Quote Originally Posted by Corran View Post
Last time I mentioned that it "should cover just fine at infinity" but I didn't expressly show it - I only posted an image with a very close focus.

I went back into my archive and found a better example for you. Here is an 8x10 image shot at infinity with the 90mm XL and I have inscribed a rectangle of exactly 6.5" x 8.5." This is accomplished by knowing what DPI the scan was done at and properly sizing the rectangle in PS. As you can see, it covers the rectangle fine. Of course others may tell you the circle of "acceptable definition" is smaller than the actual thrown image.

If you get a 90mm XL make sure you get a newer one with the removable rear shroud. I assume the rear shroud shrinks the IC slightly from mechanical vignetting, but I haven't actually tested this. I always have the rear shroud off when I've put this lens on 8x10.

Thank you for posting the image. The 90mm XL obviously covers a bit more than the 90mm Nikkor. Edge distortion with the XL looks to be a lot more extended then on the Nikkor. It would be interesting to know what the criteria was for each of the manufacturers for determining the coverage of their lenses, I assume it is based on shooting a line resolution chart, since the image thrown by these 2 lenses far exceeds their mfg's coverage specs.

Distortion in the corners... I just accept it. I use a 5.9” No. 5 Gray Periscope (equivalent around a 15mm lens on FX or 35mm) on my 11x14. Published Mfg. lens specs (late 1800s) say it covers 11x14. Image distortion in the corners absolutely lot of it there, but it just doesn't bother me all that much and I guess didn't bother photographers in the late 1800s. Since I am contact printing the negatives, seems to be even less pronounced in the final prints. Prints made from this optic when displayed in a gallery setting earlier this year... well no one has ever commented on the distortion in the corners of the prints.