PDA

View Full Version : Starting out - Rodenstock or Schneider 90mm



msbc
4-Feb-2009, 15:59
Hi,

Just starting out in LF. Have a Chamonix 045n-1 on order and now looking around for lenses. I want a 90mm lens for landscapes. Not too expensive, not too heavy but, as this will be my main lens I'd prefer to invest in a keeper rather than a 'just make do' lens.

As most of my work will be landscapes at f/22 or abouts I don't need a super fast lens. This has lead me to 6.8 as a good compromise between potentially hard to focus f/8's and heavy f/5.6's or 4.5's (comments on this welcome - am I being paranoid about focusing f/8's ?).

Looking around I see the 2 best contenders in this space as the Rodenstock Grandagon-N 90/6.8 or Schneider Super-Angulon Classic 90mm/6.8. Would appreciate any insight into these two lenses and how they compare to each other. Is the Schneider worth the extra dollars?

Toyon
4-Feb-2009, 16:16
The reason why a 90 is hard to focus is that the rays are concentrated in the center of the fresnel (if your camera has one). You have to move around a bit to see clearly in the corners. I have several f8 lenses, and none of them are hard to focus in the center, even in low light. Now, soft focus lenses - they are truly hard to focus.

Gem Singer
4-Feb-2009, 16:22
For outdoor photography, you are being paranoid about f8 wide angle lenses.

I have never had a problem composing or focusing an f8 lens outside in the daylight.

The Nikkor f8 90SW throws a 235mm image circle. Hard to beat.

Schneider and Rodenstock lenses are equal in quality.

A 90 wide angle is not necessarily the ideal first lens for landscape photography.

msbc
4-Feb-2009, 16:51
For outdoor photography, you are being paranoid about f8 wide angle lenses.

I have never had a problem composing or focusing an f8 lens outside in the daylight.


Most of my shots are dawn or dusk - so fairly low light. Does this make a difference to using an f/8 lens?


A 90 wide angle is not necessarily the ideal first lens for landscape photography.
Gem, what other focal lengths would you recommend?

Gem Singer
4-Feb-2009, 17:30
In low light, you are correct. An f8 lens will be more difficult to compose and focus than a faster lens.

Check out the Nikkor f4.5 90SW. It also throws a 235mm image circle. It's one of the brightest 90's out there.


My first choice for landscape photography would be a 135 - 180 "normal" lens. You can always add a shorter and/or a longer lens after you have made a few images and determined your personal preference.

There's quite a difference in the look between lenses for the 35mm and 4X5 formats.

Mike Herring
4-Feb-2009, 17:35
Yes, very hard to focus in dim light. I have had an f8, f6.8 and an f4.5 90mm. I would never go back to the slower 90mm lenses. I do a great deal of interiors and sunsets. Even with a 8x focusing loupe, it was very difficult to see the screen edges.
You get what you pay for!!!
I have been in this business for over 30 years. You can take this statement to the bank !!!

Take care,
Mike



Most of my shots are dawn or dusk - so fairly low light. Does this make a difference to using an f/8 lens?


Gem, what other focal lengths would you recommend?

Eric James
4-Feb-2009, 18:39
I've never had a problem composing with or focusing the 90mm Nikon SW f8. The image circle of the Nikon may provide you with a greater advantage; you won't need to tilt a 90mm much for landscape work, but the extra rise or fall can certainly come in handy.

My first LF lens was a Fuji 240mm, quickly followed by the Nikon 90mm. I didn't find the 90mm particularly difficult to work with, but then and now it is my least used lens. I shoot only landscapes and use my 150mm far more often than my 90mm or 110mm lenses.

You may find that an after market ground glass will help more than a faster lens.

Welcome to the forum.

Steve Hamley
4-Feb-2009, 18:57
Although a 90mm may not be the first choice for a landscape lens, it can be useful in certain settings, for example a near-far sunset or sunrise depending on the foreground object. The attached sunset was done using the Schneider 110mm SS XL. It's a nice sunset/sunrise lens because it seems very flare resistant, a surprise given all the glass in it.

Cheers, Steve

Eric James
4-Feb-2009, 19:06
Sweet shot!

Steve Hamley
4-Feb-2009, 19:35
Thanks Eric!

Cheers, Steve

Bill_1856
4-Feb-2009, 20:07
Although a 90mm may not be the first choice for a landscape lens, it can be useful in certain settings, for example a near-far sunset or sunrise depending on the foreground object. The attached sunset was done using the Schneider 110mm SS XL. It's a nice sunset/sunrise lens because it seems very flare resistant, a surprise given all the glass in it.

