schneider symmer S lenses made for linhof

**Kevin Crisp** · 16-Apr-2002, 11:27

I can't agree with Colin that the original Symmars are only suitable for "moody" low contrast photography. I've used the 135, 150, 180 and the 210. All were excellent and to discover sharpness differences (relative to APO's) I had to construct a test which didn't relate to anything I actually use a lens for. If you have the sun in your picture or just off axis, yes, the multicoated ones are better, of course. You pay for that. Differences in contrast in other situations are not so dramatic and often are not noticeable.

**Wayne_6692** · 16-Apr-2002, 20:12

Ted - The Germinar's, Claron's, and Ronar's all switch to #3 shutters at 360mm - but at 300/305mm they are all still in #1's. It makes a BIG difference. The Fuji's (as you know) stick with the #1 up to 450mm. But at 300mm there's only an ounce or two difference between the aforementioned lenses (except the 305 Claron, which is heavier than the rest). Even an Artar in a #2 isn't all that bad. If you ever hear of one of the mythical 300mm or 360mm A's being available feel free to drop me a line. :^)

**Quentin Bargate** · 17-Apr-2002, 05:02

I have a Symmar-S 150mm F5,6 maked "SINAR". I assume this too may be a "selected lens"? It seems pretty sharp. -- Quentin

**Colin Carron** · 17-Apr-2002, 17:52

Just to respond to Kevin...

Yes I agree the original symmar is a good useable lens but for someone in Ahmed's situation the Symmar-S or Apo-Symmar would be better. One of the problems with the original Symmar is the number of air / glass surfaces which by this time are often 'multicoated' with a fine grime. Careful cleaning cures this but requires a complete dismantling of the front cell.

I have a Symmar 150/f5.6 and it went with me to Venice recently and did itself credit. But relatively...

Colin