Schneider Super Angulon XL 47mm f5.6

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...] I don't know if the 35mm Apo Grandagon can be pushed that far.

The 35mm APO Grandagon can cover nominal 6x12cm. In my experience it requires the center-filter, and an aperture of ƒ22, which is disappointing but understandable. If you can try it using the external viewfinder note that it is easy to err in placing the format mask so that it is ever so slightly canted which will make for some wacky outcomes. (Seat the mask so the detent fits correctly.)

[Pere Casals]

Says it has an image circle of 166mm@f/22. I would be using this on a 4x5. It obviously would not provide for any type of movement thereby turning the camera into a straight up basic camera

You still have great movements: Tilt and swing !!!

You would have no translational movements, Shift/Rise, but with Tilt ans Swing you may keep in focus a near flower and a distant mountain, so this is no a nasty limitation for landscape, but it can be for architecture.

[consummate_fritterer]

The 35mm APO Grandagon can cover nominal 6x12cm. In my experience it requires the center-filter, and an aperture of ƒ22, which is disappointing but understandable. If you can try it using the external viewfinder note that it is easy to err in placing the format mask so that it is ever so slightly canted which will make for some wacky outcomes. (Seat the mask so the detent fits correctly.)

Can it cover 80x120mm actual image size? It probably doesn't matter much if shooting 56x112mm (or thereabouts) without movements, but it does if using the full 120mm width of 4x5 film and only cropped to 80x120mm. It can matter too if you need a bit of movement on 6x12cm. But for 56x112mm roll film images, it seems the 35mm Apo Grandagon wins the blue ribbon for widest modern lens. For slightly cropped 4x5, the 38mm XL wins.

[Bob Salomon]

Can it cover 80x120mm actual image size? It probably doesn't matter much if shooting 56x112mm (or thereabouts) without movements, but it does if using the full 120mm width of 4x5 film and only cropped to 80x120mm. It can matter too if you need a bit of movement on 6x12cm. But for 56x112mm roll film images, it seems the 35mm Apo Grandagon wins the blue ribbon for widest modern lens. For slightly cropped 4x5, the 38mm XL wins.

No, your format requires almost a 151mm circle. The 35mm Apo Grandagon had a 125mm circle at infinity at its optimal aperture of f16.

[Corran]

I hope that one day you can try the 10mm lens. The first thing you should notice is how very large it is compared to other wide lenses for 35mm. I hope someone more knowledgeable can tell us whether its construction helps defeat the problems from angular projection of the rear lens to film/sensor.

Me too! I believe it was designed to be more retrofocal so as to overcome issues with digital sensors and wide angles. The 12mm is not and is pretty awful on my Leica M9. That's fine, I'd rather shoot film.

I realize now we have left out discussion of the Hypergon, in reference to the extremes of ultrawide lenses. I'd rather have one or two of those for LF than the 10mm .

[consummate_fritterer]

No, your format requires almost a 151mm circle. The 35mm Apo Grandagon had a 125mm circle at infinity at its optimal aperture of f16.

Mr. Soloman, the hypotenuse of an 80x120mm image is 144mm which is only 7mm longer than Schneider's spec of 137mm for the 38 XL. Those 7mm outside of spec may not be ultra-sharp but the lens easily illuminates that much and it's unlikely the slight loss of quality will be objectionable or maybe not even noticeable in the last 3.5mm of each corner.

[Bob Salomon]

Mr. Soloman, the hypotenuse of an 80x120mm image is 144mm which is only 7mm longer than Schneider's spec of 137mm for the 38 XL. Those 7mm outside of spec may not be ultra-sharp but the lens easily illuminates that much and it's unlikely the slight loss of quality will be objectionable or maybe not even noticeable in the last 3.5mm of each corner.

Sorry, for some reason I thought your format was 83 x 125mm. In any case the 35 Apo still covered 125mm
But speaking of misprints, it is Salomon, not what you spelled!

[Corran]

Here's a rotated, cropped 4x5 sheet from the 38mm XL, showing the edge of the image circle in the corners (with the CF):



Cropping to the edge of the circle plus a bit more to get rid of the shading that is probably a bit more mechanical vignetting from the CF, the DPI measurements in Photoshop show the IC to be just at 139mm. So 137mm at infinity is probably all the 38 XL can get.

Some have stated that focusing close and stopping way down gets the whole 4x5 film, but I haven't seen it cover, even focused really close. I always use the CF though on 6x12 and my 4x5 tests because of the intense fall-off, which is not even fully corrected by the filter.

[consummate_fritterer]

Sorry, for some reason I thought your format was 83 x 125mm. In any case the 35 Apo still covered 125mm
But speaking of misprints, it is Salomon, not what you spelled!

That's not your fault, sir. I originally wrote 83x125mm and edited my post. The 38 XL surely won't properly illuminate 83x125mm. I do apologize for misspelling your name.

[consummate_fritterer]

Here's a rotated, cropped 4x5 sheet from the 38mm XL, showing the edge of the image circle in the corners (with the CF):



Cropping to the edge of the circle plus a bit more to get rid of the shading that is probably a bit more mechanical vignetting from the CF, the DPI measurements in Photoshop show the IC to be just at 139mm. So 137mm at infinity is probably all the 38 XL can get.

Some have stated that focusing close and stopping way down gets the whole 4x5 film, but I haven't seen it cover, even focused really close. I always use the CF though on 6x12 and my 4x5 tests because of the intense fall-off, which is not even fully corrected by the filter.

If the center filter causes mechanical vignetting then maybe it is limited to 137mm or so. I don't know. I suppose one could trim the center filter frame to eliminate that issue assuming that's even possible but that's a very expensive filter to butcher.