Cheers, Steve

Roan Mountain, Steve? I have a (very faded) Ektachrome stereo slide made there in 1956 which is almost identical. (I was too poor in those days to afford Kodachrome.)

Ron Marshall
4-Feb-2009, 22:06
I often shoot in low light with a 90mm f8 and have no problem with focus and composition. I find my 75mm f4.5 more difficult to compose with.

IanG
4-Feb-2009, 23:20
Both those lenses are excellent, I've had the Rodenstock 90mm f6.8 for about 22 years and it's supeb, the Multi Coating is first rate and the lens is flare free even shooting directly into the sun. I also have an f5.6 90mm Super Angulon, in use the brightness difference between f6.8/f5.6 for composing is neglible.

Ian

Thomas Greutmann
4-Feb-2009, 23:34
I have been using both a Rodenstock 6.8 90mm and a Schneider SA 8.0 90mm, and I am shooting mostly landscapes. I found very little difference between those two lenses for practical use. Focusing is a little difficult in the corners with Fresnel lenses with both lenses. So if you can get a good deal on an 8.0 90mm, this may be it.

On the ideal length for landscape lenses: I find it depends on the type of landscape. When I am shooting in the mountains I most often use a 150mm and a 90mm. In flat areas I use the 150mm and a 360mm, because you have to compose differently. The 90mm sees very little use in flat, wide landscapes.

Greetings, Thomas

msbc
4-Feb-2009, 23:38
Both those lenses are excellent, I've had the Rodenstock 90mm f6.8 for about 22 years and it's supeb, the Multi Coating is first rate and the lens is flare free even shooting directly into the sun. I also have an f5.6 90mm Super Angulon, in use the brightness difference between f6.8/f5.6 for composing is neglible.

Ian

Ian,

So, if you were shooting a landscape at f/22 which of the two would you use, and why?

msbc
4-Feb-2009, 23:41
I have been using both a Rodenstock 6.8 90mm and a Schneider SA 8.0 90mm, and I am shooting mostly landscapes. I found very little difference between those two lenses for practical use.

Thomas, I'll ask you the same Q as I just posed to Ian. If you had both lenses in your bag which would you choose, and why?

IanG
4-Feb-2009, 23:55
Ian,

So, if you were shooting a landscape at f/22 which of the two would you use, and why?

That's easy the Grandagon, for no reason other than it's been part of my Wista kit for 22 years :D

The Super Angulon was bought so I could use one of the two 90mm's permanently fitted to a focus cone for my 6x17. But I didn't iever use it so now it's part of my 5x4 kit in the UK, the Wista etc is here in Turkey.

Comparing these lenses is like comparing an F1 McLaren to a Ferrari, at the end of the day they both perform equally well any differences in image quality will be down to how the operator/driver uses them :D

Ian

Steve Hamley
5-Feb-2009, 00:32
Roan Mountain, Steve? I have a (very faded) Ektachrome stereo slide made there in 1956 which is almost identical. (I was too poor in those days to afford Kodachrome.)

Close, It's Craggy Gardens on the Blue Ridge Parkway. My compliments on your sense of scenery!

Cheers, Steve

Thomas Greutmann
5-Feb-2009, 01:53
Thomas, I'll ask you the same Q as I just posed to Ian. If you had both lenses in your bag which would you choose, and why?

Difficult to say. I use both lenses alternating, they are mounted on different lensboards for different cameras. They both deliver similar (excellent) results, hard to tell any difference on a 3200dpi scan from the negative, both are sharp. I use them often stopped down to f32 or f45 with some front tilt, to have everything sharp from foreground to infinity. So the additional brightness of the f6.8 Rodenstock is not really important for me.

Peter K
5-Feb-2009, 03:30
Hi,

Just starting out in LF. Have a Chamonix 045n-1 on order and now looking around for lenses. I want a 90mm lens for landscapes. Not too expensive, not too heavy but, as this will be my main lens I'd prefer to invest in a keeper rather than a 'just make do' lens.

As most of my work will be landscapes at f/22 or abouts I don't need a super fast lens. This has lead me to 6.8 as a good compromise between potentially hard to focus f/8's and heavy f/5.6's or 4.5's (comments on this welcome - am I being paranoid about focusing f/8's ?).

