather than Firefox, seems to double the result on my Mac - so it appears that the test is browser-dependant. On Windows, IE is slower than Firefox.

eddie
1-Sep-2011, 04:08
My home "broadband" connection is like yours, but the one at work pretty nice.

There are always people who are smarter, taller, slimmer, richer, better looking, etc. - So there are probably much faster ones out there than this one.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/speedtest.jpg

damn! i wanna be like you guys! how do you do it?

movies seems to load fine and play fine....BUT maybe ignorance is playing with me too!

here is my crappy line.....but i am running off a wireless modem....come on.....49! what do i do?

http://www.speedtest.net/result/1460630091.png

Fotoguy20d
1-Sep-2011, 04:20
damn! i wanna be like you guys! how do you do it?

http://www.speedtest.net/result/1460630091.png

U of M is presumably running a T1 line. Mine is pretty typical of the entry level FIOS except for that nice ping rate. Mine is already slowing down for the day as traffic picks up.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/1460639479.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

Ken Lee
1-Sep-2011, 04:23
My ISP at work is a Computer Science department.

The test isn't really very rigorous. It changes depending on browser, operating system, time of day, network traffic, etc. I doubt that the ISP uses a tool like this one.

A real test would run from a command prompt, not from within a browser.

Dan Fromm
1-Sep-2011, 04:40
U of M is presumably running a T1 line. Mine is pretty typical of the entry level FIOS except for that nice ping rate. Mine is already slowing down for the day as traffic picks up.


Nah, a T1 gives 1.44 megabits/sec. That's megabits, not megabytes.

Fotoguy20d
1-Sep-2011, 05:12
Nah, a T1 gives 1.44 megabits/sec. That's megabits, not megabytes.

True. Even DS3 is only 45Mb/s.

Fotoguy20d
1-Sep-2011, 05:14
The test isn't really very rigorous. It changes depending on browser, operating system, time of day, network traffic, etc. I doubt that the ISP uses a tool like this one.

A real test would run from a command prompt, not from within a browser.

All true. But it does give the casual home user an idea of what they have and a benchmark they can use to track performance (might be more useful for someone with cable which is very traffic dependent.)

Dan

Mark Sampson
1-Sep-2011, 05:57
Chauncey, you have posted the brochure I once had, but mine was in English. That was where I got the information about why the new -S lenses were not made convertible. I suppose prototype/earliest production lenses were put into existing shutters, thus the double scales. We'll never know for sure, not that it would make any difference to the OP.

rdenney
1-Sep-2011, 06:55
Ok I ran a new one LOL. You have a nice fast connection

http://www.speedtest.net/result/1460485335.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

Read it and weep.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/1460847587.png

My only access is using a Verizon Mobile Broadband 3G modem (there is no 4G service in our area, and the 3G service signal quality hovers in the -100 dB range). We have zero, none, nada options for a physically wired connection out here. There is some terrestrial microwave service, and I know that company's chief engineer well (we are ham radio buddies), but I'd have to cut down about a thousand trees to get line of sight.

Performance is good at the moment--I have a solid 3G connection. But that will go away frequently, leaving me with a 1x connection and then the numbers will barely exceed dialup speeds. I have severe trouble keeping my VPN alive so I can actually work at home once in a while.

Rick "this is a good day for Verizon--I've only had to reset the modem once so far--oops, make that twice" Denney

akfreak
1-Sep-2011, 23:55
what part of No VA r u from. I was born in DC, I lived in Chantilly, Manassas, Alexandria, Fort Hunt, Mt Vernon. Is your connection so bad by choice. Hell I would pay a neighbor 10-15 bucks a month to leech on their wireless router before I ever suffered with those connections.

Where do you live in Wolftown? I would throw my puter in the street before I ever had to suffer connections like that? I would pay for a phone and DSL, Satellite (dish network) something. Bro my heart goes out to you

Dan Fromm
2-Sep-2011, 04:48
Um, Rick, you've got it good. Good, I tell you, good.

Back when, I worked from home on a remote mainframe that I connected to with a TI Silent 700 terminal. Acoustic coupler, ran at 110 baud.

BrianShaw
2-Sep-2011, 07:53
Acoustic coupler, ran at 110 baud.

Ah, those were the days. I'm embarassed when I have to admit that I thought I was "high tech" then. But I must be a bit younger because my modem ran at 300 baud. A couple of years ago I found a NIB 300/600 baud modem in the garage. It was thrown in the trash but probably should have been donated to a museum.

rdenney
2-Sep-2011, 10:38
what part of No VA r u from.

Northern Loudoun County. Comcast wants $4K to run a lateral back to our house (1000 feet back from a dirt road). We have 80-foot pines blocking the Hughes satellite. Verizon put in orange ducts for fiber along the road five years ago, and they are still sticking out of the ground with nothing in them (there's been quite a lot of fruitless complaining about that around here). I don't have line of sight to Loudoun Wireless's tower, nor do I have line of sight to Rodestar's tower. We have hills around here--I'm on a north slope and the towers are all to the south.

The good news is that we pay more for this crappy service than you do for your fiber wonderfulness.

If I can't get on our VPN reliably, then I have to do into the office. Which is 75 miles away in Baltimore.

Rick "paying a high price not to live in the anthill" Denney

akfreak
2-Sep-2011, 10:40
I used to connect thru a phone on a special cradle, Dial up the library BB number hear the data info and pace it in the cradle. The computer was a Rockwell, had an LED display and used a thermal printer (the size of a store receipt)to print out the program code or analysis. I used to play word games on the library BB server.

I was big time with my cassette tape storage and 100k of bubble memory. I was so happy to get a monitor when apple came out.! It was green then I got an Amber. It was big time. :p

rdenney
2-Sep-2011, 10:51
Um, Rick, you've got it good. Good, I tell you, good.

Back when, I worked from home on a remote mainframe that I connected to with a TI Silent 700 terminal. Acoustic coupler, ran at 110 baud.

I routinely run data connections over radio links down in the HF bands, at 31 baud (PSK31 protocol). And I certainly have experience with those acoustic couplers. When I was writing my thesis at the University of Texas, I was doing it at night while working full time, and didn't want to have to drive down to campus to use the CDC Dual Cyber computer they had at the time. I thought it was a gigantic upgrade when I bought a CAT 300-baud modem that was not acoustic, to use my Kaypro II computer as a terminal on the system (running Modem7 on the CPM-80 operating system).

But the systems in those days did not attempt to move large files over those links. I was a terminal just viewing what I needed to view, all in plain ASCII text mode.

Now, the systems we are required to use throw screen graphics, security heartbeat VPN messages, application software, and large data files across those connections, with no regard for bandwidth requirements. They just assume everyone has the same sort of connection they do. There have been times when I could not log into my bank, because their security timeout would knock me off before the system had had time to download the page showing that I'd successfully logged in. But I'm 90 minutes of driving from my office, and if I have to do a webinar and can't make it work, I end up in big trouble. So, I have to schedule my webinars for the office when they would prefer we do them from our homes, since we sit in cubicles with no sound control.

Rick "data flow requirements always exceed supply, just as traffic demand always exceeds roadway capacity during some period of the day" Denney

Dan Fromm
2-Sep-2011, 11:08
Rick, of course you're better off now. You're now aware of things that are possible for others and that you can't do that used to be impossible for everyone. Isn't knowledge wonderful?

Cheers,

Dan

rdenney
2-Sep-2011, 13:18
Rick, of course you're better off now. You're now aware of things that are possible for others and that you can't do that used to be impossible for everyone. Isn't knowledge wonderful?

Wow. That makes me feel soooo much better.

Rick ":( " Denney