Looking for lenses made by rodenstock and schneider for other brands

[Nadar]

Hi. I'm searching for buy lenses for my first 4x5 camera. I recently discover that schneider and rodenstock made lenses for other brands like Calumet or Sinar. Because I have low budget I'm trying to look for deals on ebay. This lenses are probably less know, so more posibilities to get them with cheaper price. So my question is which other brands have lenses made by schneider and rodenstock? Thanks

[Louis Pacilla]

All "Caltar II N" are Rodenstock manufactured and about identical to the Rodenstocks lenses up to recent vintage.

Schneider made "Caltar II S" lenses for Calumet and they are comparable to Schneiders lenses of the same vintage, Something like 1975-1980's.

Ilex made Caltar lenses and most all can be identified by the Ilex shutter and may be named "Caltar S".

[ic-racer]

If you have a limited budget I'd suggest the Japanese and USA lenses. Fuji, Nikkor, Topcor and Ektar. All top quality and they frequently trade hands at prices lower than the comparable German lenses. For example, I'm on a budget and I have 20 large format lenses. Only one is German, the rest are Japanese. The Kodak Ektars are very sharp and this is nice because the 'blurry lens' crowd has not driven the prices up ;)

[Mark Stahlke]

Also the Caltar II-E lenses are Rodenstock Geronars. I have a 210mm f/6.8 Caltar II-E lens, I love it.

[Frank Petronio]

Recent Sinar Sinarons are Rodenstocks, older ones may be Schneiders.

You may pay more for Sinar- and Linhof-selected lenses because they are tested and chosen to be superior, better than average, in the same way that Caltars are cheaper because they are on the left side of the bell curve and are worse than average.

[ic-racer]

Recent Sinar Sinarons are Rodenstocks, older ones may be Schneiders.

You may pay more for Sinar- and Linhof-selected lenses because they are tested and chosen to be superior, better than average, in the same way that Caltars are cheaper because they are on the left side of the bell curve and are worse than average.

40 years later that post-production testing is of questionable value.

[Mark Stahlke]

...Caltars are cheaper because they are on the left side of the bell curve and are worse than average.I have to disagree with this statement. My 75mm f/4.5 Caltar II-N (re-branded Grandagon-N) is one of my sharpest lenses. There is nothing "worse than average" about it. The 210/6.8 Caltar lens I mentioned earlier is also a little gem.

[Frank Petronio]

How would you know if you haven't run blind tests against other lenses of the same model/era?

[BrianShaw]

I'm actually interested in a more generic answer, Frank... not just if Mark (or even you) have done a blind test. "Where is the test data... any test data... regarding the quality of Caltar vs their name-brand equivalents"?

In the general I respect the generic experience of those who have worked with both lenses, BTW.

[E. von Hoegh]

The Caltars are lenses purchased in blocks, and engraved with the Calumet info. They are no better or worse than the general run of Schneider or Rodenstock lenses. The Linhof inspected lenses will be consistently on the high side of factory QC.

Edit - the above applies only to the lenses when new.

[Moopheus]

The Kodak Ektars are very sharp and this is nice because the 'blurry lens' crowd has not driven the prices up ;)

One small drawback to the Ektars is that since they are vintage lenses, they are frequently mounted in vintage shutters. Which means that to be on the safe side, budget for the expense of a CLA for the shutter.

[E. von Hoegh]

One small drawback to the Ektars is that since they are vintage lenses, they are frequently mounted in vintage shutters. Which means that to be on the safe side, budget for the expense of a CLA for the shutter.

Better bargain for a CLA on any shutter more than 15 or so years old.

[Mark Stahlke]

How would you know if you haven't run blind tests against other lenses of the same model/era?Without doing any formal testing (I prefer making real pictures) I can say that my 75mm Caltar is sharper than my 65/5.6 MC Super Angulon. I also prefer the 75mm over the 80/4.5 SSXL. As always, your mileage may vary.

[E. von Hoegh]

Recent Sinar Sinarons are Rodenstocks, older ones may be Schneiders.

You may pay more for Sinar- and Linhof-selected lenses because they are tested and chosen to be superior, better than average, in the same way that Caltars are cheaper because they are on the left side of the bell curve and are worse than average.

