Two 5.6/210 Schneiders, Which better?

Hi all.
Ok, this is another quistion/s, I hope I'll find an answer as I used to find by all great photographers here. Thanks so much in advance.
I have two Schneider lenses:
1) Schneider-Kreuznach Symmar-S 5.6/210(S.No: 12 628 482), on broken COPAL-NO.1 shutter(filter thread 77mm); and
2) Schneider-Kreuznach Apo-Symmar 5.6/210 Multicoating(S.No: 14 370 344), on DB mount(filter thread 72mm).
I'm planning to carry only one of them in my bag to be used outdoor. The 1st lens can accept my Nikon C-Polarizer; while the 2ed could not.

Q1. What lens is the better(in term of on film quality) & why?assuming both in good working condition.

Q2. If I replaced the front & rear lens groups of the 2ed lens by the front & rear lens groups of the 1st lens(I know it might me an odd action, but to be able to use my Nikon C-Polarizer outdoor:)), does this change the configuration and the lens formula(5.6/210mm)? Does the Polarizer worth the swap?

Q3. Is there any source to understand deeply, How to recalculate lens measures(specially: Focal Length, Covering Power & f/No) when composed by different lens groups(front&rear)?

Appreciate any contribution.
Thanks again.

1) Don't swap out the lens elements between lenses

2) The 72mm lens will work with your 77mm polarizer if you buy an inexpensive 72>77 step-up ring ($10)

3) Typically, the Schneider lenses marked as "Multicoated" and "APO" are excellent performers. However, many older Symmar S's were just as good and in some cases maybe even better...

4) The DB shutter won't do you much good in the field, so you are going to need a working #1 anyway you cut it. My advice is to mount each group in a working shutter, test them, then decide for yourself which is best.

My .02 only,

Your technique and testing procedures are going to have to be just about perfect, to see any differences between those two superb lenses. You can't go wrong either way; If I was going to work in the field, I'd get the Copal shutter repaired and use the Symmar-S.

The Symmar S line of lenses was introduced in 1972. It was the first computerized design by Schneider. Schneider began multi-coating in 1977 so your Symmar S may or may not be multicoated, you can tell just by looking at the rim of the lens, if it's multi-coated it will say so. The APO Symmar line was introduced around 1990 to replace the Symmar S line. Because the APO Symmar is the newer lens and represents a total redesign of the Symmar S I'd keep the APO Symmar and get a step-up ring as Jack suggests for your polarizer.

In practice the difference between the two lenses might be hard to see.

If you saw a difference, I would expect the apo lens to be sharper off axis, partly due to better correction and partly due its slightly wider image circle. It also might be slightly sharper at wide apertures and hold its performance slightly better over a range of magnifications--the typical improvements that get made on already excellent lenses over the years.

Don't swap shutters around without a professional's help, as they are calibrated to the lens at least model to model, if not specificly to that lens. Copal makes dozens of aperture scales...

The Copal shuttered one is probably only going to get $350-$400 on eBay if you invest $100-$150 into fixing the shutter, whilst the DB mounted one is worth even less because only Sinar shutter owners (a small number) want DB mounts. Also the 210 length is probably the most popular lens so the market is flooded with them.

If I were you I would get the Copal repaired and try both lenses. You may find your DB shutter needs work too, in order not to vibrate during long exposures. In any event, shoot with them both and decide if it is worth ~$200 profit to sell one of them off. If I had a DB shutter (which would be nice) I would still want a couple of shutter mounted lenses for the option of going light or if the DB failed (it is a complex gadget).

The ultimate of course is a newer Schneider in a Compur or Prontor shutter. If you sold both you could get one of those... ;) But I doubt you'd see it in your photos.

Frank, I agree. Any differences would be incredibly subtle. But, mercifully, it's these differences that gives us photographers literally hours of "yacking and yammering on about things" pleasure. :) :) :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Petronio

... The ultimate of course is a newer Schneider in a Compur or Prontor shutter. If you sold both you could get one of those... ;) But I doubt you'd see it in your photos.

---

Thalmees, the Vade Mecum makes the point, and strongly, that the big jump in lens performance in the Symmar line came when the Symmar-S replaced the Symmar with no suffix (sold as a convertible lens). It argues that after that the improvements from version to version were very small, possibly nonexistent.

Chris is too modest to direct you to his and Kerry Thalmann's lens tests. Basically, their tests support three useful ideas:

(a) used and some new lenses of the same make and model vary in performance.

(b) newer lenses in a line ("Symmar", "Sironar", ... ) don't always perform better than earlier verions. This may be a consequence of (a) and small samples of lenses.

(c) it is hard to buy a large format lens that isn't good enough.

From all of which I've concluded that the thing to do is buy a lens, when one is wanted, with the right of return and run it through acceptance testing. If it flunks, sent it back.

I think you were asking whether the cells of a lens in DB mount can be put in a shutter. Yeah, sure, why not? Especially for the lenses you're considering, both of which go into #1 shutters.

