new vs. used Schneider

[rulonpete]

This may be a silly question but I can't help but wonder since I'm trying to save a buck on a new 4x5 system. Is it smart to buy a 10-15 year old lens opposed to the same lens new? Is there a difference in image quality? I guess I'm specifically talking about the Schneider f/5.6 Apo-Symmar L Lens series.

[Kevin Crisp]

The Schneider APO series lenses were terrific and so were the multi-coated "S" series lenses. On the S lenses some were multicoated and some were not, if it doesn't say multicoated on the rim, it wasn't. You can save a great deal of money on a used lens, just make sure the glass is clean, the rim isn't dented, and the shutter works. There are small differences in image circle from series to series, I seriously doubt anyone can look at a negative or print and say "Oh, I can tell which one was taken with the Symmar-S," versus an APO or an APO-L. Under certain conditions like shooting into the sun, the multicoating can make some difference.

Rodenstock and Nikkor and Fuji modern lenses are superb too.

[Mark Woods]

I'm buying lenses that are pre-teen. I have lenses from the '30's that are wonderful. I'd look at AA's images and determine when they were shot. His lens couldn't be newer than when he made the negative. Something to think about.......

[Corran]

I've got an APO Schneider and a Symmar-S. Both look great.

Don't worry so much, just go shoot! The best lens is the one you can afford.

BTW I've got several Schneider lenses for sale in the classifieds...

[Alan Gales]

Not a silly question at all.

All my large format lenses were bought used. It rarely makes sense to buy new large format lenses. In fact many of the best lenses out there can only be purchased used.

[IanG]

Originally all my main lenes were second hand from the late 1970's or early 80 and Multicoated, Schneideres & Rodenstocks and all are superb performers.

In more recent years I've added a second 5x4 set up (UK & Turkey) and most of these lenses are post WWII and coated (but not MC), in practice I've found no discernable differences betwen the coated and MC lenses for B&W works.

However with colour work there can be shifts caused by the colour of some of the earlier coatings, and that needs to be taken into account.

Ian

[Frank Petronio]

I've found that the lens' age is the least important factor as long as it is in good condition. The real way to approach this is to buy two or three lenses of the same focal length and test them - pick the one that makes the most appealing images to your eye.

Luckily the used lens market on this forum and elsewhere is pretty steady, so if you buy them at a fair price, you can usually sell them for about the same and not loose anything for you trouble.

For example, buy a 1960s Linhof-select 150/5.6 Symmar in a Compur shutter, or perhaps a 150mm Xenar, a 1980s Symmar-S, and a 1990s APO Symmar.... Shoot all three side by side and you may find you prefer the least expensive oldest lens for the way it renders, especially in B&W.

People do this with high-end Nikon and Canon lenses all the time - you have to figure that older large format lenses had more sample variation than modern computerized assemblies so....

[Kevin Crisp]

The best approach for a beginner is to buy two or three of the same focal length and test them? I'd suggest buying one decent lens and start using it. Evolve into a lens tester later if you must.

[Frank Petronio]

oh forgot he was a beginner. Well heck anything made since 1980 in good shape will make great pictures... and usually lenses made since 1903 are mostly great too.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Is it smart to buy a 10-15 year old lens opposed to the same lens new? Is there a difference in image quality? I guess I'm specifically talking about the Schneider f/5.6 Apo-Symmar L Lens series.It helps to actually read your question. :)

As best I can determine, the L version of those lenses was introduced at Photokina 2002, so no samples will be even 10 years old.

Schneider's quality control has been at an extremely high level over the last decade. There will inevitably be some performance variation between different samples. However, if a used Apo Symmar L has not been damaged or, for example, moved to a different shutter without attention paid to cell spacing, I'd not expect an image quality difference between it and new stock greater than sample variation within new stock.

That said, I always encourage anyone who can afford it to purchase new equipment rather than used. If there are no buyers of new equipment, manufacturers will stop making things. That will inevitably have a negative effect on the supply of used gear for those who can't afford to buy new. :)

[Once]

I hold with those saying that any testing of these lenses is meaningless in regard to the OP's question. Our cameras are hardly made to function as testing devices and whatever subtle difference there could be it will be lost in the sea of inevitable mechanical imprecision of the individual elements that influence the resulting picture.
I think the OP is a victim of the frequent amateur boasting about lenses performance that has nothing to do with their real qualities. Best is to concentrate on the picture content you intend to catch and forget about technicalities you have no way to compare. Just my two cents.

[Mark Woods]

Hello Once, not to be offensive, but I do believe our cameras can be tested and the "mechanical imprecision of the individual elements" is a result of sloppy technique. Otherwise, shooting with them is a real crap shoot with no guarantees if one is very careful in the technical aspects of making the shot.

[Once]

Hello Once, not to be offensive, but I do believe our cameras can be tested and the "mechanical imprecision of the individual elements" is a result of sloppy technique. Otherwise, shooting with them is a real crap shoot with no guarantees if one is very careful in the technical aspects of making the shot.