You're claiming the lenses, every one of them, were tested and the dogs sent to Calumet.

[BrianShaw]

Even without the absolutism I doubt that Calumet contracted for, or accepted, only the "rejects".

[E. von Hoegh]

Even without the absolutism I doubt that Calumet contracted for, or accepted, only the "rejects".

Perhaps Calumet low-graded the lenses themselves..... sending the good ones back to the factory.

[Frank Petronio]

I have no idea what the procedures are for the various companies with regards to testing and quality control. If you want to save a few bucks you're welcome to buy Caltars and I'm sure you can make nice photos with them, I have owned a few Caltars myself and never had any complaints.... But I will gladly pay a little more for the Sinar- and Linhof-selected versions and enjoy the smug superiority and the deep warmth of confidence that comes from buying the best ;-p

Seriously, on eBay the price difference is zero to maybe $20, $30. Why not treat yourself instead of carrying doubts and retreating to rationalizations and unprovable justifications?

[IanG]

Better bargain for a CLA on any shutter more than 15 or so years old.

On the contrary I've found older shutters to be more reliable, my oldest Compur is 99 this year and I've a few from the 1920's and rimset ones from the 20's all OK as well. I find the Copals are more likely to need a CLA.


The Caltars are lenses purchased in blocks, and engraved with the Calumet info. They are no better or worse than the general run of Schneider or Rodenstock lenses. The Linhof inspected lenses will be consistently on the high side of factory QC.

Edit - the above applies only to the lenses when new.

My main lenses are all Rodenstock & Schneider and my Caltar-S II (Symmar) is certainly equal in terms of sharpness etc and I agree with you and others there's nothing inferior about them.

One problem is generalisms about lenses like Ektar's, there are quite a few different designs and they behave quite differently, some are plain Tessars, one is a Dialyte, across all formats the name is used on 3 element triplets through to sophisticated 7 element designs. As someone else pointed out Ektars are in vintage shutters and not all fit in the most common shutter sizes Compur/Copal/Prontor #0, #1 etc, other US made lenses are in odd sized shutters as well. It's useful being able to swap shutters if you do need to send one for a repair or CLA and this is where the modern sizes based on Compur's rimset shutters of the 1930's are useful. I can (and do) use lens cells made in the 90's in a shutter 60 years older (or vice versa).

Ian

[Louis Pacilla]

Perhaps Calumet low-graded the lenses themselves..... sending the good ones back to the factory.


What I've heard about the Calumets Caltar II-N lenses is they where tested by Rodenstock in the same exact manner as their own engraved lenses . Rodenstock treated all lenses that left their factory the same and tested all egually.

The reason Calumet sold the II-N lenses for a good bit less the the equal Rodenstock offerings was Calumet handled all the warranty work and returns on all Caltar II N lenses and Rodenstock was not responsible. therefor, Calumet sold them for a good bit less then the Rodenstock engraved lenses. This holds true in the used market as Caltar II-N lenses sale for 1/3- 1/2 the price of Rodenstock of equal vintage (stripe/no stripe).

So it stands to reason, if you trust the quality control of Rodenstock, then you'll be equally pleased with any of the Caltar II-N offerings.

[Bob Salomon]

"The reason Calumet sold the II-N lenses for a good bit less the the equal Rodenstock offerings was Calumet handled all the warranty work and returns on all Caltar II N lenses and Rodenstock was not responsible."

Not quite.

Warranty on a photographic product is the responsibility of the distributor of that product. Not the factory. Factory's normally give an allowance to distributors for warranty repairs. So, in the USA, our Rodenstock Warranty is a limited lifetime warranty on the glass and 3 years on the shutter of the Rodenstock lenses that we sell to our dealers (including Calumet).
Caltar lenses and shutters were warrantied by Calumet. Sinar Rodenstock lenses were warrantied by Sinar.

[IanG]

So, in the USA, our Rodenstock Warranty is a limited lifetime warranty on the glass and 3 years on the shutter of the Rodenstock lenses that we sell to our dealers (including Calumet).
Caltar lenses and shutters were warrantied by Calumet. Sinar Rodenstock lenses were warrantied by Sinar.

Bob what does the term"a limited lifetime" actually mean ?

Ian

[E. von Hoegh]

Bob what does the term"a limited lifetime" actually mean ?

