Early 1990's, I think 1992.Originally Posted by 12pmc
Early 1990's, I think 1992.
Thank you
Having used both lens series extensively (thanks to a burglary -- had to replace four of them) I find it really hard to believe that anyone could reliably pick out a print from a MC S lens versus an APO Symmar. Both were outstanding.
Schneider was really the last of the "big four" to modernize their plasmats and lens production in general. Fuji, Nikon, and Rodenstock were ahead. This also allegedly coincided with stricter Euro rules on glass types per harzardous or radioactive ingredients. In other words, Schneider was forced to redesign the series.
I switched to Fuji just from a wear and tear standpoint, since my Schneider gear had gone through utter hell in terms of a lot of hard mountaineering and desert
use. I was fairly astounded at the increase in sharpness and contrast. But the older Symmar S is no slouch, and no large format photographer should be ashamed to use these. They are a real bargain at the moment, provided you can find something clean. A bit of peripheral "Schneideritis" won't affect the image.
... Oh, I should have added that, at the time, German currency was high and the Yen low, so I basically got brand new Fuji lenses for the sale price of my beat up old Schneider ones. Timing has a lot to do with such decisions, since the general quality of all these brands is superb. Of course, as I've gotten older I tend to place
a premium upon sheer portability, so tiny little Nikkor M's, Fuji A's, G-Clarons, and Fuji C's have become my preference. Now my beloved 250 G is nearly worn out,
but I have a functionally very similar 240 A waiting to replace it, bought at the right time per exchange rates.
Good to know that I need not feel ashamed to use my Schneider lenses. I think Fuji makes some fine lenses, but to suggest that they are 'astoundingly' better than Schneider is not credible.
My first Fuji was the 250/6.7, not even their latest and greatest. But compared to traditional 250 plasmats, it was a luxury to have something in a lightweight no.1 shutter. After a couple of trannies around evening in extremely clear air, once in Kauai and once looking over Comb Ridge in Utah, I got worried about the lens because, upon magnification, I could see a rainbow-like separation of hues around sharp edges. Then the next time I encountered a similar situation, I saw it with my own eyes! The phenomena was actually due to natural diffraction around sharp landscape edges. My Symmar S never picked up that kind of thing because it was not corrected to the same degree. Now I certainly wouldn't be nitpicky about this with any large format film print. Where these newer lenses really come into their own is the opposite direction. If I grab the same lens that is routinely used as a "wide" on 8X10, like a 250, and long-ish "normal" on 4x5, then decide to use it for a roll-film back too, it would be make or break. My new lenses perform wonderfully. The old school Symmar S and Super-Angulons just wouldn't do it for me. That slight improvement becomes crucial with the greater degree of magnification in print. My own brother used the best of gear in his time, a Linhof Super Technika and the best Schneider lenses of that era. But oh my gosh, those roll-film back shots were not in the same league at all. Made no
difference on a magazine or book spread. But in a big picture frame, or in a portfolio box with large format prints mixed in, it sure does. But if I happened to stumble on a clean old 210 Symmar-S somewhere at a good price, I'm sure I'd find a use for that too. Sometimes being clinically sharp and contrasty isn't what
the doctor ordered. In the world of Fuji, I'd really like to get my hands on a 300 L for the same reason.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks