Schneider APO Symmar 240mm - Your thoughts, please!

[Lachlan 717]

Hi to all!

Try as I might, I have been unable to find any reviews, tests et al on the APO Symmar 240mm.

I know that its little brother/sister, the APO Symmar 210mm, is one of the sharpest infinity (1:20+) lenses around, and I'm hoping that the 240mm is similar.

Can anyone please let me know how this lens performs, primarily for landscape work?

Thanks in advance,

Lachlan Hefferman,
Melbourne, Australia.

[Sheldon N]

The 240mm is a good sharp lens, like any APO Symmar. It's also a BIG heavy lens.

For landscape shooting (read hiking) I'd look at the Fuji 240mm A f/9. It's probably cheaper, I'm pretty sure it's as sharp or sharper, and it is about 1/3 of the weight.

[Lachlan 717]

For landscape shooting (read hiking) I'd look at the Fuji 240mm A f/9. It's probably cheaper, I'm pretty sure it's as sharp or sharper, and it is about 1/3 of the weight.

Thanks for that.

Can you please clarify what the Fujinon is like at infinity? I was led to believe that it was a process lens, primarily designed for 1:5 and closer work...

[Joerg Krusche]

Hi,

if maximum sharpness at infinity and across the entire field is your concern .. then you should go with the Apo Symmar or equivalent (Apo Sironar or etc.) .. the Apo Symmar stopped down to f=9 is acc. to my experience superior to process plasmats like Fujinon A, Germinar-W, G-Claron at f=9 ...and this holds true certainly to f=16 .. the more you stop down .. i.e. f=22 or more .. the more performance will be identical. The process plasmats are a very good and attractive compromise with regard to performance from 1:1 to infinity (stopped down) .. and if weight is of major importance.

If max performance at infinity from wide open to f=16 is most important for you then go with the Apo Symmar .. and accept the extra weight .. keeping in mind that it is just a small percentage of the total weight of your equipment .. knowing that lens performance is one of the determining factors ... if on the other hand weight is a prime concern .. and the good overall compromise a f=9 process plasmat does offer is attractive for you .. then go with the last one .. whatever your choice.. both are good decisions.

Best

Joerg

[Sheldon N]

The Fuji 240mm A is absolutely, unequivocally, wickedly sharp at infinity. I have the 150mm Rodenstock APO Sironar-S, one of the sharpest lenses out there, and my Fuji 240 is equally as sharp.

I agree with Jorge that if you shoot the Fuji 240 wide open or at f/11 and the APO Symmar stopped down to f/9 or f/11, the APO Symmar may be better. However, most realistic landscape shooting apertures are between f/16 and f/32 and in this range the Fuji is as good or better.

Look at the resolution tests done here ...

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testin...0mm_thru_270mm

Both copies of the Fuji 240mm A tested better than 210mm APO Symmar as well as two different 210mm Rodenstock APO Sironar-S lenses, when looking out towards the edges of the frame at f/22. Edge performance is more important to you, since you are shooting a wider 6x17 format.

I guess my point is that there's no need to spend more money on a heavier lens when your intent is landscape photography.

[Daniel_Buck]

For landscapes, I've been using a 240 g-claron 4x5 and 8x10. Even when using filters (color and polarizer stacked) I get movement on 8x10. And it's a nice light lens! For landscapes (assuming you are hiking?) I would give this lens a look if weight is a consern. I can't confirm that it would fit 6x17, but It does seem to have a very large coverage. Sorry, don't mean to move away from the lens you were asking about.

[Ron Marshall]

What Kerry Thalmann says about the Fujinnon 240:

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm

[Sheldon N]

For landscapes, I've been using a 240 g-claron 4x5 and 8x10. Even when using filters (color and polarizer stacked) I get movement on 8x10. And it's a nice light lens! For landscapes (assuming you are hiking?) I would give this lens a look if weight is a consern. I can't confirm that it would fit 6x17, but It does seem to have a very large coverage. Sorry, don't mean to move away from the lens you were asking about.

I think the OP is shooting 6x17 cm, not 6x17 inches, so the G-Claron would have ample coverage for the format.

[Daniel_Buck]

I think the OP is shooting 6x17 cm, not 6x17 inches, so the G-Claron would have ample coverage for the format.

ooh, cm not inches. oh yea, then the g-claron would have miles of extra coverage! I would see no reason to lug a huge heavy lens for that then, the claron would do nicely I'm not sure how it's performance is wide open (I hear the clarons aren't good at wide open stuff?) but stopped to 22 it's nice and sharp. On a smaller camera, I would think it better to get a lighter weight lens. Even on my 8x10, a big 360mm lens isn't as easy to use (or carry, haha!) as a lighter lens. As soon as I loosen the rise/fall, the lens wants to shoot straight down on me, I imagine on a smaller camera it would be even more difficult.

[audioexcels]

ooh, cm not inches. oh yea, then the g-claron would have miles of extra coverage! I would see no reason to lug a huge heavy lens for that then, the claron would do nicely I'm not sure how it's performance is wide open (I hear the clarons aren't good at wide open stuff?) but stopped to 22 it's nice and sharp. On a smaller camera, I would think it better to get a lighter weight lens. Even on my 8x10, a big 360mm lens isn't as easy to use (or carry, haha!) as a lighter lens. As soon as I loosen the rise/fall, the lens wants to shoot straight down on me, I imagine on a smaller camera it would be even more difficult.

Does it have to be a 240 lens or is 210 good enough? Another one to look into is the Fujinon 250/F6.3 I believe it is in a smaller sized Copal 1? and it has plenty of IC. They aren't as expensive as the others mentioned (aside from the single coated Claron) and they are a modern multi-coated design.

BTW, that 360 is a beast, and a beauty. I would never use such a beast, but it ranks up there as one of the finest pieces of glass I have ever seen...just never on a camera would it go...