Hi Mark, you probably meant "our lenses" can be tested, not cameras. Yes, they surely can be tested but our cameras are not done to test the subtle differences in them. The inevitable mechanical imprecision is inbuilt in our cameras and is there regardless of our technique (which can make it even worse, sure). Bulging film, different focusing precision, standards being not exactly parallel etc. those are just some elements that our cameras are subjected to. That's why lenses are tested on testing devices if they're examined and not on our cameras.
And the guarantees of our pictures quality come from lens qualities that are independent of our bad testing technique. The lens has the quality that it has even if my bad testing cannot find it, no?
But if testing lenses is as easy as trying shoes (just by 3 of them and try them the best is the best) then by now every single amateur must be well informed about what lenses are at what level on the scale of lens qualities. Schneider X is better than Schneider L and that is better than Schneider Xenar etc. Evidently, it is not so easy and therefore nobody has the authoritative answers, just guesses more or less probable. Well, at least I never thought I could decide on my cameras if Nikon 300mm is a better lens than my Nikon 150mm. And who knows the answer on this forum? Nobody. You will get as many "opinions" as many "testers" there are.

[rdenney]

Hi Mark, you probably meant "our lenses" can be tested, not cameras. Yes, they surely can be tested but our cameras are not done to test the subtle differences in them.

The point of such testing, however, is not to identify the performance of the lens in absolute terms, but to determine which lens is most suited to the intentions of the photographer. If the photographer's technique and other equipment is insufficient to reveal those differences, then for that photographer there are no differences worth spending additional money to obtain.

As for my own lens collection, I have Super Angulons in 47/5.6, 65/5.6, 65/8, 90/5.6, and 121/8. They range in age from the late 50's to the early 90's. The 90/5.6 is multicoated, and produces very subtly less flare than the single-coated versions. But in terms of raw performance, they are all excellent, and fully up to my own technique. The f/5.6 versions provide more coverage than the f/8 versions with respect to their focal lengths. I would expect similar generational differences with the Symmars over the same time period.

It should be noted that the manufacturers did take a significant step forward with their latest designs, as a result of computer-aided lens design and other advances. The differences are still quite subtle, merely because these lenses are simple enough to have achieved very high levels of design even without such tools. But the newer designs provide more coverage and perhaps better performance at wide apertures. If those features are important in the anticipated application, then one knows what to do. For example, a 47mm Super Angulon XL covers 4x5 and mine does not. A 72mm Super Angulon XL provides ample movements in 4x5 while the 65/5.6 does not. Again, I'm sure there are similar differences in the Symmar line.

Rick "whose kit only includes one old Symmar Convertible, which, by the way, is excellent" Denney

[Jim Jones]

The point of such testing, however, is not to identify the performance of the lens in absolute terms, but to determine which lens is most suited to the intentions of the photographer. If the photographer's technique and other equipment is insufficient to reveal those differences, then for that photographer there are no differences worth spending additional money to obtain. . . .

Yes, indeed. Relying solely on lens tests done on a test bench is a little like buying tailor-made clothing fit to a generic dummy. Also, the process of lens testing can be a valuable education to many photographers.

[Once]

Just to add that modern lenses don't need to be "tested" for coverage as that is stated by the manufacturer and is widely available on the net. Unless you want to add to the urban legends and proclaim (with the wise a$$ face) that "Schneider is very conservative in their coverage numbers" bla bla bla - you know what I mean. Oh sure, you beat Schneider right on their back, how does that feel? What would this forum be without legends? A sad place for many.

[GeorgesGiralt]

Hello !
IMHO standard lenses (by standard I mean lenses of the "normal" focal lens for the format without extreme opening or coverage power) are good and very good since WWII.
In that focal lens, design matter less than build quality.
So at first, choosing buying from Schneider or Rodenstock or the BIG Japanese is a sound decision as these will have got a very good quality control.
Of course the more recent the design is, the better, lighter, slimmer, the lens is.
A 6 lenses design of the 70's will be beaten by a lens of the 80's etc... But beaten by what ?
IMHO : a little more contrast because the design has been fine tuned, and the coatings are better... The coverage could be improved a little because the glasses are better (this has to be proven) but nothing exceptional.
a friend of mine says there is more difference between brands than between lenses generations : Rodenstock are more "brutal" and Schneider are more "smooth" if that make sense...
So try to find the more recent and IN PERFECT SHAPE, in it's original shutter, try it making some transparencies (to test for shutter speed and lens stop accuracy) and the in a very fine B&W film which you will look at using a 10x loupe to see if the lens is performing well. If yes, buy it, and keep it.
I own a 150 Xenar, a 150 Sironar N, a 150 Nikor W, a 150 Komura and a 150 Symmar and a 120 Apo-Symmar. On B&W I can't tell which lens took which picture without looking at my notes....
Hope this helps.

[Richard Rau]

Not to add fuel to the fire, but the reality is that even the same manufacture of the same focal length can vary by some margin, in spite of stringent quality control, meaning you could have tested 4 different new 210 Apo-Symmars, and one out of those four could out-perform the other three. Certainly the same holds true for used lenses. Not all glass is created equal, but this is splitting hairs, and very few of us here have the resources nor the inclination to go through the trouble. However, I do know several photographers who do just that when they buy lenses, they'll pick up several of the same make, test them, and keep the cream of the crop. I'm not one of them. Some folks swear by the performance of their Dagors, and I for one have trouble telling the difference between my 1960 ~ 14" Commercial Ektar and my 1970 ~360 Nikkor, other than I think the Ektar is more contrasty. I buy the best I can afford, and I don't use any of them often enough to justify the entry fee into this crazy sport!