Makro-Symmar HM 120mm

RobertOToole · Post by **RobertOToole** » Thu Oct 05, 2017 1:07 pm

Info on the Schneider Makro-Symmar HM 120 is pretty scarce so this should be of interest.

The lens is optimized for 1x and is 8 E in 4 G design with ULD glass. Schneider recommends this lens for 12K line scan sensors, thats a 12,000 pixel wide sensor, with 5µm pitch. (Interestingly they do not recommend the 80 Makro-Symmar for 12K sensors and in my experience the 80mm is not as good)

This is a typical machine vision set up for a lens like this. I picked this up just recently for next to nothing.Sometimes even I get lucky.

This Makro-Symmar came with a really well built 32.5mm x 0,5 adapter with a 2 inch extension and 42mm x 1 threads on the end. I got lucky again!

So how sharp is it? These are a few comparisons done with a recent 16 lens 1X test I ran.

1X
Nikon D850
MM-11 Vertical stand
Single SB-R200 flash.
Shot in manual mode
All in RAW and converted with all noise reduction and lens correction zeroed out.
Focus bracketed and the sharpest image selected at 100% then cropped and saved in Photoshop ACR.

Note

I compared the all the other lenses at f/5.6, and not at their sharpest aperture, since the other lenses needed all the help they could get against the Makro-Symmar. The APO-Lanthar and Nikon 105 VR are sharper at f/4 but the CAs in the corners are even worse!

Link to a larger version:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... rmat=1500w

Schneider Makro-Symmar HM 120mm on the left, Nikon AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED, both shot at f/5.6

center

Larger version:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... rmat=1500w

Corner:

Larger version:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... rmat=1500w

Schneider Makro-Symmar HM 120mm f/5.6 vs Sigma 150mm f2-8 EX OS APO Macro, at f/5.6

Center:

Larger version:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... rmat=1500w

Corner:

Larger version:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... rmat=1500w

Schneider Makro-Symmar HM 120mm f/5.6 vs Voigtlander 125mm f2/.5 APO-Lanthar, both at f/5.6

Center:

Larger version:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... rmat=1500w

Corner:

Larger version:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... rmat=1500w

More info on the Makro-Symmar on my website, how to mount it, more images of the lens, etc.

https://www.closeuphotography.com/schne ... mar-120mm/

More info on my blog:

https://www.closeuphotography.com/

Questions and comments welcome.

Robert

sweedlepipe · Post by **sweedlepipe** » Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:54 am

Really great info, good on you for doing this! The real question though - how does it compare to a Printing Nikkor?

RobertOToole · Post by **RobertOToole** » Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:19 pm

sweedlepipe wrote:Really great info, good on you for doing this! The real question though - how does it compare to a Printing Nikkor?

Good question, I think the Printing Nikkor and Scanner Nikkor are the kings and unbeatable at 1X so the answer is probably no, the Makro-symmar is very good but not the very best.

Robert

karlmera · Post by **karlmera** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:35 am

I have both, the Apo-Digitar m 120 and the makro-symmar 120 HM.

The Apo-Digitar ist a little bit better. Try the makro-symmar with 8 instead of 5,6.

Both lenses can be used from 4:1 - 1:4.

RobertOToole · Post by **RobertOToole** » Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:15 pm

karlmera wrote:I have both, the Apo-Digitar m 120 and the makro-symmar 120 HM.

The Apo-Digitar ist a little bit better. Try the makro-symmar with 8 instead of 5,6.

Both lenses can be used from 4:1 - 1:4.

Hi Karlmera,

Thanks for the advice. Some suggest the Apo-Digitar are just re-badged Makro-symmars so its good to get input in that from someone with personal experience.

Hopefully I can have a look myself sometime. I like the Makro-Symmar performance thats for sure.