Ian

It means that Rodenstock sends out a hitman when they no longer feel like servicing the lens.

[Moopheus]

On the contrary I've found older shutters to be more reliable, my oldest Compur is 99 this year and I've a few from the 1920's and rimset ones from the 20's all OK as well. I find the Copals are more likely to need a CLA.


And these older shutters have never been serviced in all that time?

I have two older shutters--a Flashmatic and a Synchro-Compur that required service when I got them. Both had clearly not been used in decades. They were serviceable and work well now, but when you're buying an older shutter there's a good chance you're getting one that hasn't moved in many years. (I also have a rimset Compur I found in an antique store that is dead as a doornail)

[Bob Salomon]

You pay shipping to the service center.

"Written statement that specifies under what conditions, to what extent, and for how long the manufacturer of an item guarantees that it will work as claimed. If a defect or malfunction occurs, such warranties are usually limited to the repair or replacement of the item and do not include any compensation for any loss arising."

Note; the warranty is not transferrable. It is extended to the original retail buyer.

[Brian Ellis]

Recent Sinar Sinarons are Rodenstocks, older ones may be Schneiders.

You may pay more for Sinar- and Linhof-selected lenses because they are tested and chosen to be superior, better than average, in the same way that Caltars are cheaper because they are on the left side of the bell curve and are worse than average.

That's not been my understanding about Caltar though maybe my understanding is wrong. However, FWIW I've never understood that Caltars are inferior or worse than average. I've always understood that they were identical to their name-branded counterparts except for the name. Obviously one Caltar could be inferior to one Schneider just as one Schneider can be inferior to another Schneider. But I didn't think there was some pre-brand testing under which Caltar got the ones that tested below average.

[IanG]

And these older shutters have never been serviced in all that time?

I have two older shutters--a Flashmatic and a Synchro-Compur that required service when I got them. Both had clearly not been used in decades. They were serviceable and work well now, but when you're buying an older shutter there's a good chance you're getting one that hasn't moved in many years. (I also have a rimset Compur I found in an antique store that is dead as a doornail)

I've no way of telling if they've been serviced, most it's unlikely one maybe but I have tested the speeds and they are remarkably accurate. I do clean all my older shutters to free up the slower speeds when I get them if needed. I've been using a 1931 Compur #1 with mid 1950's lens cells and it's been very reliable for the past 6 years.

Recently I've bought 11 shutters (since the begining of March) - 2 Compur - #0 & #00, 2 Prontor SVS #0, 2 Prontor-S #00, Prontor Press #0, Epsilon #0, Agi(fold) #0, and 2 Vario #00. Of those 11 seven came from the stock of a retired camera repairer and none cost more than £6.40 ($10.40) and 3 came with lens cells (one a mint 203mm f7.7 Ektar the other two Novars), I did get to fire these shutters before buying and all are smooth and accurate, another - a Vario #00 - was new stock from one of the UK's leading dealer and writers on collectible cameras. The other three came with lenses.

That doesn't mean all shutters are good theogh, I've bought off this forum and the so called working Compur shutter packed up immediately but hey I unscrewed the lens cells and a tell-tale screw was missing it had quite obviously been tampered with by the seller. Only yesterday I picked up an Ebay purchase described as working perfectly, the camera came with it's original box but the shutters defunct, you take the risks but in this case I paid very little and it doesn't matter - I can probably repair this one myself. If not it's going on display anyway.

The bottom line isa all thew shutters I've had to have repaired are 1960's or later and all my older shutters are plodding on :D

Ian.

[Lynn Jones]

If you are looking for terrific lenses at very reasonable prices try these tessar types made my Ilex, w/Ilex shutters, Caltar f 6.3, 165, 215, 250, 305, 375, B&J Acutar in same focal lengths but with Copal shutters, BBOI Acu-Tessars same Focal lengths in Copal shutters, Ilex Paragons in Ilex shutters. Also by the same manufacturer 6 element plasmats, B&J f 5.6 Acutons in Copal, and BBOI Acu-Semetrical, likewise, certain Ilex Paragons.