Q3? No need to recalculate, get the wretched things and measure for yourself. Note that calculating what the bits do requires lens design software and the lens' specifications -- glasses RIs and dispersions, all radii. These are rarely easily found.

From an interview with Ron Leven, Senior VP of Schneider Corporation of America, published in the July, 1995 issue of Shutterbug:

"A few years ago we came out with the APO-Symmar; that was a total redesign of the Symmar S and that really changed things. Photographers came back to me and said there was a noticeable improvement - photographers told me that they had to trade in theor old Symmars and get the new APO-Symmars; this was not just one or two photographers talking, there were quite a number who related this to me."

O.K., he works for Schneider and he wants to sell lenses so take it for what it's worth. But in the rest of the interview he seemed to be pretty straight shooter, no wild claims about the superiority of Schneider or anything like that.

Wonderful responses.
Thanks all.
Appreciate the help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Flesher

1) Don't swap out the lens elements between lenses
2) The 72mm lens will work with your 77mm polarizer if you buy an inexpensive 72>77 step-up ring ($10)
3) Typically, the Schneider lenses marked as "Multicoated" and "APO" are excellent performers. However, many older Symmar S's were just as good and in some cases maybe even better...
4) The DB shutter won't do you much good in the field, so you are going to need a working #1 anyway you cut it. My advice is to mount each group in a working shutter, test them, then decide for yourself which is best.
My .02 only,

---

Jack,
No more swaps:). Thanks.
The Sinar Auto Aperture Shutter, is attatched to the front standard, and not creating any problem in portability.
Clearly, the DB lens is bigger & heavier than the shuttered lens. So your point in repairing the COPAL No1 is so valid.
In general, there is what looks to me like a consensus, that if the APO lens is not equal in quality to the Non-APO lens, it should be better(@ least marginally & assuming that there is no patch or individual variability between lenses).
Thanks again.
Best regards.

Thanks Mark.
Clearly, the DB lens is bigger & heavier than the shuttered lens. So your point in repairing the COPAL No1 is so valid.
Review please my response to "Brian Ellis". With more discussion here, I'm getting more depth and confidence in which lens I'll use.
Best regards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Sampson

Your technique and testing procedures are going to have to be just about perfect, to see any differences between those two superb lenses. You can't go wrong either way; If I was going to work in the field, I'd get the Copal shutter repaired and use the Symmar-S.

---

Great peice of knowledge Brian.
Also, you reminded me with important issue. The coating of the lens.
I check the state of coating in both lenses.
The APO Symmar is definitely multicoated, while the Symmar-S is not. That was clear due to multi-color reflections(@ least FOUR) of light on the surfaces of the lens elements of APO Symmar, while a uni-color reflection(maximum two faint colors) of light on the surfaces of the lens elements of the Symmar-S.
For this reason and due to my inability to repair the COPAL NO1 recently, I reconsider the following:
1) From the S.No of both lenses, the Symmar-S was made earleir to December 1976 but later to March 1974(roughly 1975). On the other side, the APO Symmar was made between November 1988 and January 1991(roughly 1990). So there is 15 years gap inbetween. You may take a look: http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/...nses/index.htm
2) APO, MC & the total redesign of the APO Symmar.
3) Inability to repair the COPAL NO1, now.
4) Step-up ring for my Polarizer is a good Idea(as collaegues advised here also).
Thanks again for this piece of knowledge & deep discussion.
Best regards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Ellis

The Symmar S line of lenses was introduced in 1972. It was the first computerized design by Schneider. Schneider began multi-coating in 1977 so your Symmar S may or may not be multicoated, you can tell just by looking at the rim of the lens, if it's multi-coated it will say so. The APO Symmar line was introduced around 1990 to replace the Symmar S line. Because the APO Symmar is the newer lens and represents a total redesign of the Symmar S I'd keep the APO Symmar and get a step-up ring as Jack suggests for your polarizer.

---

Thanks for the advise paulr.
Best regards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulr

In practice the difference between the two lenses might be hard to see.
If you saw a difference, I would expect the apo lens to be sharper off axis, partly due to better correction and partly due its slightly wider image circle. It also might be slightly sharper at wide apertures and hold its performance slightly better over a range of magnifications--the typical improvements that get made on already excellent lenses over the years.

---

Hi Frank,
Agree with you that the shuttered lenses are more valuable in the field(outdoor).
Agree also that the difference between the two lenses should be smale(if any).
Agree with you that I need to repair the COPAL No1 shutter, but I'll delay this action.
Thanks for the valuable advise.
Best regards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Petronio

Don't swap shutters around without a professional's help, as they are calibrated to the lens at least model to model, if not specificly to that lens. Copal makes dozens of aperture scales...
The Copal shuttered one is probably only going to get $350-$400 on eBay if you invest $100-$150 into fixing the shutter, whilst the DB mounted one is worth even less because only Sinar shutter owners (a small number) want DB mounts. Also the 210 length is probably the most popular lens so the market is flooded with them.
If I were you I would get the Copal repaired and try both lenses. You may find your DB shutter needs work too, in order not to vibrate during long exposures. In any event, shoot with them both and decide if it is worth ~$200 profit to sell one of them off. If I had a DB shutter (which would be nice) I would still want a couple of shutter mounted lenses for the option of going light or if the DB failed (it is a complex gadget).
The ultimate of course is a newer Schneider in a Compur or Prontor shutter. If you sold both you could get one of those... ;) But I doubt you'd see it in your photos.