Looking around I see the 2 best contenders in this space as the Rodenstock Grandagon-N 90/6.8 or Schneider Super-Angulon Classic 90mm/6.8. Would appreciate any insight into these two lenses and how they compare to each other. Is the Schneider worth the extra dollars?
msbc,

what do you want with this poll? As you say you are new to LF, but you have to keep in mind LF-cameras and -lenses are professional tools, also you can find it for some bucks today on the net.

f/22 is at least two steps higher as the optimum aperture for a lens with this short focal lenght. At the other hand both lenses are high quality products. But a LF ground-glass isn't a LCD monitor. So you have to learn to work with. You can't also learn to drive a car from the internet.

BTW do you have a first name or do you prefer to do lensmaker-bashing as an anonymous?

Peter K

msbc
5-Feb-2009, 04:15
msbc,

what do you want with this poll? As you say you are new to LF, but you have to keep in mind LF-cameras and -lenses are professional tools, also you can find it for some bucks today on the net.

f/22 is at least two steps higher as the optimum aperture for a lens with this short focal lenght. At the other hand both lenses are high quality products. But a LF ground-glass isn't a LCD monitor. So you have to learn to work with. You can't also learn to drive a car from the internet.

BTW do you have a first name or do you prefer to do lensmaker-bashing as an anonymous?

Peter K

Lensmaker-bashing!!!!!! Since when does any of my posting represent anything other than asking for opinions and advice?

f/22 is just an example to say I don't need a fast lens.

What I want is advice and information about investing my hard earned money. I'm after experience and knowledge. I find the options available of LF lens choice quite staggering. I've been shooting 35mm for 30+ years and could help anyone with advice and experience about nearly any 35mm camera or lens availble. I found this forum and was hoping get advice from like minded people.

I'm sorry that you find my questions and username so offensive. Maybe you should stop being so anonymous too - Peter K!

Mark C

Peter K
5-Feb-2009, 04:50
Hi Mark C,

it's a progress isn't it? :D

Isn't it good idea to read all the knowledge one can find in this forum before one starts such a poll?

I'm sorry that you find my questions and username so offensive. Maybe you should stop being so anonymous too - Peter K!

At least one can read something about me in my profile and if you want to know more about me, just ask. There are some friends in this forum I'm corresponding in private too.

If you are interested you are welcome to the german LF-forum (http://forum.grossformatfotografie.de/).

Have fun

Peter K

msbc
5-Feb-2009, 04:58
Hi Mark C,

it's a progress isn't it? :D

Isn't it good idea to read all the knowledge one can find in this forum before one starts such a poll?

I've been reading this forum and others since October. Didn't find the information I needed so thought I'd ask a question. After all, isn't that what the forum is about - exchange of knowledge?


At least one can read something about me in my profile and if you want to know more about me, just ask. There are some friends in this forum I'm corresponding in private too.

I don't want to know anything about you.

You complained about my post and anonymity. Your profile does not give you full name. Peter K is just as anonymous as msbc!

If you don't have anything to contribute to this thread, please go play somewhere else.

Peter K
5-Feb-2009, 05:17
If you don't have anything to contribute to this thread, please go play somewhere else.
If you read my answer "At the other hand both lenses are high quality products." You can see I've contributed to this thread.

Your question is the same as you ask "Should I prefer the blue or the red car?" Both lenses have nearly the same focal-lenght, image circle and f/6.8. So try to borrow this lenses and you will see the difference. Or not.

Now I'm going to one of my other playgrounds.

Peter K

Bjorn Nilsson
5-Feb-2009, 10:33
I must agree with Peter K. Versions of this question comes up more or less every week. Maybe the focal length differ, but that's about it.

The usual advice is: Any of the "Big four" manufacturers (Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikkor and Fuji) is a good buy. It's usually hard or even impossible to differ two equal lenses from e.g. Sch. and Rod. in terms of in-the-field-performance. There are a few lenses which stands out from the crowd and those lenses usually fetch a few more $$$ when bought used. (E.g. the Sironar S series, the Super Symmars, Nikkor SW 90mm f/8 and a few others.) Apart from that only specimen variations within a production batch of lenses can make one lens "better" than the other.
Quality control today is very good so any german or japanese modern glass should be excellent.
OK, my opinion on the two lenses in question. I would be very surprised if anyone could tell one from the other judging from a normal picture. I would be very happy with either one. (But I'm even happier with my Super Symmars, :) )

//Björn

Dan Fromm
5-Feb-2009, 11:06
Mark, I'm with Peter and Bjorn. You asked a question that has no good answer. Both of the lenses you're considering are good. One would be happy with either.

