Schneider Symmar S - single- or multi-coated

[leonora_bora]

<p>Hi, I am new to LF photography and looking for a starting normal lens and I was exploring the Schneider Symmar S lenses... I was thinking of beginning with a 180mm for doing portraits.<br>

I understand that Schneider Symmar without the 'S' is not coated at all. But is it true that there are older Schneider Symmar-S that are single-coated and newer Symmar-S are multi-coated? Is there a significant difference in the quality of the image?<br>

Thanks !</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Leonora, The S does not identify the coating. Most S' were multicoated, but the early ones were not. One way to be sure is to get a MC, or multi-coated version. My original LF camera, a 5x7, came with a non coated Symmar. It had some beautiful characteristics for B&W film, but was prone to flare and ghosting. I believe the multi-coating on Schneider lenses is excellent. For most work, I wouldn't want anything but a MC lens. Also, FWIW, a 180mm is pretty wide for portraiture IMO. I'd go with a 210mm, of which there are scads of. I also own an APO 210mm, which can often be picked up for about the same price as the regular. It is noticeably sharper and more colorful.</p>

[michael_briggs2]

<p>Yes, as the other Michael stated, older Symmar-S lenses are single-coated and later ones are multi-coated. It is easy to identify multi-coated Schneider lenses because they are marked "MC" or "Multi-coating". (Perhaps some very recent lenses aren't marked, which are so recent that there would be no doubt, but I am not sure about this.) See questions 8 and 9 at Schneider's photo FAQ: http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/faq/photography.htm: "<a href="http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/faq/photography.htm#q8">When did Schneider begin multi-coating lenses?</a> " and "<a href="http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/faq/photography.htm#q9">How can I tell if my lens is multi-coated?</a> ".</p>

[dave_s]

<p>The <a href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html">Chris Perez/Kerry Thalmann lens resolution tests</a> show comparisons of different generations of Symmar (and many other lenses) under standard conditions. Their results suggest the variation between individual lenses is as important as the variation between successive lens designs, so test your lens before buying, if you can. But, of course, there's more to lens performance than just resolution.</p>

[leonora_bora]

<p>Thanks, this is helpful. What about the Nikkor W 210: are they also sometimes single coated and sometimes multi coated, Or always multi coated?</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>The 1971 Professional Photographic Catalog here for Graphics arts has Schneider Symmars from 80 to 360mm; with no -S versions.<br>

<br />The 1976 Calumet catalog here lists Symmar-S; but strangely mentions nothing about coatings at all. It also shows the House brand Caltar-S II lens; really a rebadged Symmar-S. It too mentions nothing about coatings; even a full page Caltar-S II blurb mentions many great adjectives; fine West German; greatness, no focus shifts; with zero coatings mentioned.<br>

<br />In 35mm My first multicoated lenses were Nikkors in 1973; I do not think that multicoating mania got into LF lenses into many many years later; on a case by case basis.<br>

<br />I have used Symmars in the mid 1960's that were coated; thus this blows away the -S being single coated as a telltale marker.<br>

<br />I have a 300mm F4.5 Xenar from 1965 that is single coated; an early 1950's 210mm F3.5 Xenar is single coated.<br>

<br />The ONLY LF type lenses I own a that are NOT coated are a 12cm F6.8 Angulon from 1935 and a pre WW2 process camera lens; and a 1941 127mm Ektar.</p>

<p> </p>

[sg_adams]

<p>Leonora, someone above suggested there are uncoated Symmars. Not that I know of. But there are single coated Symmars, the older type, which were dual purpose convertible having a useable rear element that made it a much longer focal length and didn't work well either way. These were single coated. The later S type were single, then multi-coated later on. The multi-caoted versions will have have MC on the outside of the lens retaining ring. You can also look up the date of a particular Schneider lens at their website. I have currently the 150mm Symmar-S single coated version and it is a very nice lens. Not quite a normal length for 4x5. 180mm is about what you would consider normal, and 210mm still isn't really a very long lens being only slightly longer than normal in this format but should make some decent portraits for you depending of course on what you intend. It might be good to have multi-coating for color if you are into contrasty images, but older large format portrait lenses still command high prices, and many of these are not coated and in fact are diffused focus. In the end though, whatever lens one chooses, it's all about lighting. </p>

