Rodenstock Grandagon 115 vs Schneider Super Symmar 110 XL

[tom43]

Hi,

I’m searching for a wide angle lens for 5x7 and landscape photography. My focus is on image quality. Aspects like size and costs are of lower relevance. Has anyone experience with both lenses (Rodenstock´s latest version Grandagon-N 115mm MC Green Stripe; Schneider Super Symmar 110 XL)? Any pros or cons regarding image quality? Thanks.

[Mark J]

I haven't got hands-on experience of these, but I can provide the technical datasheets for each if it helps.
On MTF and brightness fall-off, it's hard to choose ( ps. I design lenses myself ) , but I would give the Grandagon the edge at f/22 outside of the 5x7" format ( for movements )

110mm 5,6 Super-Symmar XL asph__ scheda MTF.pdf

[Vaughan]

I’m searching for a wide angle lens for 5x7 and landscape photography.

Most modern 90mm lenses cover 5x7 and give a very wide angle of view (about 20mm FFE). Because they are a common wide lens for 4x5 they are abundant and cheap. Given the choice, a lens with a larger image circle will be better for movements on 5x7: something like a Nikkor SW 90mm f8 or f5.6 (unlike other lenses the same image circle for both), Fujinon SWD 90mm f5.6, or their Schneider or Rodenstock equivalents. The slower lenses will allow about 5mm of movement, the faster will allow about 15mm movement, and the Schneider SA XL has about 25mm movement.

If 90mm is a bit too wide then 105mm and 120/121/125mm lenses are abundant. If budget is limited the original writing-on-the-front Fujinon W 135mm f5.6 covers 5x7 with about 10mm of movement, the 150mm f5.6 with about 20mm. Yes there are lenses with bigger circles but not for the price of these two.

Regarding image quality, there will be little difference between any of the major brands for contemporary lenses.

[Huub]

I only have hands on experience with the 110 mm SS XL, which is a very good lens, capable of much more then me as a mediocre photographer.

I doubt very much you will see much difference between the two, even in critical situations. Image quality in largeformat is not only a question of the quality of the lens, but also depends on stability of your camera, tripod en head, wind when taking pictures outside, film flatness, a good lens shade, alignment of the focussing screen, et cetera. And even when all these factors are optimised, it will need looking closely at huge prints to notice much of a difference.

[rfesk]

I only have hands on experience with the 110 mm SS XL, which is a very good lens, capable of much more then me as a mediocre photographer.

I doubt very much you will see much difference between the two, even in critical situations. Image quality in large format is not only a question of the quality of the lens, but also depends on stability of your camera, tripod en head, wind when taking pictures outside, film flatness, a good lens shade, alignment of the focusing screen, et cetera. And even when all these factors are optimized, it will need looking closely at huge prints to notice much of a difference.

Well said. That last paragraph could be applied to the vast majority of modern lenses for large format.

[John Layton]

I own both a 110XL and a 120 Super Angulon - and while I can see that the 110 is indeed superb in many respects...I'm still glad that I have not followed through with my original plan to sell the 120. While the 120 is basically twice as large and heavy as the 110, while also being a full stop "dimmer" in its max. aperture - there is something about its rendering geometry and balanced performance which keeps me from letting it go.

There are two images (posted below), side by side on my living room wall which, despite their large size (30x40 inches from 5x7 negatives), still invite very close inspection, upon which they never fail to impress and delight me with their wonderful amount of detail, and also upon which I am reminded, once again...how thankful I've been to have not let go of that 120!

[Mal Paso]

I have a Caltar II N 115mm that flew under the radar missing the Grandagon name and green stripe. Great lens! Huge image circle on 4x5.

The Symmar is half a stop faster, both are sharper than film, I wouldn't pay the premium for the Symmar.

[Gudmundur Ingolfsson]

I have had the 115mm Grandagon since 20 years. It is a great lens and covers 8x10 for interiors but vignetts at infinity. The 120 Nikkor is also great and covers a bit more. I have avoided Super Angulon after a bad exoerience with an expensive one. The Super Angulon XL is a newer and better design and so is the Super Symmar.

[Mark J]

I wouldn't go quite so far as saying that . the Super-Symmar XL is not exceptional in its MTF curves, especially beyond 5x7" ( see above ) but it does achieve comparable performance to the 115 while being significantly smaller and lighter. The one that stands out for me is the Super Symmar HM ( done by the same designer before she got married , I think ! ) however at a lower field angle. The design brief for the SSym XL was different though.
It was good to see the pictures and comment from John Layton who seems to be the only one so far who has used both types of design.

[Peter De Smidt]

The 110 SS XL is my all-time favorite landscape lens.