[Asking for advices] The very first 150 mm lens to buy

[Mark Sampson]

It's worth remembering that all these lenses were made for a demanding professional market, and there are very few (if any) poor-quality ones.
Certainly the lenses you mention are among the very best ever made- but almost any 150mm lens made since WWII can provide excellent results. That assumes clean glass and a properly working shutter, of course.

[Alan Klein]

I bought a Schneider APO Symmar 150mm as my first lens too through eBay from Japan from a dealer who had a good reputation. No Schneideritis; I refuse to buy one with it regardless of what others say. At a minimum, it will be harder to resell later and probably for less than ones without it.

Here are Schneider serial number vs dates.
https://ground-glass.net/schneider-lenses-age/

Here are my sample shots with the lens on my Chamonix 4x5 camera.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=...N05&view_all=1

[tundra]

It's worth remembering that all these lenses were made for a demanding professional market, and there are very few (if any) poor-quality ones.
Certainly the lenses you mention are among the very best ever made- but almost any 150mm lens made since WWII can provide excellent results. That assumes clean glass and a properly working shutter, of course.

That's really true Mark. I have a 210mm f/6.8 Caltar-II (which I think is a rebranded Rodenstock Geronar). Hardly the very best of the very best, and it's a superb shooter. Probably my most used 4x5 lens. I also have some ancient 65mm Super Angulons, the f/8 for 2x3 and the f/5.6 for 4x5 and - again - they work really well.

In my view, the most overlooked "normal" lens for 4x5 - with admittedly limited capacity for camera movement - is the 127mm f/ 4.7 Ektar. These lenses were a staple for the 4x5 Speed/Crown Graphics and are widely available for little money. They are superb shooters, as is their longer cousin the 203mm f/7.7 Ektar.

I know I vastly overestimated the need for huge lens coverage when I first started buying lenses decades ago. And, sure, if you're doing complex product tabletop of intricate architectural work, you need it. For the the majority of what I actually shoot, I need coverage for a little rise and a bit of front or back tilt. That's it. Both the Ektars do that quite nicely, thank you.

[tundra]

I bought a Schneider APO Symmar 150mm as my first lens too through eBay from Japan from a dealer who had a good reputation. No Schneideritis; I refuse to buy one with it regardless of what others say. At a minimum, it will be harder to resell later and probably for less than ones without it.

Here are Schneider serial number vs dates.
https://ground-glass.net/schneider-lenses-age/

Here are my sample shots with the lens on my Chamonix 4x5 camera.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=...N05&view_all=1

I have had really uneven results buying from Japan. A lot of what they flog on eBay as "Mint+" is stuff that's been "repaired" by the seller and often not well. I've had several examples of items - expensive items - that looked good but clearly had been inexpertly fiddled with, one to the point of inoperability.

I have also found the Japanese sellers tend - on average - to price goods in the stratosphere.

So, if people want to buy from Japan, I recommend:

- Always read the detailed description carefully. I've seen lenses listed as "Mint+5" that are described to have "some fungus and separation".

- Only do business with sellers willing to take the item back and pay for the costs of return international shipping.

- Only do business with sellers that have very high feedback satisfaction ratings.

[Lachlan 717]

G Claron 150mm in shutter.

Konica Hexanon GRII 150mm in barrel.

Save some $$$ and put it towards film/processing.

Good lens shading will produce better results with a cheaper lens than paying more and not shading. Technique is an underrated component of LF.

[Alan9940]

When considering which is the "best" lens, it's worth considering, too, the final use of your image. If posting on social media, etc, any 150mm lens in acceptable condition would suffice. If you plan to make prints, what size? I doubt anyone could tell the difference between any modern 150mm lens at up to 16x20". If you plan to produce billboards, it would probably be best to consider the most recent choices from the top manufacturers. IMO, sharpness is overrated. Have you ever seen an Ansel Adams enlargement up close? Hardly tact sharp by today's standards. Does it matter? Not to me.

[paulbarden]

When considering which is the "best" lens, it's worth considering, too, the final use of your image. If posting on social media, etc, any 150mm lens in acceptable condition would suffice. If you plan to make prints, what size? I doubt anyone could tell the difference between any modern 150mm lens at up to 16x20". If you plan to produce billboards, it would probably be best to consider the most recent choices from the top manufacturers. IMO, sharpness is overrated. Have you ever seen an Ansel Adams enlargement up close? Hardly tact sharp by today's standards. Does it matter? Not to me.