[michael_briggs2]

<p>All Symmar-S lenses were coated. The issue is that early ones were single coated, while later ones were multi-coated. Schneider begin single-coating their lenses shortly after WWII. For a Symmar (no -S) to be single coated, it would have to be made earlier than roughly 1950. Notice that the first answer from the other Michael mentioned an uncoated "Symmar", not a Symmar-S. In the beginning Schneider used a red triangle to mark single-coated lenses, but this was eventually dropped because single-coating was ubiquitous. Symmar-S is after the red-triangle was dropped. Then when they switched to multi-coating, they added a "MC" or "Multi-coating" label.</p>

<p>It seems that all Nikkor LF lenses officially sold in the US were multi-coated. One rarely sees usual Nikkor LF lenses on eBay, that were never in a Nikon USA catalog -- perhaps brought by some person direct from Japan -- I don't know about those. All Nikkor-W lenses that I know of are multi-coated.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Actually, I never said they were uncoated, I said the earlier ones were not multi-coated. And I've never seen a Nikkor LF that was not multi-coated.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Here I have seen many Nikkor LF lenses that are single coated; about all I about used.<br>

I guess saying none were not multicoated is abit like dating myself; or saying cars never lacked power stearing; alternators; seatbelts or turn signals! :) At a factory eons ago in Japan; all the LF lenses were single coated. I visted a plant before multicoating came out<br>

ALL the old LF Repro Nikors I ever used were just single coated; ie Apo-Nikors. Nikon made F9 lenses from 180 to 610mm. There was a 760 and 890 F11; a 1210 F12.5 and a 1780mm F14. We used a 240mm F9 and a 360mm F9. Some of these are like a Repro-Claron; and some were made in shutter too liek the ones we owned.<br>

<br />The common as dirt 8 1/4" F4.5 1:1 copy lens for "Xerox"copy machines was made by m,any makers; often with an iris that had just a few fstops. The once made by Nikon were single coated; as were the ones made by AO; B&L; Zeiss, etc. At one time every maker was messing with these 1:1 lens.<br>

<br />As far as marking lenses for coatings'; many makers started coating lens after WW2.<br>

<br />Then for marketing reasons they added as symbol to note that the lens is single coated.<br>

<br />Then with many lenses the symbol was dropped; since it was not required for marketing.<br />When multicoating became a rage in the mid 1970's to early 1980's; lens makers again pulled out the engraver and started back adding an extra mark noting a lens is multicoated.<br>

<br />The whole symbol affair is at best murky; there are many exceptions. With Kodak the coated high end camera items before Pearl Harbour. The Bantum/828's 45mm F2 here is a low EC code from 1941; it is coated; with no coating L symbol. The 50mm F1.9 Ektar here is an EY code; it is coated with no L coating symbol. The 1945 war 127mm and 150mm ektars here are coated and have no L marking for coating. The 1945 Kodak 35 here's 50mm F3.5 here is coated; but has no L coating symbol. All the WW2 era Aero Ektars here are coated; none have any L coating symbol.<br>

<br />In Schneiders; there are just post WW2 lenses that are coated that are not marked; then they marked them; then say a decade? later it was old hat and they did no mark them for coating.<br />Then when multicotaing came out in the mid 1970's the whole marking gig started again.</p>

[michael_briggs2]

<p>Michael Axel: your first message: "came with a non coated Symmar". That doesn't say "not multi-coated", it says uncoated. Maybe you meant "not multi-coated".</p>

<p>Kelly: I agree with you: I wrote "all Nikkor LF lenses officially sold in the US were multi-coated" and mentioned the existence of other LF Nikkors unofficially imported. My statement applied to "LF" lenses, i.e., sold for use on Large Format cameras for general photography, not Apo-Nikkors sold for as process lenses for the printing / reproduction trades.</p>

