nube question SCHNEIDER SYMMAR-S 210MM

[Bryan Harvey]

Hi,
It seems most references to this lens on the boards are for 4x5 format. Would this lens work for 8x10? Im looking to buy my first lenses as I jump into 8x10 photography. The other one I have researched is the
Schneider G Claron 210mm f9. The used market price on these is so close I would think the 5.6 multi-coated symmar would be a better choice. What do you think?

thanks!

Bryan Harvey

[IanG]

No, the 240mm Symmar will though.

A Symmar will always be a better choice over a repro lens, it's optimised for camera use.

Ian

[MIke Sherck]

The 210mm Symmar-S won't cover the entire 8x10 negative. The G-Claron will, just.

Mike

[Kevin Klazek]

I have a Symmar-S 210 and it just covers 8X10 with no movements. It covers much better on 5x7 and 4x5. I do not have a g-claron 210, but others on this form indicate it covers 8x10 when stopped down with some limited degree of movement. The g-claron would seem the better choice. The 240 g-claron will cover with moderate movements and is pretty close in perspective to a 210. I doubt you would be able to tell the difference in a print between the symmar and g-claron.

Kevin

[Brian Ellis]

The 210mm Symmar-S won't cover the entire 8x10 negative. The G-Claron will, just.

Mike

I don't think that's entirely correct. I used a 210 G Claron for several years and it covered 8x10 with room for movements as long as you stop down to f16 or smaller (which of course you'd normally be doing with 8x10 anyhow). With the G Claron the more you stop down the larger the usable image circle becomes. So at f64, for example, there's quite a lot of room for movements. Sorry I can't quantify it better than "quite a lot" but I never tested, I just used the lens. Diffraction isn't a problem if you're contact printing and probably isn't a realistic problem with an 8x10 negative at any reasonable enlargement size. I don't recall ever running out of room for movements using the 210 G Claron for the landscape and architecture photography I mostly do.

[Ole Tjugen]

It's one of those "yes, but" questions.

I wouldn't hesitate to use a 210mm Symmar on 18x24cm (at least not if I had left the 210mm Angulon behind), just as I wouldn't hesitate to use a 121mm Super Angulon on 18x24cm. I would look hard at other options on 8x10" though - but realistically I would have brought other lenses, except when I want to try out the coverage.

So from someone who has a habit of "stretching the image circle" just to see what will happen: No, a 210mm f:5.6 plasmat won't cover 8x10". An f:9 plasmat might. A tessar won't, a dagor might, some reverse dagors will.

[Kirk Fry]

Ole, I have a 21cm pre WWI ~1910 Zeiss Tessar f 6.8 #2776XX that at least lights up the corners of a 8X10. No idea if there is an image, as I remember I though there was on the ground glass. :-)

K

[Mark Sawyer]

I tried a 210 Symmar on my 8x10 once, and no, it didn't cover. The 210 G-Claron will, and is a fairly popular 8x10 lens. Funny thing is, Schneider lists the G-Claron as having 260mm of coverage, and the Symmar as having 297mm. Go figure...

A 210mm f/6.8 Dagor will cover, but some are soft at the corners and all tend to be expensive.

My recommendation would be an f/4.8 215mm Acuton (aka Caltar S), a plasmat which covers 8x10 with a bit left for movements, is sharp to the edges, very bright, comes in a nice shutter, converts (with a factory scale) to a nice 360mm, and tends to go for $150 or so on ebay. I like mine every bit as much as my 210mm Gold-Rim Dagor, which is a lovely, lovely lens.

[Ole Tjugen]

... Funny thing is, Schneider lists the G-Claron as having 260mm of coverage, and the Symmar as having 297mm. Go figure...

That's Schneider employing different criteria for "coverage".

The Symmar is a "landscape distance lens", which implies "coverage with sufficient sharpness for landscape work".

The G-Claron is a repro lens, which implies that coverage is derived from the coverage at 1:1 which is consistent with high precision repro work. That is invariably smaller than "landscape coverage", since it is among other things limited by distortion. 0.4% distortion won't be noticed in landscape or other "distance work", but is completely unacceptable in repro work.

[Mark Sawyer]

At 1:1, the lens would be out twice as far from the film plane... so by Schneider's repro criteria, the G-Claron wouldn't even cover 4x5 (acceptably) at infinity! (Not that it was meant to be used that way anyways...)

In (small p) pictorial photography, I guess we've lowered our standards...