I've had experience with both and my impression is this, both lenses will be sharper than the film you put behind them, the Grandagon tested a bit sharper at longer focus distances and had a larger image circle with less vignetting but was larger and heavier. The Super Symmar was smaller, lighter, higher contrast and resolved better at close focus distances, but had higher vignetting and distortion. I've since sold the Super Symmar XL and haven't missed it.
Jim
Many thanks for all the helpful comments. I have the chance to buy an unused Grandagon or for ca. 3x times the price a used Schneider Super Symmar. In this case and with your recommendations much speaks for the Rodenstock…
MTF doesn't tell the whole story. You've also got a certain amount of falloff to contend with. And weight can indeed become a factor in real-world sharpness, namely, if it overloads the front standard of a lightweight field camera and tempts vibrations. Gosh, I've hauled a damned 120 SA for days on end over high off-trail mountain cols. That would have been futile if i had a lightweight wooden folder instead of a solid Sinar monorail. Being crammed in between sheer peaks sometimes mandated a serious surplus of rise, and that particular lens certainly delivered that! Bulky thing, especially with the center filter attached. I have a big 4 foot Cibachrome print on the wall beside me right now, taken with that lens; and being a Fuichrome original of a dramatic high-contrast subject, the CF was truly necessary.
Yes, but hopefully the full datasheet has all the info you need to make the decision, for instance fall-off, filter size weight etc should all be there.
My biggest problem with my Gandolfi 5x7" is the rear barrel diameter on these wides. Even with some special machining on the wooden riser part, I can only get 70mm through. Too many of the nice 105/115/120 options need 75mm.
I have looked at the 110 'XL', and despite some reservations about the full-field performance, would buy one, if they weren't so damned expensive.
Not to be a complete idiot, but is it possible to mount a lens with a fat rear cell on y'r 5x7 Gandolfi by removing the rear cell from the shutter, attaching board with shutter to the front standard and then screwing the rear cell in from behind? I have to do this with some of the lenses I use on my little Graphics. Their rear cells won't clear the standard's throat.Originally Posted by Mark J
Oh yes, and Xkaes pointed this out eslewhere, but honestly, in my shooting experience in the UK, it's really a luxury if you have time to do this along with everything else needed on a view camera, when the rain is heading towards you, or the sun is threatening to disappear for good behind a bank of cloud. I have been in the US a fair bit, and it's a really a treat in comparison !
I had done this for many years with my 90mm SA XL without any problems. I have read that the fine threads on the rear cell were not designed to be unthreaded and threaded on a frequent basis like filters or a Pentax or Leica screw mount. Years ago a camera repair person advised me to put the finest amount of oil on the threads every so often but just not on a constant basis. Doing this I never had a problem with cross threading.
May I dare to ask another question? How do there compare to the Nikon SW 120MM?
Never owned a Schneider Super Symmar 110 XL. Had owned a 115mm Rodenstock Grandagon at one time in the past. Sold it and a few years later acquired a 120mm Nikon SW for my 8x10 so never was able to make a side by side comparison of both lenses. Preferred the 120mm Nikon SW but that's a totally subjective opinion on my part.
I think the 115mm Rodenstock Grandagon was also sold under another brand name... Caltar maybe? The other brand name went for a lot less on the used photo market if I remember correctly. Maybe someone can confirm this?
Yep! That's how I got mine. Caltar II-N 115mm f6.8. I bought a kit to get the lens. Also got the 210mm Caltar/Rodenstock Sironar in the same deal, both very sharp!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks