Schneider 550mm XXL Fine Art lens

[Rob Vinnedge]

Has anyone acquired the new Schneider 550mm XXL Fine Art lens yet? I just read Michael Mutmanski's article in View Camera on the 1100mm version and was wondering how the shorter focal length lens compares. As a side note, I'm also curious as to why Michael Mutmanski feels that optical performance isn't an issue with the new lenses, which were designed for the ultra large formats. True, depth of field is a main concern, but wouldn't resolution and all the other optical corrections be important as well?

[steve simmons]

We will be reviewing the 550XL as soon as we can - either in the Jan/Feb or the March/April issue.

steve simmons

view camera magazine

[Arne Croell]

Rob, I think Michaels statement refers to the fact that ULF means contact prints 99% of the time. Resolution of superfine details, which would be enlarged on a smaller format, are not that important then. Or in other words, a ULF lens needs a high MTF over the field at small frequencies (say, 2-10lp/mm) and can afford to not be as good in the higher ones.

[Michael Mutmansky]

Arne has it correct. The realities of a ULF camera in the field and the nature of diffraction-limited optics make the 1100XL lens far superior to the practical capabilities of a field shooting system. Since I know of only one enlarger in the US and possibly only one in Europe that can enlarger larger than about 11x14, this lens seems to be exclusively marketed for the contact printer.

Unfortunately, we are space limited in an article like that. I would have explained why I made that statement much more clearly if I had the space to do so.

As Steve says, we are talking with Schneider about getting the 550XXL for review. This lens has a much larger potential market with banquet shooters, and I expect it to generate a lot more interest because it can offer substantial performance that I don't believe any other commonly available lens (regardless of vintage) can provide. It's only comparable modern lens to compare it agains is the Fujinon 600C, and that lens ha nowhere near the IC of the 550XXL.

I'm looking forward to using it with the banquet camera for vertical images with substantial vertical rise. I have done this with the 600C and run out of coverage, and I expect the 550mm to beat it hands down in this respect.

---Michael

[jtf]

I understand well how diffraction is not an issue, but I know nothing about ULF lenses in particular, but is it possible (or is it heresy) that an older, more reasonably priced lens is adequate to ULF while the XXL is overkill?

[John D Gerndt]

To answer jtf, the best case is about 30 line pairs per milimeter for paper resolution and that level of definition is matched and bettered in older lenses. Still, there are a limited number of older lenses that will cover what these XXL lenses will so they are meeting a need.

I don't have that need. I'm glad. Still, I'd like to meet someone who has filled that need and see the results of that kind of investment. It is sort of like meeting someone who owns a boat, a Big boat. It is fun to ride along (even buy the gas/film) but who really can afford to own such a thing.

Cheers,

[Rob Vinnedge]

Thanks for all the info. I'm looking forward to the 550 mm XXL news. Michael, sorry for my misspelling of your name. It was spelled both ways in the magazine.

[Michael Mutmansky]

Well, sure, there are many adequate solutions out there, and some people will actually prefer them due to the way the lens may render the image, or the contrast the lens provides.

However, a multicoated lens will generally perform better in high contrast situations than a single coated lens, and typically much better than an uncoated lens. A modern shutter will generally be more reliable than a hat for short exposures, and a modern designed lens will typically have better performance out into the corners than an older design.

These are all generalizations of course, but I expect this to hold true for the XXL lenses, especially when you consider that they were designed for pictrial use, not copy work, which most lenses used for the biggest ULF cameras were originally designed for.

ULF shooters are using optics because they work, but they were generally never intended for the application. So, we close down to eliminate chromatic aberrations in the corners, along with field curvature. We also close down for depth of field reasons related to the subject, but I can say that my experience with the 1100XXL indicates that the lens should be completely useable even at full aperture on a 20x24 for most applications.

If you have an older lens that is adequate for 20x24, but you are required to stop it down to f64 to make a sharp negative into the corners, the three stops of extra light might be a real improvement depending on the subject matter, and be the difference between a worthwhile image and one destined for the bin.

Is the XXL overkill? I state in the article that the cost vs. the benefits must be weighed by the individual. If you shoot a 20x24, you will be spending anywhere from about $13 to $20 per sheet for B&W film. While it is perfectly OK to try to do it as inexpensively as possible, realistically, the cost of admission for these ULF systems is extreme to begin with. Anyone who has the stomache for the expense associated with the consumables associated with the large ULF cameras will probably not be fretting too much over a few thousand between one lens and another. Someone who does probbaly should be thinking about a smaller format.

---Michael

[robert_4927]

Michael, I'm sure it performs quite well. But just off the top of my head you would need what?.....42" of bellows just to focus and that's close to about 7ft. of bellows for 1:1? I guess I would have to stick to stopping down the old Dagors and Artars. But then again I like the look of the older lenses. Sure would be nice to test drive one though.

[Steve Hamley]

Comment to Robert and Michael (Dagors and cost)

The 550mm Fine Art, unlike the 1100mm appears to be two cemented triplets, aka Dagor (or maybe Angulon?). As far as the $6K cost that Badger lists it for, try seeing what a 24" Gold Dot Dagor would sell for in in todays dollars. I'll bet a nickel that the 550mm Fine Art is cheaper or at least no more expensive. I've watched eBay and multiple dealers for years, and have never seen a 24" Dagor for sale - although there may have been one or two. An uncoated, barrel 19" Dagor recently went over $2K, and a 16-1/2" over $1K. I haven't worked the numbers, but it would seem Schneider's pricing isn't entirely unreasonable for a modern 22" multicoated Dagor in shutter that will cover what it does.

Is it worth it? If you need the coverage and shutter (I'm a big fan of shutters) yes. Resolution-wise on formats that you don't need the IC - probably not. I'd like to have one for the 8x20, but it does require digging very deep.

Steve