Micro-Symmar 3.5x

[ray_parkhurst]

You've probably seen this auction listing already for the Schneider 50/2.8 Micro-Symmar 3.5x lenses being sold on eBay:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Schneider-Opti ... 4032438941

I'm hesitating on this one only because there are 4 available, and I already have the Rayfact 3.5x which I was planning to use for sensor-pan stitching. I would likely use the Micro-Symmar for subject-pan stitching, so not exactly the same application, but to make sense it would need to be diffraction-limited at f2.8. It has the advantage of a much shorter required extension, but disadvantage of much shorter working distance vs the Rayfact.

What are your thoughts on this lens?

[Lou Jost]

Ray, this sounds interesting, but I know nothing about it. But it is a Macro-Symmar, not Micro-Symmar. I'm surprised SK spells it "Macro" and not "Makro".....

[bobfriedman]

Ray, this sounds interesting, but I know nothing about it. But it is a Macro-Symmar, not Micro-Symmar. I'm surprised SK spells it "Macro" and not "Makro".....

documentation has it as Micro-Symmar 2.8/50-0002

https://www.uniforcesales.com/wp-conten ... art-no.pdf

which is interesting... first I have seen this.

[ray_parkhurst]

Indeed it is a "Micro-Symmar", I believe Schneider's only lens with this designation.

I have one on the way to me. We'll see how well it performs.

[dy5]

Many thanks, Ray! I have been watching eBay for well over a year for this lens. When it does finally show up, the seller misspelled the name, and I would have missed it except for your post here.

[ray_parkhurst]

Many thanks, Ray! I have been watching eBay for well over a year for this lens. When it does finally show up, the seller misspelled the name, and I would have missed it except for your post here.

You're very welcome! I see a second lens sold and I'd guess it's yours. I figured there were others out there watching for this lens. I too had a longtime search going for this lens, from well before I bought the Rayfact, but the 50MS3p5 has some qualities that set is apart from the Rayfact so I decided I needed both.

[Lou Jost]

Yep, I was wrong, sorry about that!

[ray_parkhurst]

Yep, I was wrong, sorry about that!

The seller was wrong in the auction title, causing confusion all around.

[Lou Jost]

The seller was wrong in the auction title, causing confusion all around.

That's what I looked at, and I just assumed you had made a typo. I did quickly look at the lens too, but it was small on my monitor, and I think the seller's title primed me to see what I was expecting to see.

[dickb]

Indeed it is a "Micro-Symmar", I believe Schneider's only lens with this designation.

I have one on the way to me. We'll see how well it performs.

Like Lou states, it's odd that SK chose to call it micro-symmar rather than mikro-symmar, which would be logical given their german spelling of makro-symmar. Anyway, would love to hear your verdict on its performance.

[Macro_Cosmos]

And this seller has 4? That's crazy.
The lens was discontinued, somehow not too long ago. It's definitely very capable, the shorter WD might even mean it's more resolving? I won't jump to conclusions, need to see an actual comparison.
That pricetag though, very high. Not something I'll be interested in spending that much money on.

[ray_parkhurst]

And this seller has 4? That's crazy.
The lens was discontinued, somehow not too long ago. It's definitely very capable, the shorter WD might even mean it's more resolving? I won't jump to conclusions, need to see an actual comparison.
That pricetag though, very high. Not something I'll be interested in spending that much money on.

Well, if you can show me a cheaper NOS example of this lens, I'd gladly buy it.

[Macro_Cosmos]

And this seller has 4? That's crazy.
The lens was discontinued, somehow not too long ago. It's definitely very capable, the shorter WD might even mean it's more resolving? I won't jump to conclusions, need to see an actual comparison.
That pricetag though, very high. Not something I'll be interested in spending that much money on.

Well, if you can show me a cheaper NOS example of this lens, I'd gladly buy it.

Have you tried sending an offer? That seller is honestly asking for too much.

[chris_ma]

I was looking into this lens a while ago and from all I could find it's an excellent performer.

what is strange is that the datasheet shows MTF curves for F2.3 F2.5 and F3.4 while the lens is labeled as an F2.8 lens.

I suspect it should perform about the same as the inspec.x F4/105 with significantly shorter extension needed.
very interested to see how it performs in the real world.

[ray_parkhurst]

I was looking into this lens a while ago and from all I could find it's an excellent performer.

what is strange is that the datasheet shows MTF curves for F2.3 F2.5 and F3.4 while the lens is labeled as an F2.8 lens.

I suspect it should perform about the same as the inspec.x F4/105 with significantly shorter extension needed.
very interested to see how it performs in the real world.

I sure hope it's much better than the 105IXL3p5x or I have wasted my money. The RF3p5x outperforms the 105IXL3p5x, but requires a similar large setup (~650mm object-sensor), which I have not yet built. I'm hoping for similar high performance at f2.8 but with a smaller setup (~260mm).

I am assuming the MTF curves are simulated, and that the lenses inside the 50MS3p5x are f2.3 but stopped-down to a max aperture of f2.8. I suppose the aperture might open up larger than f2.8 but so far I have not seen a Schneider lens that does this. Some Rodenstock lenses do (eg the Magnagon). So I think the MTF curves at larger apertures are intended to show that the lens is diffraction-limited at f2.8. The curves at f2.3 are worse than those at f2.5, which are better than at f3.4. So is Schneider saying with these curves that the optimum aperture is f2.5, and they chose to rate it (and perhaps stop it down at max aperture) at f2.8? That is my guess, but I will soon see.