Schneider Lenses - understanding what's what

Also see: http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/pdf_downloads.htm#foto
(Click on the 'E' buttons for English)
 >> Stay informed about: Schneider Lenses - understanding what's what 

Cheers, I once had a G-Claron which turned out to be a Friday afternoon
lens and discounted the whole make. My recent results with Rollei Schneider
lenses has made me think again.


On 1/3/05 7:21 pm, in article 1129g53bbosmi14 DeleteThis @news.supernews.com, "jjs"
<john@xstafford.net> wrote:

 >
<font color=purple> > Also see: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/pdf_downloads.htm#foto</font" target="_blank">http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/pdf_downloads.htm#foto</font</a>>
 > (Click on the 'E' buttons for English)
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Schneider Lenses - understanding what's what 

Christopher Woodhouse <chris.woodhouse RemoveThis @zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
 > Cheers, I once had a G-Claron which turned out to be a Friday afternoon
 > lens and discounted the whole make. My recent results with Rollei Schneider
 > lenses has made me think again.


Well, I own several Schneider and Rodenstock LF lenses and can't see any
major differences in quality, sharpness and contrast. The G-Clarons are
repro lenses, but I'm unable to see a difference between a negative from
a 9/150 G-Claron and a 5.6/150 Apo-Symmar, both at f22. The newer lenses
may be a little bit better, but I doubt anyone will notice this. All
modern LF lenses from the big four (Rodenstock, Schneider, Nikon, Fuji)
are so sophisticated that there are only minimal differences in quality.

Martin<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Schneider Lenses - understanding what's what 

"Martin Jangowski" <martin RemoveThis @jangowski.de> wrote in message
news:d04m1v$2nis$1@inside.p-i-n.com...
 >
 > Well, I own several Schneider and Rodenstock LF lenses and can't see any
 > major differences in quality, sharpness and contrast. The G-Clarons are
 > repro lenses, but I'm unable to see a difference between a negative from
 > a 9/150 G-Claron and a 5.6/150 Apo-Symmar, both at f22.

Both diffraction limited at f22? or close to it.

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm" target="_blank">http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Schneider Lenses - understanding what's what 

"Christopher Woodhouse" <chris.woodhouse.RemoveThis@zetnet.co.uk> wrote
in message
news:BE4A67A4.3D7E%chris.woodhouse@zetnet.co.uk...
 > I'm trying to put together some lenses for a 5x4 but am
 > puzzled by the
 > numerous names and versions of the Schneider lenses. Is
 > there a succinct
 > summary somewhere which lists the old and new versions and
 > possibly their
 > relative merit?
 >
 > Chris Woodhouse
 >
Which lenses are you particularly interested in?


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk.RemoveThis@ix.netcom.com<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Schneider Lenses - understanding what's what 

"Christopher Woodhouse" <chris.woodhouse.DeleteThis@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BE4A74ED.3D85%chris.woodhouse@zetnet.co.uk...
 > Cheers, I once had a G-Claron which turned out to be a Friday afternoon
 > lens and discounted the whole make. My recent results with Rollei
Schneider
 > lenses has made me think again.
 >

The G-Clarons are also toward the economy end of Schneider's output, though
normally they are still pretty fine when stopped down. Based on a repro.
lens design, they need to be stopped down for use at infinity.

Anyway, those Schneider lenses for the Rollei (and Exakta 66) system really
are fabulous - not surprised they encouraged you to have another look at the
rest of their product range!

My LF Schneiders are mostly Symmar-S and Super-Angulon models, and all of
them are very good. The Symmar-S is not the current version (and all but
one of my S-As not the latest either) but it performs pretty much the same
as far as I can tell.

I have two Symmars too, and they are not quite as good, but still not so as
you'd notice until you enlarge quite a lot - the biggest difference, so far
as effect on the image is concerned, is in the coating - so they need a
hood. Well, d'uh, am I going to go to the trouble of shooting LF and then
not use a hood anyway?

Finally I have a Xenotar - wonderful but very limited coverage; and two
Xenars - which I may be selling, draw your own conclusion from that. Oh,
and a Repro-Claron which is extraordinarily sharp, and some Tele-Xenars that
are not quite as sharp or contrasty as the Symmar-Ss, but far better than a
telephoto design has a right to be. (I suspect the contrast difference is
down to the older coating, rather than the design, since my T-Xs are not
young.)



Peter<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Schneider Lenses - understanding what's what