Excellent advice here. Some of my best lenses ("best" for my usage and desired results) cost me under $150, in shutter. My 6&3/8" Kodak Anastigmat is one of my absolute favorites for 5x7 work. It cost me $65 in a working shutter. It produces excellent images.

Spending the maximum amount you can will have a greater effect on how you feel about what you're doing, and far less effect on the quality of the work you produce. There is such a thing as too much sharpness - more is not always more.

[Greg]

I once aquired a lens cheaply because it had a brown haze to it. Well it turns out it came from a smokers house and after removing the elements the "haze" completely wiped off.

Once bought (at a bargain price) a 4x5 Sinar Norma with a 210mm lens that survived a studio fire. Camera and lens both were covered with a black "haze". After carefully cleaning both, the camera turned out to be in mint minus condition, and the lens almost like new - glass was scratchless. For my 150mm I chose a FUJI... price was totally a bargain and the lens turned out to be exceptionally sharp.

[Drew Wiley]

I'll personally try to cut you off at the pass. Why a 150? Go even just a little longer, like to a 180, and you'll be able to choose among affordable lenses with significantly bigger images circles.

"Schneideritis" isn't unique to Schneider brand lenses, but can potentially occur with any brand over time. Since it' something only superficial affecting the perimeter edge cement, it rarely has any negative effect on the image itself anyway. It might, however, be a secondary symptom of a very heavily used lens. Flaws between lens elements like fungus are a different story.

Any later plastmat lenses from the "big four" (Schneider, Rodenstock, Fuji, and Nikon) are going to be largely comparable and all excellent. Japanese-made large format lenses have equalled or sometimes even bettered German ones for decades now. So I wouldn't worry much about the distinction between brands per se. The Schneider Symmar S series is older, so you need to be a little more careful with condition issues. These can provide lovely results, but the look is a tiny bit less contrasty and clinically sharp than the later "apo" versions from Germany or equivalent Fuji offerings. The "apo" labeling of general purpose taking lenses is basically a marketing tweak or ploy anyway, and doesn't imply fully the same thing as an "apo" designation for graphics lenses.

No need to overthink all this. It's hard to go wrong with the major brands. Rather, focus on the condition of both the optics and the shutter, along with what best matches your own budget.

As far as Japanese vendors go - I've personally had superb results from Japan, fairly price and very rapidly shipped, so disagree with Tundra's stereotype of them. But his cautionary pointers are certainly valid. You always want to read the fine print in any listing, and double check to see that the description matches the picture. And Mint should not mean scuffs and scratches. But you might hedge your bets by buying from someone trusted on this forum, like Kumar.

[Alan Klein]

I'll personally try to cut you off at the pass. Why a 150? Go even just a little longer, like to a 180, and you'll be able to choose among affordable lenses with significantly bigger images circles.

"Schneideritis" isn't unique to Schneider brand lenses, but can potentially occur with any brand over time. Since it' something only superficial affecting the perimeter edge cement, it rarely has any negative effect on the image itself anyway. It might, however, be a secondary symptom of a very heavily used lens. Flaws between lens elements like fungus are a different story.

Any later plastmat lenses from the "big four" (Schneider, Rodenstock, Fuji, and Nikon) are going to be largely comparable and all excellent. Japanese-made large format lenses have equalled or sometimes even bettered German ones for decades now. So I wouldn't worry much about the distinction between brands per se. The Schneider Symmar S series is older, so you need to be a little more careful with condition issues. These can provide lovely results, but the look is a tiny bit less contrasty and clinically sharp than the later "apo" versions from Germany or equivalent Fuji offerings. The "apo" labeling of general purpose taking lenses is basically a marketing tweak or ploy anyway, and doesn't imply fully the same thing as an "apo" designation for graphics lenses.

No need to overthink all this. It's hard to go wrong with the major brands. Rather, focus on the condition of both the optics and the shutter, along with what best matches your own budget.

As far as Japanese vendors go - I've personally had superb results from Japan, fairly price and very rapidly shipped, so disagree with Tundra's stereotype of them. But his cautionary pointers are certainly valid. You always want to read the fine print in any listing, and double check to see that the description matches the picture. And Mint should not mean scuffs and scratches. But you might hedge your bets by buying from someone trusted on this forum, like Kumar.

Could the Schneideritis add less contrast or additional "fogging" light as light reflects off the Schneideritis whites on the barrel into the lens?