All the best,

Robert

karlmera · Post by **karlmera** » Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:10 am

Some suggest the Apo-Digitar are just re-badged Makro-symmars so its good to get input in that from someone with personal experience.
Robert[/quote]

The Apo Digitar is optimized for smaller digital sensors. The distance between two lens groups is modified.

Lou Jost · Post by **Lou Jost** » Sun Nov 11, 2018 5:32 pm

Karlmera, does the distance between lens groups increase or decrease for digital sensors? If it increases, we could do that modification ourselves by slightly unscrewing the front/rear components of the Makro-Symmar.

RobertOToole · Post by **RobertOToole** » Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:33 pm

Lou Jost wrote:Karlmera, does the distance between lens groups increase or decrease for digital sensors? If it increases, we could do that modification ourselves by slightly unscrewing the front/rear components of the Makro-Symmar.

According to this data from SK the designs are slightly are different but since the MTFs are computer simulations not measured the only way to know for sure is to test the different types.

The l/mm for the Makro-symmar is 20-40-80, for the APO-Digitar its 20-40-60 so only the first two top lines are similar.

Also according to this data from SK:

120 APO-Digitar M image circle: 70mm
120 Makro-Symmar image circle: 86mm
120 APO-Digitar image circle: 90mm

The other questions is the APO-Digitar M or the APO-Digitar the better rear lens for coupling/stacking?

Lou Jost · Post by **Lou Jost** » Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:44 pm

Thanks Robert. I guess it is not worth trying to slightly unscrew the lens cells of the Makro-Symmar....

RobertOToole · Post by **RobertOToole** » Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:53 pm

Lou Jost wrote:Thanks Robert. I guess it is not worth trying to slightly unscrew the lens cells of the Makro-Symmar....

Would be easy to do but I don't think it would help.

So which lens do you think would perform better in a lens stack?

Makro-symmar 1x 120, APO-Digitar Macro 120 1x or APO-Digitar normal 120?

Thats the question

RobertOToole · Post by **RobertOToole** » Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:06 pm

How to read the lens data from SK just in case anyone is curious.

Lou Jost · Post by **Lou Jost** » Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:06 pm

All bets are off after the numerous puzzling things you've discovered lately!

RobertOToole · Post by **RobertOToole** » Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:09 pm

Lou Jost wrote:All bets are off after the numerous puzzling things you've discovered lately!

It should be the normal distance APO-Digitar 120 for a stacked lens right?

But I think you are right Lou, who knows, I wouldn't be satisfied until I tested all 3 types

Lou Jost · Post by **Lou Jost** » Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:44 pm

Somehow I knew you would do that....

The MTF of the normal one is pretty bad compared to the two others, so I do think tests are called for.

mawyatt · Post by **mawyatt** » Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:45 am

Robert, Lou, Others,

Just a question since I know very little about lens design and characterization.

Standard lenses are made up of various optical elements arranged in a pattern along the optical axis and made with relatively simple optical materials (glass/plastic and coatings).

With our modern computer aided design capability and well characterized materials it seems that a computer model of the lens optical characteristics should be relatively straight forward to create and predict actual physical lens behavior to a high degree of accuracy. Honestly I would be quite surprised (and disappointed) if this were not true given the incredible complexing of todays semiconductors and the fidelity of the computer generated results predicting physical circuit/chip behavior.

Sure if lens variability due to manufacturing tolerances and possible flaws/defects may not be accurately accounted for (we routinely do this in the semiconductor world as well!), then one could expect to see deviations for the computer predicted performance, or maybe the OEM just uses the "best case" to display their lens. Since we may not know how the OEM uses and displays the lens performance data, actual testing is always a preferred evaluation, especially for those lens from OEMs that have a history of optimistic data and/or severe lens variability. Of course testing is the only way to evaluate a lens that may have been subjected to abuse or aging effects.

Would be interesting to see how actual lens measured data compares to OEM's published data for various OEMs and lenses. Maybe someone here is/was a recent lens engineer designer that can provide some "inside" information on what actually goes on with the published lens data vs. measured results.

Best,