Lynn

[IanG]

If you are looking for terrific lenses at very reasonable prices try these tessar types made my Ilex, w/Ilex shutters, Caltar f 6.3, 165, 215, 250, 305, 375, B&J Acutar in same focal lengths but with Copal shutters, BBOI Acu-Tessars same Focal lengths in Copal shutters, Ilex Paragons in Ilex shutters. Also by the same manufacturer 6 element plasmats, B&J f 5.6 Acutons in Copal, and BBOI Acu-Semetrical, likewise, certain Ilex Paragons.

Lynn

All goes to show you need to do some research when buying older lenses. As a buyer you need to ask yourself if a Tessar is what you really need and just how good it might be. I own and use quite a few Tessars and clones so have my own opinions based on practical experience.

With 5"x4" a 150mm Tessar is Ok gives limited but at least some movements, edge and corner sharpness is poor until f16 but at its best at f22, a 135mm has no room for movements but again isn't bad at f22, below that it's a case of who do you believe. Longer Tessars and clones 165mm upwards are very much better and the slower f6.3 versions are the best, but others can be good performers whether CZJ or Ilex Paragons (Caltar) etc.At least that's my experience.

Ian

[Nadar]

Thanks for the feedback. So, schneider and rodenstock only produced lens for linhof, sinar and calumet, no other brands?
I going to check the caltars. For the information exposed here it seems like they are equal to the rodenstock and schneider branded.

[jeffstev1]

I've taken the front lens element of a Caltar-S and swapped it for the front element of a Schneider Symmar. Didn't even change the focus point, identical quality. It's far more trouble to a manufacturer to maintain "two lines" than to simply make one product and rebrand. My experience with multiple Caltar-S, Caltar SII and Caltar N has been superb, without the slightest drop in quality compared to their Schneider-S and Rodenstock cousins, all used in parallel in a busy product studio. They are the same product, design for design.

[Bob Salomon]

They sold lenses to most camera manufacturers. Alpa is another current one. But not all camera manufacturers put their name on the lens.

Calumet purchased lenses two different ways. They bought private label lenses that they called Caltar. Just like Sinar sold private lable versions called Sinaron. Calumet also bought manufacture's branded lenses that they sold as Rodenstock. They sold those for more then they sold the Caltar.

In the case of Linhof and Sinar those camera manufacturers tested the lenses and those that passed the test were marked with Linhof or Sinar's name (depending on which factory bought and tested the lenses). Alpa also does this today.

In the case of most other camera manufacturers the lenses were just labled with the lens factory name and not the camera manufacturer's name.

[John Kasaian]

Hi. I'm searching for buy lenses for my first 4x5 camera. I recently discover that schneider and rodenstock made lenses for other brands like Calumet or Sinar. Because I have low budget I'm trying to look for deals on ebay. This lenses are probably less know, so more posibilities to get them with cheaper price. So my question is which other brands have lenses made by schneider and rodenstock? Thanks
This is your first LF camera?
Any good quality lens by Rodenstock, Schneider, Nikon, Fuji, Caltar, Sinar, Wollensak, Kodak, Goerz, Ilex, Congo is going to blow you away with clarity and detail. Lucky you! "Workhorse" 210mms from the Germans and the Japanese are going for cheap at Keh right now. If your budget is really tight, eBay is probably the last place you'll likely save any money on a good lens.

[cyberjunkie]

For the record, i think that both Schneider and Rodenstock made lenses for Linhof, IIRC the names were Technikon and Technikar, but i could be wrong. All those names are too similar! :)
Then Rodenstock made a few lenses for Graphic press cameras: one was a 270mm tele (Rotelar), then i remember a wide angle with unconventional FL (58mm?) and good speed, which i think retained the name Grandagon.

All those lenses are still very usable, and sometimes can be had for a nice price... but somehow i feel that you're looking for something less "vintage". ;)

have fun

CJ

[Paul Ewins]

That's not been my understanding about Caltar though maybe my understanding is wrong. However, FWIW I've never understood that Caltars are inferior or worse than average. I've always understood that they were identical to their name-branded counterparts except for the name. Obviously one Caltar could be inferior to one Schneider just as one Schneider can be inferior to another Schneider. But I didn't think there was some pre-brand testing under which Caltar got the ones that tested below average.

