Schneider Apo-Symmar L?

[John Layton]

Have been curious about the Apo-Symmar "L" line of lenses...but cannot seem to find much experienced-based info. on them...how they perform, coverage, etc. Anyone?

[Michael R]

The L version was the last iteration of the Apo Symmar line. Standard 75 degree (except the 480mm) taking lenses comparable to equivalents from Rodenstock, Fuji, Nikon.

I have the 150mm and 180mm. Sharp as you’d expect. No surprises.

The range also included a 120, 210, 300 and 480. The 120 seemed like a cool little lens to have, even though it wouldn’t allow for a lot of movement on 4x5.

[cuypers1807]

I have the 150 and 300. Both amazing lenses with plenty of room for movements.

[Oren Grad]

Standard 75 degree (except the 480mm)

Nitpick: in addition to the 480, which as usual is constrained by the shutter (down to 56 degrees), the 300 is specified for only 72 degrees.

Schneider's published MTF curves don't suggest noticeably superior performance from the L series compared to the immediate prior Apo-Symmar series. The main reason for the redesign was apparently to switch to more environmentally friendly glass types, though they took advantage of the opportunity to match the coverage of the Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S, at least for the shorter focal lengths. So what you should expect is "just" a series of highly competent modern plasmats.

Also worth noting that the L series lost three focal lengths compared to the Apo-Symmar series - 135, 240 and 360.

[Fenton]

I have the 180mm, which seems versatile and sharp with plenty of room for movements. Use it often.

[interneg]

Nitpick: in addition to the 480, which as usual is constrained by the shutter (down to 56 degrees)

From what I understand, the 480 isn't limited in coverage by the shutter, but rather by the elements being 'cut-off' in diameter compared to how they should scale relative to the shorter focal lengths - and I can see why, given how big and heavy the 480 already is - and at the time of the release of the 480's, I don't think Schneider or Rodenstock realistically felt there was much of a market for lenses with significantly greater than 11x14" coverage in non-technical/ repro environments.

[Oren Grad]

From what I understand, the 480 isn't limited in coverage by the shutter, but rather by the elements being 'cut-off' in diameter compared to how they should scale relative to the shorter focal lengths...

Good point, that's surely an important part of it. But both Schneider and Rodenstock specified smaller maximum apertures for their 480's when supplied in Compur or Prontor rather than Copal (f/9.4 and f/9 for Schneider and Rodenstock, respectively, vs f/8.4 for either brand in Copal), suggesting that the shutter is a constraint as well. This was not true for their 360's, which are f/6.8 in all shutters, nor for the shorter focal lengths, which are f/5.6 across the board.

[Richard Wasserman]

I don't really have much to add to what others have said. I have a 150 L and it is a fine lens, plus it's nice to have a bit of additional coverage.

[Tim Stahl]

I had a 210mm Symmar S that would not cover 8x10. I now use a 210mm Apo Symmar L that does cover 8x10 at infinity with no movements.