100mm Schneider Symmar F5.6

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread

I am looking for a relatively inexpensive lens to start playing with my new LF camera. The lens that came with the camera has a non functioning shutter. I have done some research and have come to the conclusion that something in the 90-150 range is what I want to start with. I have called various dealers and have been persuaded by one that a 100mm Schneider Symmar F5.6 would be a good value starter, not a lot of movement on 5 X 4 but good quality and value (139ukp). I cant find much on this lens in any of the 5X4 forums which worries me a little... Has anyone experience of this lens on 5X4 ?

Thanks, in advance


-- David Tolcher (davidjt@btinternet.com), August 13, 2001


It does not cover 4x5

-- Bob Salomon (bobsalomon@mindspring.com), August 13, 2001.

Bob, thks - I guess that covers why !!


-- David Tolcher (davidjt@btinternet.com), August 13, 2001.

Hi Dave

Bob has right it dosn`t cover 4x5 inch it only covers 9x12cm with 3mm for shift and the diameter is stated as 145mm at f22 in my brochure from Schneider. Thies lens is only usefull for 6x9cm. So safe the mony for a 135mm or a 150mm lens thad really covers 4x5! Good luck!

-- Armin Seeholzer (armin.seeholzer@smile.ch), August 13, 2001.

Dave, I use dthe 100mm apo symmar on 6x9 - super sharp!! But I have to agree with Bob et al that it certainly won't cover 5x4. Have you thought of a replacement shutter unit (if the glass is in good condition) or a new 150 apo symmar can be had from Robert White for a approx 350. Regards Paul

-- paul owen (paulowen_2000@yahoo.com), August 13, 2001.

Thanks all, it looks like I was being misled by the salesman - which surprises me for a reputable LF store. I asked several times about coverage and was assured that it would cover but with very little movements. I did a google search while I was on the phone to the guy and found the technical sheet which didnt list 5X4 and asked..... time to find a new store :-) To be fair he did want me to spend another 50ukp but dont they always ?

-- David Tolcher (davidjt@btinternet.com), August 13, 2001.


Exercise some patience and get the scratch together for the sensational Super-Symmar XL 110mm 1:5.6

Failing that you could try for a second hand 120mm Super Anglon or Nikkor, or a 115mm Grandagon.

These lenses will really open up the outstanding capabilitiesof working with an adjustable camera.

Since you're in the UK you might try Robert White in Poole or Linhof & Studio in London.

Cheers ... Walter

-- Walter Glover (walterg@netaus.net.au), August 13, 2001.

How about a 135mm. They are inexpensive and they cover. This is my favorate focal length for landscapes. The G-claron 150mm is even cheaper. It is very small and light, and is great for macro.

-- William Marderness (wmarderness@hotmail.com), August 13, 2001.

An update, the lens arrived in the post this morning and I must say that there is no vignetting at all on 5X4 and looks sharp corner to corner. The lens was actually a symmar-S and has linhof engraved on it, I dont know whether this makes any difference. I will try some plates this afternoon and see what comes out.



-- David Tolcher (davidjt@btinternet.com), August 15, 2001.

The current Apo Symmar(72) coverage 145mm circle at f22 which does not cover 4x5" fully according to Schneider.

The Symmar S was also rated at 145mm as was the Symmar 100mm.

-- Bob Salomon (bobsalomon@mindspring.com), August 15, 2001.

The current Apo Symmar(72) coverage 145mm circle at f22 which does not cover 4x5" fully according to Schneider.

The Symmar S was also rated at 145mm as was the Symmar 100mm.

Check your coverage with film. Not the naked eye.

-- Bob Salomon (bobsalomon@mindspring.com), August 15, 2001.

I processed my first negs this morning with the 100mm schneider and apart for processing defects and scatches from getting the film out of the holder was pretty pleased.

Perhaps I need some help on coverage - the neg is even to the naked eye from corner to corner in density terms. Does coverage mean area of sharpness expected or even illumination of the negative? I had expected a smaller area of sharpness than illumination.

Sorry if I am labouring this a little.

Best regards


-- David Tolcher (davidjt@btinternet.com), August 18, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