The first batch of Schneider made Caltars (Caltar-S II and Caltar-W II) was made in December 1975: 100 x 65/8, 500 x 90/8, 200 x 135/5.6, 800 x 150/5.6, 600 x 210/5.6, 50 x 240/5.6, 100 x 300/5.6 and 50 x 360/6.8. That's 2400 lenses, there is no way that was anything other than regular production. These were Symmar S and Super Angulons. Interestingly although they were assigned serial numbers by Schneider none of the ones I have seen have serial numbers printed on them. There are also lenses branded as Orbit which were relabelled Schneider made Caltars (You can actually see the Caltar name under the paintwork on the rim).

[J. Fada]

While Rodenstocks and Schneiders are the most common lenses you will find don't overlook others like Fujinons and Nikkors. As long as you get a clean lens you will be fine. Leave all the testosterone laden mine-is-better-that-yours lens testing to the geeks. Try to find one in the 150-210 range which will also be the least expensive. Go to KEH to get an idea. Frankly they are your best bet.

[IanG]

Better still place a WTB advert here on this Forum's classifieds for a modern 150mm MC lens (or a range of possible FL's 135mm -210mm).

Ian

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Caltar II-N lenses are identical to their Rodenstock Apo Sironar N and Grandigon counterparts and that goes for testing, too. They're sometimes extremely good bargains with mint copies being bountiful as they were often student purchased.
There's also a really long thread from last year here that went into the methodology of how Rodenstocks and Linhof select versions were/are tested. I'm satisfied that the standard testing was exemplary. Too, for another imprint to be substantively better there would have to be a bunch of rejects somewhere and there's no evidence of that with later production lenses.

[Bob Salomon]

"there would have to be a bunch of rejects somewhere and there's no evidence of that with later production lenses."

No there wouldn't. Linhof, for example, tests lenses that have already passed all of Rodenstock's or Schneider's final QC tests. When a lens fails the Linhof test that lens is returned to the lens manufacturer who then sells it since it has already passed all of their tests.
What Linhof is doing is picking off the best of the lenses that they test.

[Frank Petronio]

"there would have to be a bunch of rejects somewhere and there's no evidence of that with later production lenses."

No there wouldn't. Linhof, for example, tests lenses that have already passed all of Rodenstock's or Schneider's final QC tests. When a lens fails the Linhof test that lens is returned to the lens manufacturer who then sells it since it has already passed all of their tests.
What Linhof is doing is picking off the best of the lenses that they test.

Agreed. The rest is rationalization in action.

[IanG]

"there would have to be a bunch of rejects somewhere and there's no evidence of that with later production lenses."

No there wouldn't. Linhof, for example, tests lenses that have already passed all of Rodenstock's or Schneider's final QC tests. When a lens fails the Linhof test that lens is returned to the lens manufacturer who then sells it since it has already passed all of their tests.
What Linhof is doing is picking off the best of the lenses that they test.

That needs qualifying because Linhof weren't picking the best of all the lenses lenses only from batches.

Ian

[Bob Salomon]

Ian,

To make it simple.

Linhof buys lenses from the manufacturers. They ship the number of lenses ordered to Linhof. Linhof tests them and returns any that are not to Linhof's standards.

[IanG]

That needs qualifying because Linhof weren't picking the best of all the lenses only from batches.
Ian


Ian,
To make it simple.
Linhof buys lenses from the manufacturers. They ship the number of lenses ordered to Linhof. Linhof tests them and returns any that are not to Linhof's standards.


I think we are saying the same thing Bob just from different perspectives. There's always been an implication (and it's in some peoples comments in this thread) that Linhof were creaming off the best lenses from the manufacturers they were buying from.

There's a very significant difference between Linhof buying say 1000 lenses and rejecting a small percentage after their own testing and them testing a much larger number and selecting the 1000 lenses from maybe 2-3000 lenses they had tested first.

Presumably Linhof began their own testing & selection becasue of the variable quality of Carl Zeiss Jena lenses after WWII which caused problems for other companies as well particularly Rollei.

Ian

[8x10 user]

Sinaron Lenses are great... One problem thou... People keep taking them out of their DBM mounts and putting them in shutters without any regarded to the element spacing.

Each shutter/ mount is different so Sinar had to optimize the spacing for each mount. The ones that were moved be amateurs looking to make a quick buck might not perform as well.