---

Hi Christopher,
I cofess I'm one of those photographers.
Thanks for sharing ideas.
I kept http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/index.html in my favorites. A great place to follow and read.
Best Regards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Perez

Frank, I agree. Any differences would be incredibly subtle. But, mercifully, it's these differences that gives us photographers literally hours of "yacking and yammering on about things" pleasure. :) :) :)

---

Hi Dan,
I'm considering that there should be a variability in performance(marginal) among patches of lenses of the same model/design from the same manufacturer, as well as individual variability in performance among lenses of the same patch No. This is valid for brand new lenses.
For used lenses, the variability in performance, should be wider(due to misuse). But I'm neglecting all of these variabilities & assuming both lenses are new(Only, as a base line comparison). And after all, its the performance on film which should counts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Fromm

Thalmees, the Vade Mecum makes the point, and strongly, that the big jump in lens performance in the Symmar line came when the Symmar-S replaced the Symmar with no suffix (sold as a convertible lens). It argues that after that the improvements from version to version were very small, possibly nonexistent.
Chris is too modest to direct you to his and Kerry Thalmann's lens tests. Basically, their tests support three useful ideas:
(a) used and some new lenses of the same make and model vary in performance.
(b) newer lenses in a line ("Symmar", "Sironar", ... ) don't always perform better than earlier versions. This may be a consequence of (a) and small samples of lenses.
(c) it is hard to buy a large format lens that isn't good enough.
From all of which I've concluded that the thing to do is buy a lens, when one is wanted, with the right of return and run it through acceptance testing. If it flunks, sent it back.
I think you were asking whether the cells of a lens in DB mount can be put in a shutter. Yeah, sure, why not? Especially for the lenses you're considering, both of which go into #1 shutters.
Q3? No need to recalculate, get the wretched things and measure for yourself. Note that calculating what the bits do requires lens design software and the lens' specifications -- glasses RIs and dispersions, all radii. These are rarely easily found.

---

________________________________________________________________________

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Fromm

From all of which I've concluded that the thing to do is buy a lens, when one is wanted, with the right of return and run it through acceptance testing. If it flunks, sent it back.

---

Each lens came with separated cheap F2 kit BTW. I'm already owning the lenses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Fromm

I think you were asking whether the cells of a lens in DB mount can be put in a shutter. Yeah, sure, why not? Especially for the lenses you're considering, both of which go into #1 shutters.

---

I was asking whether the cells of the shuttered(broken) lens can be put in the DB mounted board. And from your response, it looks to me possible. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Fromm

Q3? No need to recalculate, get the wretched things and measure for yourself. Note that calculating what the bits do requires lens design software and the lens' specifications -- glasses RIs and dispersions, all radii. These are rarely easily found.

---

Clear message Dan. Thanks.

________________________________________________________________________

Dan, I appreciate your contribution here.
Best wishes.

Hi Brian,
To be frank with you, I feel that Ron Leven, is correct @ least from theoretical point of view. This may not go in parallel way with the experience of lots of LF photographers.
In my previous experience in MF and Small format, APO(from innovative makers, like Leica/Zeiss/some Nikon/some Canon) means what APO designed for. The photographer can appreciate his/her APO glass from the 1st photo. In LF photography, I do not think the situation is similar.
The reason is(in my point of view): LF photography is more technical, and more photographer dependent(Demanding more on photographer technique and precision). Smaller format systems are, more dependent on manufacturing precision.
That does not mean, LF APO lenses are not true APO while APO lenses from smaller format systems innovative makers are true APOs.
In addition to this, is what you & colleagues mentioned earlier: Using computers in designing lenses, made the big leap in improving lens performance early as 1970's.
Thanks again Brian.
Appreciate your contributions here.
Best regards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Ellis

From an interview with Ron Leven, Senior VP of Schneider Corporation of America, published in the July, 1995 issue of Shutterbug:

"A few years ago we came out with the APO-Symmar; that was a total redesign of the Symmar S and that really changed things. Photographers came back to me and said there was a noticeable improvement - photographers told me that they had to trade in theor old Symmars and get the new APO-Symmars; this was not just one or two photographers talking, there were quite a number who related this to me."

O.K., he works for Schneider and he wants to sell lenses so take it for what it's worth. But in the rest of the interview he seemed to be pretty straight shooter, no wild claims about the superiority of Schneider or anything like that.

---