Is Apo-Symmar L 210 an Upgrade?

The Schneider Optics website has the modulation diagrams for both the

Apo-Symmar 210 and its replacement, the Apo Symmar L 210. Does this

data indicate that the replacement is inferior in performance?

I noticed that too. The L version supposedly has wider coverage, but when overlaying the MTF curves it is not obvious that that is the case.

I have seen the same. I won't say its inferior, just not really that much better, but the old Apo-Symmar was one of the best lenses to start with. I think the reason can be found here (quote from the View Camera Store web site): "The Apo-Symmar-"L" series of lenses replaces the well-proven original Apo-Symmar. As some glass types have been phased out for environmental reasons, new designs with substitute formations were necessary. Seizing the opportunity, Schneider-Kreuznach has now completely re-designed this successful, all-purpose lens to bring it up to the current state-of-the-art of lens design and fabrication......" I think the 2nd sentence states the real reason.

Here is an overlay graph of the 150mm Apo-Symmar L, Apo-Symmar, and Apo-Sironar S MTF curves at f/22 and 1:10 (I only have MTF curves at 1:10 for the Apo-Sironar S). Little bumps in the curves are from the tracking of the scanned graphs and not original.<div></div>

kinda on topic- but about coverage.

 

I noticed that schneider posts the "vintage lens data" but to make the

newer lenses look a little better, the measure the coverage of the

older glass (eg:symmars) at F16, and the APO symmars at F22.

 

maybe that was the older way, but it has probably fooled some people

into thinking that the older glass was smallish in the coverage

departmen

Being a cheapskate Schneider convertible user, I think it's because there are only so many LF shooters. No new sales, bad for business.

New better, faster, bigger lens, good for business.

I don't think the lens can only be judged by MTF chart. I now own both Apo-Symmar L 150 and 210, and I am quite happy with them. The 150 is particularly sharp.

Good job Arne!

 

My reading of the graphs is that the Apo-Symmar and Apo-Symmar-L are essentially identical and the Apo-Sironar-S very slightly better. I doubt that the apparent superiority of the Apo-Sironar-S is significant: the difference is slight and we can't be sure that Rodenstock and Schneider use exactly the same procedures in generating their MTF curves.

 

The main thing I read from Arne's graph is that Schneider's specified greater coverage for the Apo-Symmar-L compared to the Apo-Symmar is not supported by Schneider's own MTF graphs. Over the distance from optical axis range for which Schneider provides data for both lenses, the two are essentially identical. My guess is that if we had the data for the Apo-Symmar (blue curve) out to the 116 mm radius of the Apo-Symmar-L (red curve), it still wouldn't be different -- it is a small extrapolation. Perhaps the claimed greater coverage of the Apo-Symmar-L versus the Apo-Symmar is the result of a marketing need to match the advertised coverage of the Apo-Sironar-S.

 

In any case, all three lenses are superb and one won't go wrong with any of them.

I suspect that the Apo-Symmar L are optically the same, but that the greater coverage is due to less mechanical vignetting. The main change seems to be a larger front filter size, and matching rear filter size.

I am sure they did change the glasses, not just the mount. I know that Zeiss redesigned or had to redesign the 38mm Biogon for the Alpa for the very same reason - certain glasses are now longer available.

 

Michael, thanks ;-). One additional remark as to why the curves end at different points: I used the 1:10 curves because that is the only one available for the Apo-Sironar S. For that one, Rodenstocks graph shows the curves out to 75/2°=37.5 degrees, with the x-axis calibrated for the image circle at 1:10. Schneider provides MTF data for three different scales including 1:10, but the x-axis is only as long as the specified angle for an infinity image circle. If I had an infinity graph for the Apo-Sironar S, that one and the Apo-Symmar L should end at the same value. Still, extrapolating the curves a little bit should not be too difficult.

 

I don't want to bash Schneider here. I am really glad that they continue bringing out new designs for us. All three lens lines are of exceptional quality. And environmental reasons to use different glasses are perfectly valid.

Here are the 2 150mm Apo-Symmars at infinity (at 5, 10, and 20 lp/mm) according to Schneiders data. One could say that the tangential MTF curves (dotted line) extend a little bit further out, but its pretty marginal.

Hi Arne

 

Thanks for your interesting work.

Could you also do the same with the 210mm Apo Symmar? I think in thad focal lenghts the Apo symmar was always known as a bit sharper then the Rodenstock S 210mm!

I'm living here in Switzerland and so not to far from Munich where Rodenstock is living. There where maybe 4-6 years ago rumors thad Rodenstock buys Schneider or visa - versa, I don't remember exactly what was stated in thad newspaper article anymore, but as you know Rodenstock lens division is now in the linos group so this was a change on the Rodenstock side.

And since then they stoped producing the Imagons and the Ronars, and the focus is this days on the building of new digital lenses!

And Schneider will stop the G Glaron Series so we are losing some good workhorses forever!

Good light and sharp lenses for all!

Here is the 210mm at 1:10 and f/22. The bumps are due to tracking problems and are not original.<div></div>

I forgot to mention: the curves are for 10lp/mm

I had a chance to learn the details you are interested in Directly from the company last fall and "modern standards of fabrication issue" is as follows; West Germany passed stricter environmental laws which had to do with the metals that could now be allowed in the process of lens grinding, polishing and coating etc... that is what happened the L actually stands for "large" as in LF.

 

I believe what happened was that everyone had to change the process but Schneider used the opportunity to also upgrade the design.

 

While they are not aspheric as the super symmar xl's they have been able to enhance the angle of cut and polish of the process which was previously impossible and this has been facilitated by the use of computer programs and use of glass and polishing materials which allow this.

 

While you are all correct in that the spec sheet data is quite similar there were drastic improvements in the design and relationship of the elements, I have no idea if it is superior regarding the actual enlarged coverage but from tests that I have made with the old apo 120 and also with both old and new 150 L .The new L distorts less in every regard whether barrel distortion

or at the edges etc, how much less I have no idea , and longer lenses

always distort less and compress more, but since I deal mostly with 80mm to 150 it was important to me to verify that the improvements were there and it wasn't just hype, and what I would say is that the wider the lens the more noticeable are the improvements.

For example I found that a portrait taken on 4x5 with the old 120 had more of a wide angle look and with the new L it was more of a wider more normal lens, marginal yes (as it was stated earlier the old one was pretty good already), but useful at least in normal to wide lenses which I tested.

 

As far as the Schneider versus Rodenstock S I think they are both magnificent lenses, the Rodenstock is more contrasty I have the 150 apo s and its a great lens too and the apo L more normal contrast.

 

If I had to choose one over the other I would test them with the film/ development process and printing of choice to decide which fits best as one of the variables in that trilogy but ultimately Rodenstock and

Schneider can be considered as both being great and if they don't produce superior results to each other, they do produce clearly visible differences( feel), and I would decide based on the results.

 

I found that the new apo L design provides overall results which look (less optical and more real) so I use them to shoot people and I use the Apo sironar S to shoot small still life because its more snappy.

 

Regarding the business aspect of it all I know they spent a fortune in the research but then never announced the improvements openly.

 

I faced this question last year and had no answers until I had to pry them out of the tech guys, Schneider could have made a fortune if they would have marketed the data, instead they chose to introduce it and let the users decide.

Finally I know it is costing them much more to make the new model yet it may even retail for less than the Sironar which is a design several years old.