That is why I prefer DBM mounted Sinaron lenses, plus they are cheaper then the shuttered version. You just need to rig one of those auto aperture shutters on it. The shutter is cool because you can use it with any barrel lens as long as its not too... Its cool for those who want to try old lenses for certain looks, plus you can take advantage of all of those cheap barrel mounted apo-ronars.

[Sevo]

Each shutter/ mount is different so Sinar had to optimize the spacing for each mount.


The spacing of DBM mounts and Copal/Compur shutters of similarly recent vintage is standardized. DBM mounts came strictly in the regular Compur/Copal spacing, and the instructions for DBM mounting lenses only concerned aperture adjustment, and no shimming other than the requirement to insert all shims shipped with the board or lens cells. But in practice, I've never seen a board with shims (and I mounted dozens while jobbing at a dealer), and very few 80's vintage lenses with a factory shim either.

Maybe Sinar sometimes used DBM boards past the tolerance with a correcting shim for their own (affordable) Sinaron series while shipping the flawless boards for other makers lenses. But by the time of CNC lathes, the failure rate will have been so low that they could afford to toss the few substandard items they made. I think it is more likely to be a misunderstanding: Sinar offered a range of pre-adjusted DBM boards for common lenses so that the dealership had nothing more to do than screw in the cells - but that concerned the aperture, not spacing.

[8x10 user]

I'm sorry but I disagree, there are differences in all copal and compur shutters they talk about it on Schneider's site. I have had maybe a dozen or more Sinaron lenses in my hands, I have even had multiples of the same lens at the same time (with close serial #'s)... The thicknesses of the shims were different.

A DB or DBM board is not like any other lens board as it includes the aperture and the cells screw into the "board" rather then being mounted using a retaining ring. Sinar did sell "kits" to home mount lenses toward the end but it might be that they were under pressure to do so by the end users it does not mean that the practice did not hurt the tolerances.

The lens manufactures (not "the dealership") do check the distances and correct if necessarily, before sending the new lenses to a retailer.

BTW, used lens dealers are not necessarily the authorities on the best optical practices. I actually prefer to purchase from a photographer then a dealer not that there aren't exceptions. I know of dealers who constantly move lenses from one shutter to another. Do they really care if it could hurt the lenses performance? No, they do it to make money. Its a shame IMO as the Sinar auto aperture systems is pretty cool, although not so portable like most Sinar... Fantastic for the studio though!

[Sevo]

I'm sorry but I disagree, there are differences in all copal and compur shutters they talk about it on Schneider's site. I have had maybe a dozen or more Sinaron lenses in my hands, I have even had multiples of the same lens at the same time (with close serial #'s)... The thicknesses of the shims were different.

Shims for the DBM board? Shims for lenses are standard - to have room for deviation to either side, they usually have a default shim even when perfect. Shims for DBM boards were unusual at least in the late eighties - maybe they had them at some other time.



DB or DBM board is not like any other lens board as it includes the aperture and the cells screw into the "board" rather then being mounted using a retaining ring. Sinar did sell "kits" to home mount lenses toward the end but it might be that they were under pressure to do so by the end users it does not mean that the practice did not hurt the tolerances.

I would not call the period right after the Sinaron introduction "towards the end". With the introduction of the Sinaron series, they stopped providing factory mounted lenses of any other brand at least on the German market. But they continued to offer pre-adjusted DBM boards for Schneider, Rodenstock and Nikon lenses.



BTW, used lens dealers are not necessarily the authorities on the best optical practices.

Maybe. But then I have never seen one in my life - whatever experience I have is with official Sinar or Linhof dealers. Indeed "used large format dealers" might be a purely US phenomenon, for all I know there hasn't been a single professional used large format dealer with a brick and mortar presence in all Europe for the 30 years I have been professionally into photography.

[8x10 user]

I think just about ever Sinaron lens I had except for a 300mm Macro Sinaron had shims in it. They were not rare at all and they used them for the same reason as put them in shuttered lenses.

The new Sinaron lenses came in boxes with the serial number and if it was DBM or copal on the label. I don't think the retailers were sent extra boards to move new shuttered sinaron lenses into DBM mounts, they had both in stock and the boards were expensive so why would they do that? It makes sense that Sinar would sell boards for people who want to convert to the Sinar system or if they wanted to use a Schneider or Nikon lens. I'm sure there was also a away that a customer could have a shuttered lens converted to DBM by a professional who had the equipment to optimize the spacing.

