Printable View
I'll be looking at purchasing a 110XL sometime soon...and want to steer clear of any possibility that the lens might be afflicted with the "fog issue."
My understanding is that Schneider understood and corrected this problem fairly early on...and that there is an acknowledged serial number range to avoid for folks like myself looking to purchase this lens.
Have done some web searches...lots of info on "the problem," but nothing definitive regarding potentially "toxic" serial numbers. Anyone?
I’ve seen the numbers in the past but don’t remember where
I had an early one that fogged and was replaced
I have found since then the various 115 and 120 lenses to be overall better lenses
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Given the time lapsed since its introduction to the market, all that would have fogged should have. So if you can get a clean sample now, it doesn't seem likely it'll develop the same fogging issue that afflicted the initial batch of lens.
I agree 100% with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzz
Even if used and stored with meticulous care, I believe any 110mm XL with potential for fogging would have fogged by now.
If you find a clean one today, and need it, get it for spectacular performance.
Around 2006Quote:
Originally Posted by asf
B&H was selling off the 8 Element Nikkon 120 f8 SW for $999. Fortunate to be able to buy one. Sharp as a razor with huge image circle.
Having owned and used professionally every lens in the SS XL line I find them both unique and overrated
The 210 was the best followed by the 150
The real issue with all of them is falloff making real use of the full image circle problematic
For their size though nothing can compare, and except for the 80 they’re very sharp (I had several 80s before getting a sharp one and even that one was so so)
The 110 is sharper and smaller than it’s competitors but falloff is horrendous and quality control from the factory spotty
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A couple more observations that might be helpful…
For those inspecting the lens for haze, I’ve noticed, generally, that owners have reported the malady on lenses bought new in the early-to-mid 2000’s, but I may not have a perfect understanding of which 110mm lenses carry the highest risk.
From what I know about symptoms, if you look through the front of a stricken lens, the whitish, cloud-like (“cumulus”) haze might typically appear halfway between the center of the lens and the filter threads, and spread slowly over time, moving & lengthening in a circular path (concentric w/ the filter threads). The growth of the haze is a slow process, and can take a few years to become plainly conspicuous. This is for properly used and stored lenses.
If the lens is clear today, I believe it likely enjoys a future-safe condition.
Have one of the first five 110mm & 150mm SSXL imported to the US. The technical sales guy told the story of this first group of SSXL having hand ground all glass Aspheric elements, about the late 1990's. This was due the demand on delivery and technical problems with making the uber-precise moulded Aspherical element for production. It appears the problems with the 110mm SSXL corresponds with the time-frame when Schneider made the change from hand ground Aspheric to uber-precision moulded Aspheric element. This appears to have happened about 2000 or ?
The two (110mm & 150mm) first hand built Aspheric element lenses from this batch of SSXLs here has never had any problems, they are both excellent performers in every way. As for light fall off, this is a problem inherent in wide angle LF lenses, the solution is apply the proper center filter and continue on. Contary to popular belief, the 110mm SSXL does NOT properly cover 8x10. This was one of the first test done with the 110mm SSXL on color transparency film back in the day. IMO, the 110mm is best for 5x7 or 4x5. The 150mm does good on 8x10 but could benefit from the proper center filter.
Bernice
I shot my 2nd non foggy 110XL on 8x10 at infinity focus many times, even with ~3mm of movement
it covered, sharp to the edge, no problems for negative, but there's no way I'd use it on 8x10 transparency, too many color shifts and the CF can't fix that
so it depends what one's definition of properly is
if you say it must properly cover for transparency then even the 150SS XL wasn't good enough, even with the CF, for me
SS XL all have much worse fall off than standard tilting pupil biogon style wide angles
this is inherent in the design
the CF kind of corrects it for neg but introduces other problems which I was never happy with
the 210 SS XL was best for 810 because it naturally had the largest IC and the effect of the falloff was less noticeable
until you really shifted it far
After testing all available options we stuck with the 200 Grandagon and 150 Nikkor (the 155 Grandagon is sharper but has a limited IC and a very abrupt cut off at the edge)