Questions like yours are usually asked by people who are afraid of making a mistake. Thing is, it isn't easy to make a mistake when choosing among reasonably modern lenses made by, in alphabetical order, Fuji, Nikon, Schneider and Rodenstock.

The normal usual ordinary advice applies. When buying used, condition is more important than maker. Always buy used lenses with the right of return and run a newly-arrived lens through acceptance testing as quickly as possible. When buying new, at this level maker is irrelevant.

Now apologize to Peter. In my interactions with him he's been thoughtful, helpful, and informative. Especially when we haven't agreed.

Good luck, have fun,

Dan

john collins
5-Feb-2009, 11:49
For a first lens something normal or perhaps a bit wider is a good place to start. A 135 will give you a slightly wide view on a 4X5 without screaming WIDE ANGLE. It will give versatility using shoe zoom without looking too long either. From there you can develop your own opinion about the focal lengths that appeal to you on 4X5 and go from there.

Ole Tjugen
5-Feb-2009, 12:28
If you're really concerned about the weight difference between the f:4.5 and the f:8 versions of modern 90mm lenses, you really ought to consider a good old Angulon 90mm f:6.8!

It doesn't have the coverage of the "wasp-waist" lenses, but has nowhere near the weight either. And as others have suggested: Start with a decent 135mm - or 150mm. Then see where that leads you.

In my experience, sometimes 47mm isn't wide enough and sometimes 500mm isn't long enough. Most of the time I end up using a 150mm.

h2oman
5-Feb-2009, 14:36
Aren't Peter and Bjorn a musical group these days? ;)

I'm using the Rodenstock 6.8, primarily because when they stamp "Caltar" on it you can buy it for a bit less!

John Bowen
5-Feb-2009, 15:00
To the Original Poster,

You state you are just starting out in LF. I too photograph mostly landscapes. I worked with 4x5 for almost 20 years before I purchased a 90mm lens. It was the 4th lens I purchased after 1st acquiring a 210, 120 & 305 (in that order). I picked up my 90 about 4-5 years ago and it has only been on the camera 3 times (I think every time was with a bag bellows to shoot architecture).

I guess you must like a 28mm on your 35mm cameras. Personally 35mm is about as wide as I care to go on my 35mm cameras.

Just my 2 cents. Good luck with your decision and welcome to LF photograpy,

Jim Rhoades
7-Feb-2009, 13:14
The 90 is my least used lens. For landscape you don't need much in the way of movement. Any 90 tends to be awful dark in the corners. The 90 I'm using now is a Rodenstock f/8. The reason is because it tested out sharper than any other's I've had.

If I could find a Optar or Angulon f/6.8 that was as sharp as the Rodenstock I would snap it up. I like small light lenses. Coverage is a minor concern for my work. A fast 90 is nice to have as long as your next to your truck. You have to set your priorties. Mine are, Sharp, small/light, coverage or speed. If you arange your priorties it will help you pick a lens.

Mike V
10-Feb-2009, 13:14
I am in the same situation as you. looking for a first lens around 90mm. I have managed to borrow the schneider 90/8 from uni and have no trouble using it. As someone else mentioned it is a little difficult to check the corners of the image and you often find your self moving around to get a good view.

I shall be watching with interest,.

pgmj
12-Feb-2009, 11:55
I also got a Chamonix 4x5 a few months ago. Some digging in the second hand market got me the "standard kit" with a 90, 150 and 210mm. 80% of my photos so far have been made with the 150mm. The 90mm is a f/6.3 Congo with a Seiko shutter and performs surprisingly well at f/22, though I have not made many photos with it.

I would definitely recommend a 150 or 135mm lens for starting out. They are a lot cheaper and you still get to try making large format photos. Then you get a feeling for whether the wider view is necessary or not.

Ernest Purdum
13-Feb-2009, 11:25
If you should decide on a 135mm, stay away from the f4.5 or f4.7 versions. They don't have enough coverage for you to find out what your movements can do for you.

Gordon Moat
13-Feb-2009, 22:26
I started off with a 135mm, then tried a 210mm, but settled upon a 180mm. Now I have a 90mm heading my way, and it happens to be a Rodenstock f6.8. Mostly I felt that was a good choice due to the 67mm filter thread, which matches what I use on my Nikkor-W 180mm f5.6.

Longer lenses are just easier to use on the ground glass. They are brighter and much more even in illumination. While a wide view can be interesting, you might find that a mid range focal length gets used more often. I still use my 135mm more than any other lens I have, and I have even borrowed as wide as a 75mm.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)