If you search around the issue lens spacing and the consequences moving lenses from one shutter to another without optimization has been debated for years. Who really knows how much if any it would effect performance, and of course maybe some lenses are less sensitive to these changes and some shutters are going to be a closer match then others. I guess its a your mileage might vary situation. Anyway DBM boards work like shutters in that you screw the cells into them the issues are the same with either one.

Personally I would not trust that a Copal shutter Sinaron lenses is going to be as good as a DBM one without knowing that it was originally sold in a shutter. There is money to made in Frankensteining Sinaron lenses and it upsets me because I do believe that there was a lot of hard work put into getting the distances right and once they separate the lens cells from its original mount that work is lost. I suspect that more then half of the used shuttered Sinaron lenses were done in this way. IMO its a bad practice, especially since they sell the lenses like they were in their original shutters with no warning to the customer. I do think that it is mostly US dealers that do this but that does not mean European dealers are any better. There is a big dealer in Germany who sold me two "mint" Sinaron SE lenses that were dirty and had big honking scratches in the glass (maybe not that big but certainly signification, maybe 1 Cm or so at medium thickness). The dealer wouldn't all me to return the items and left me a negative feedback/ banned me after I complained to paypal. This was a major dealer, and I would have been a great customer if he just had some integrity.

Some dealers are better and actually provide a service to the community IMO.

[8x10 user]

I mostly talk about used lenses because new Sinaron lenses are more expensive then Rodenstock's. I don't even know if Sinar still sells Sinaron lenses for LF, at least probably not for anything larger then 4x5.

[Sevo]

I think just about ever Sinaron lens I had except for a 300mm Macro Sinaron had shims in it.

Of course they had - one shim usually goes with every set of cells. I was talking about the board/shutter side of things - as far as I remember none of the DBM boards I've unpacked and assembled ever had a board side shim (even though the instructions mentioned that possibility).



The new Sinaron lenses came in boxes with the serial number and if it was DBM or copal on the label. I don't think the retailers were sent extra boards to move new shuttered sinaron lenses into DBM mounts,

No, positively not - Sinaron lenses were exclusively sold mounted, either in shutter or in DBM.

As far as I can make out, no Sinaron LF lenses are made any more, but they still use (or recently used) the name for digital medium format lenses...

[Sevo]

Personally I would not trust that a Copal shutter Sinaron lenses is going to be as good as a DBM one without knowing that it was originally sold in a shutter. There is money to made in Frankensteining Sinaron lenses and it upsets me because I do believe that there was a lot of hard work put into getting the distances right and once they separate the lens cells from its original mount that work is lost.

Well, it is hard to tell what they did with Sinaron lenses, as these were factory mounted. But I assume they were using just as good components for them as for third party lenses. And where these were concerned, the official procedure was to provide a shim with the cells to space them to standard dimensions, and to adjust (or shim, where needed) the shutter or DBM mount so that it is standard spaced - mounting the cells complete with their shim set on any factory supplied shutter or DBM mount was intended to be safe.

But YMMV after all these years - if both the cells and shutter/DBM had shims it may be hard to tell which one belongs to what. And if you don't know the lineage and history of a lens, you cannot even know whether the cells and shims all belong together, nor whether the cells have been taken apart and are now missing internal shims.

[MDR]

As has been previously stated don't discount lenses made by other manufacturers I prefer my Fujinon lenses to my Schneider lenses. Made in Germany means nothing the quality isn't really that much better or even better at all. If we talk pre-war lenses Schneider supplied Nagel,Kodak and quiet a few others so did Rodenstock. If you want good pre-war lenses don't understimate the quality of Hugo Meyer they were just as good as Zeiss imho and way better than Schneider. Superb Postwar lenses that don't cost an arm and a leg are the coated Rodenstock Eurynars they are very sharp and cheap. With some luck you might even be able to find a cheap coated Voigtländer Heliar. If you are american you did have a superb optical industry Kodak and cheaper but sometimes very good Wollensak. Don't always go after the big names some of the smaller manufactures produced superb lenses.

Dominik