80 mm Makro-symmar

[pete_biro]

Hi,

 

Done some searcing but cant find the answer. Very quick Q: Are the

makro-symmar series of lenses no good for general use and at infinity?

Or, is it just fine (but perhaps not perfectly optimal?)? I was

thinking an 80mm might be great for wide angle scenic + macro.

 

thanks

 

Pete

[michael_briggs2]

Schneider states the coverage of the 80 mm Makro-Symmar HM as 160 mm diameter at 1:1. The aperture isn't stated but f22 would be a typical value.

 

Compared to focusing a lifesize image (1:1), to focus on infinity the lens would be half the distance to the film. Ignoring any variation of the optical corrections with conjugate ratio, the coverage would be proportionally reduced, i.e., halved to 80 mm diameter. So it is unlikely that the lens would cover 4x5 when focused at infinity.

 

Schneider's brochure suggests use of the lens from 1:4 to 4:1 and gives coverage figures for this range of reproduction ratios. At 1:4 the coverage is 100 mm, suitable for 6x9 cm but not 4x5 inch.

[dave_s]

IIRC, in one of the Calumet catalogues from the mid-80s there was a review in which someone compared a Macro-Symmar with a 'conventional' Symmar, probably a Symmar-S. The Macro-Symmar performed well for distant objects, but I think it was at least a 150 or a 210. If anyone's interested, I'll see if I can dig up the catalogue.

 

If the 80/5.6 only covers 160mm at 1:1, I'd suggest you could get comparable macro results much cheaper, using a second-hand process or enlarging lens, but some of you know more about this than I do.

[pete_biro]

Thanks to all!

[dave_s]

Update: the review I remembered (see above) was actually of a 210 Makro-Sironar. (Sorry, I'm old.) For distant subjects (landscapes), it performed comparably to a 210 Sironar-N. I don't know whether this can be generalized to Schneider's Macro-Symmar.