Schneider Super Symmar HM series

[Jmarmck]

.....how are these different than say the Symmar-S?
How does the High Modulation play into this?

[Daniel Strasshofer]

I owned a HM 120mm for years. It was my favorite lens for 4x5! It`s much better than the Symmar-S! (+ sharper, + contrast, + even lighter than Super Symmar 110)

[Arne Croell]

They are a totally different construction; the Super-Symmar HM is not related to the standard Plasmat offerings like the Symmar S. Despite the name, it is a very asymmetric construction (https://www.schneideroptics.com/info..._symmar_hm.pdf) with eight lens elements in six groups. It was designed by Hiltrud Ebbesmeier (Hiltrud Schitthoff at the time) from Schneider, who also designed its successor, the Super-Symmar XL; it was patented in 1988 (https://www.google.com/patents/US477...S83oLoAQ&cl=en). The successor of the Symmar-S was the Apo-Symmar, and later the Apo-Symmar L. The Super-Symmar HM was offered in parallel to the Apo-Symmar, with a larger image circle (80-82°) than regular Plasmats. Its direct competitor was Rodenstock's Apo-Sironar W. I own the 120mm, and its one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used (including the 110mm XL), reaching its best performance at f/16.

[Jmarmck]

Sounds like a decent lens to have.
Thanks to you both!

[Arne Croell]

I probably should have mentioned that the price for all this optical goodness is the weight and front element size, especially for the 150 and 210mm versions. The 150 comes in at 740g in Copal 1, filter diameter 77mm. That is about 3 times as heavy as an Apo-Sironar S in the same focal length. The 150mm SS HM makes a bit more sense as a medium wide angle on 5x7" than a normal lens on 4x5".

[Drew Wiley]

They had a very odd-shaped fluorite element in them, which also made them relatively heavy for their respective focal lengths. The Symmar S was their general
purpose plastmat series, and not quite as sharp as later recent plasmats by the "big four". Still, the Symmar S could have a lovely rendering to it, and they tend
to be dirt cheap on the used market. The HM was an early rather expensive entry into super-sharp plasmat performance.

[Steve Goldstein]

I probably should have mentioned that the price for all this optical goodness is the weight and front element size, especially for the 150 and 210mm versions. The 150 comes in at 740g in Copal 1, filter diameter 77mm. That is about 3 times as heavy as an Apo-Sironar S in the same focal length. The 150mm SS HM makes a bit more sense as a medium wide angle on 5x7" than a normal lens on 4x5".

I agree that either 150 (Schneider or Rodenstock) makes more sense for 5x7 than for 4x5, where an Apo-Sironar-S or Apo-Symmar-L (both 75 degrees) more than suffice at much less weight.

A more interesting comparison may be to the Apo-Sironar-W, which has the same 80-degree field of view as the Super-Symmar-HM. Numbers for the Super-Symmar HM come from Schneider's datasheet, Apo-Sironar-W data are from the prograf site.

SSHM150 Apo-W150 SSHM210 APO-W210
Filter Size 77mm 72mm 100mm 100mm
Overall Length 101.2mm 56mm 122.1mm 77.5mm
Weight in Shutter 740g 380g 1510g 950g

These are the two focal lengths the lines had in common. There was no 120mm Apo-Sironar-W, nor was there a 300mm Super-Symmar-HM.

What has always fascinated me is that Schneider and Rodenstock ended up with such different solutions for the same problem. The Rodenstocks are physically smaller and much lighter than the Schneiders of the same focal length while delivering very similar performance*.

Sorry about the awful table formatting. It looked pretty good as I typed it, but the forum software apparently removes "redundant" spaces.

*So I surmise based on what I've read on the Internet. I've never done my own comparisons.

[Arne Croell]

What has always fascinated me is that Schneider and Rodenstock ended up with such different solutions for the same problem. The Rodenstocks are physically smaller and much lighter than the Schneiders of the same focal length while delivering very similar performance*.


*So I surmise based on what I've read on the Internet. I've never done my own comparisons.

I have used both the 120mm SS HM and the 150mm Apo-Sironar W (as well as the 150mm S). Of course that is not the same focal length, but subjectively I always thought that the SS HM as well as the Apo-Sironar S had slightly more acutance than the -W. Might have to do with the additional pair of air-glass interfaces in the W, despite all of them being MC.

One can also try to compare the MTF's. The SS HM 150mm is here: http://web.archive.org/web/199710110.../150/mtf2.html
The Apo-Sironar W 150mm is here: https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?...=WordPdf&wdo=1

Rodenstock provides curves only for 1:10, Schneider for infinity, 1:10 and 1:5. The most striking difference for me is that the tangential and radial curves for the SS HM are closest together at infinity and separate more for the closer ranges, whereas the Rodenstock curve for 1:10 shows them close together. So the SS HM seems to be optimized for infinity, and the Apo-S. W for studio distances at 1:10, assuming that Rodenstock is showing the curve for the optimum conjugate.

[Jmarmck]

If I understand that correctly, then the HM would be better suited as a landscape lens? That would suit me just fine.
I have a Symmar-S 5.6/180 and Symmar-S 5.6/210. I was hoping to find something down in the 135mm range.

[Jmarmck]

Well, somone got a deal. $560 for a Super Symmar HM 5.6/150. No, it wasn't me.