Schneider Symmar-S 210m F5.6 Lens - Will this work for 8x10?

[Drew Wiley]

Well, if you happen to actually like the illumination falloff effect of a shorter lens, that is an esthetic decision. It doesn't change the real-world image circle, which need to factor that in too. And if the falloff is simply too much, you can't recover what's not even there by post-digital means, any more than you can dodging the corners of the print when enlarging. But that's generally more an issue with true wide-angle lenses that pressed into serve 70-degree plasmats. Vignetting versus falloff, just as matter of degree, and at what aperture. Different strokes for different folks; and one man's medicine is another man's poison. I rarely like blatant illumination falloff myself, relative to my own work, and trying to beat into submission corner density and gradation that's not so good in the first place - well ...

I have no problem with math per se; but in this case, it's garbage-in/garbage-out. You want to compare a best-case 210 spec under the most liberal set of parameters, to a 240 under the most restrictive. That's not a fair fight.

[rawitz]

Point being, there are very real reasons why Schneider published image circles at f22... why might this be_?_

BTW, if you're serious about using a 200_ish mm lens for 8x10, the 200mm f6.8 Rodenstock Grandagon, 210mm f8 Schneider Super Angulon or 210mm f6.8 Angulon and others wide angle lenses specific formulas WILL do better than abusing and pushing the image circle of the 210mm Symmar S..
Bernice

Schneider lenses are known for being very restrictive with there lens specs, so why is it not credibly here when real users here make statements profunded in their practical work?
You wont believe, I have a Schneider Super-Angulon MC 210! As long as I can do corrections in digital post, I prefer the Symmar to the SA 210 monster. But yes for my 9x15`camera the Symmar failes and the SA 210 shines.

[Bernice Loui]

Take away your ability to do software/digital corrections.. in any way..

Then what?


Bernice

As long as I can do corrections in digital post, I prefer the Symmar to the SA 210 monster. But yes for my 9x15`camera the Symmar failes and the SA 210 shines.

[rawitz]

Take away your ability to do software/digital corrections.. in any way..

Then what?


Bernice

Take away the technic of photography - then what? We have to be a painter and all our problems are gone.

[Drew Wiley]

Anything that can be "corrected" digitally can be done so in a darkroom, often even more easily. I could cite multiple methods in this case, but personally prefer preempting even the need to jump through those extra hoops.

Don't get me wrong, rawitz - I can think of numerous other photographers whose field of view falloff strategy is very compelling in their own work. I just don't like it for mine. And intermediate digital workflow defeats the whole point anyway, since for me, real optical prints are the endpoint.

[Corran]

..."The Symmar-S 210 DOES cover 8x10 without vignetting"...

~vignetting.. kinda depends on interpretation, expectations, image goals and... Yes, your definition, expectations, demands and goals might be absolutely acceptable for you... might not be acceptable or workable at all for another... yes/no _?_


Bernice

Vignetting is defined as black corners or an area not receiving light from the lens. As stated, the 210mm Symmar-S simply does NOT vignette on 8x10.

One can argue till the cows come home about fall-off or resolution in the corners and of course that kind of thing is more subjective based on the photographers needs. Reminder that most 8x10 image makers are not making 10x enlargements, so it doesn't matter that the resolution is slightly less. Since you insist on asking constantly 'what are the image makers goals?' why would you also insist that a lens MUST give good 10x enlargement quality all the way to the corners when the photographer doesn't need anything near that _? _

[Bernice Loui]

That would be your definition of Vignetting.. and all related.

What about this definition of vignette..
"a : a picture (such as an engraving or photograph) that shades off gradually into the surrounding paper."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vignette

~Note the word "gradual"..

Question is, why would Schneider or any other view camera manufacture publish any image circle data at all if they are of zero value?



Nuff said..
Bernice

Vignetting is defined as black corners or an area not receiving light from the lens. As stated, the 210mm Symmar-S simply does NOT vignette on 8x10.

[Corran]

And your reasoning for insisting resolution allowing 10x enlargement of an 8x10 negative defines whether a lens 'covers' the format??

[rawitz]

Question is, why would Schneider or any other view camera manufacture publish any image circle data at all if they are of zero value?
Bernice

Because the Schneider lens-specs are measured and published for most professional critical work, also Schneider IC-specs for coverage and corner sharpness have to match most critical specs for prepress and others. In reality corner falloff for lightning and sharpness does not go down from 100% to zero at any fixed number. There are general standards for lens-specs like MTF-measures for 5 and 20 l/mm and illumination falloff for different apertures. Thats NOT choosend for special lenses maybe to hide construction failure or else.

[Corran]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vignette

A follow-up on this. Over the years I've seen many discussions on lens "vignetting" as well as lens "fall-off." Sometimes the language gets in the way and obfuscates the meaning.

There is clearly two scenarios for lens coverage in the corners - either a hard cut to black, with no light hitting the film, or a darkening of the corners from less exposure than intended due to angle of light, usually in reference to wide-angle lenses. This is not about resolution or anything like that, I'm just talking about light creating an image - you either don't have any light, or you have some light but not as much as in the "center" of the lens.

If we take this into account, using the two above words, I find it makes much more sense in conversation to talk about "vignetting" as hard cut to the light, and "fall-off" as being a gradual darkening but still having an image, just underexposed. The words seem very clear to me, and usually talking with other LF photographers over the years, this language is taken as fairly sensible. The "dictionary" definition I find to be irrelevant as it is for general usage, not specific. Do you have a source for authoritative definitions related to vignetting / fall-off in LF vernacular? I can crack open my copy of Adams' "Camera" later and see what he says about it.

Even if one wants to talk about specific resolution numbers or use-cases, I think it can be said that the lens definitely, no arguments, throws light onto the film all the way to the edges of 8x10, when centered on the film. This is a simple test, and empirically proven by several on this thread. Anything beyond that can be quibbled with, but it's a fact that light is hitting the film. As far as Schneider's lens coverage claim, rawitz sums it up well above.