[leonora_bora]

<p>Thank you all !! I think I will try to ask every seller if the lens is multi coated before I buy. I would also try to invest in a APO lens.<br>

thanks again for all the responses</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Michael; when in Japan I saw some pre WW2 1/4 plate and other LF cameras that used lenses made by early Nikon that were not even coated. The whole repro/graphics/process arena is abit obscure too and not well documented; thus odd lens variants pop up at times! At a camera store in Ventura Calif they had a WW2 gun camera on tripod for recording ground gunners to fire at planes that had a Nikon made lens.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Michael, My apologies. Right you are. I didn't intend that.</p>

[sg_adams]

<p>I thought that was what you meant Michael. I was just trying to clarify. My old Symmar 135/235 had a beautiful single coating, but the lens was just crap even at 135; the 235 tand alone rear element being pretty much unuseable (this was an excellent condition Linhof Sellect). My later non convertible 150-S single coated lens is a real nice lens and plenty contrasty. Not the same animal by any stretch. <br>

Kelly, yeah, the coated uncoated Ektar syndrome and whether they are marked with the little L for Luminized is a crap shoot. One needs to just look at the glass. I have coated and uncoated Ektars, a bunch and some Anastigmats, and it sort of boggles the mind what they were doing. I wonder if you didn't just get what you got in the early 1940's. On the other hand, it was a transitional period and also war time. The uncoated Kodak optics I use, and some other Cooke, and Wollensak stuff, are really nice glass and usually make superb photographs. </p>

[steve_hamley]

<p>The very first Symmars were a Dagor design and most, if not all were uncoated. A friend of mine has one.</p>

<p>Cheers, Steve</p>

[dave_s]

<p><em>A propos</em> old Symmars, have a look at <a href="http://cgi.ebay.ca/SCHNEIDER-DAGOR-135mm-F6-8-convertible-lens-6x9-4x5-5x7_W0QQitemZ250564740426QQcmdZViewItemQQptZAU_FILM_CAMERAS?hash=item3a56d2854a">this 1950 example</a> on the hated auction site right now. It's coated, as indicated by the red triangle, but it's a triple convertible.</p>

<p>The seller has misleadingly labeled it a Dagor, perhaps in the hope/belief that it will net him a higher price. I don't know whether they had Dagor-type cemented design in 1950, or whether they had morphed into airspaced plasmats by then. Interesting old relic, anyway.</p>

[michael_briggs2]

<p>The text and photos clearly identify the lens as a Symmar, with focal lengths 135 (f6.8), 260 (f13) & 210 (f12). The seller is asserting that the lens is of the Dagor design, rather then the plasmat design of later Symmars and (X-)Symmar(-Y) lenses -- with a great deal of hype. The serial number of 2437xxx gives the late 1950 date (http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/age_of_lenses/).</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Does it really matter? The Symmar design, and the Nikkor-W for that matter, has only 8 air-glass surfaces and is very resistant to flare. The difference between no coating and single coating is quite marked. That between single and multi-coating is marginal, and if you use good technique - i.e. a properly adjusted compendium hood - the difference is almost non-existent.</p>

<p>Also, unless you're buying a lens without actually seeing it, the different colour of the coatings is very easy to spot, and the general condition of the lens can have much more effect on its IQ than the tiny difference between single and multi-coating.</p>

<p>Schneider did produce a Dagor design under the Symmar name in the 1930s and 40s, but AFAIK by 1950 they had changed all their Symmar lens range to a convertible "Plasmat" design. The later Symmar-S was a non-convertible design with supposedly superior performance, but your technique and focusing would have to be spot on to see any real difference between a Symmar and Symmar-S if both were in mint condition.</p>

[wentbackward]

<p>I have an old 150mm Symmar-S from the late 70's I think, with a scratch in the coating on the rear element I've shot it direct into low sun with no flare or loss of contrast. No idea if it's single coated or multicoated, but there's a coating on it. It's my most used LF lens.</p>