Schnieder 47Xl vs 58Xl

[Don Hutton]

I've owned both - they have pretty much identical image circles, so in reality, you get a lot more effective movement with the 47... I believe that the 47 is a superior lens - a little snappier and sharper. IME, when you need ultra wide, you probably want as much as you can get and that's the 47mm not the 58mm...

[dbramley]

Wow... Lots of great advice!!! I live in Arizona, and renting maybe a good idea to get a feel for the coverage. I would like to build a lens kit of 47xl or 58xl. Then 72xl, 110Xl then 150 rodenstock sironar-s. I curently have a Schiender SA 90/5.6 that I will likely sell and a nikkor-m 300. What about long Telephoto? Fuji or Nikon T-ED?

Thanks again,

Dan

[Bob Salomon]

Wow... Lots of great advice!!! I live in Arizona, and renting maybe a good idea to get a feel for the coverage. I would like to build a lens kit of 47xl or 58xl. Then 72xl, 110Xl then 150 rodenstock sironar-s. I curently have a Schiender SA 90/5.6 that I will likely sell and a nikkor-m 300. What about long Telephoto? Fuji or Nikon T-ED?

Thanks again,

Dan

Photomark in Phoenix rents large format lenses and Rod at Photomark is an excellent large format instructor.

[Eric James]

Perhaps you know what you’re getting yourself into, but 58mm is REALLY wide on 4 by 5. When I started out three years ago I thought that I would find myself using wider lenses. I now own seven lenses ranging from 90-300mm. I just returned from a weeklong trip where I used all of my lenses, except the 90mm - I wasn't even tempted. Sure, it all comes down your personal vision. Just be aware that the 4X5 aspect ratio confounds the 35mm to 4X5 focal-length conversions that many of us go through when trying to decide on a lens set.

The Fuji 450mm C is a great long lens - plenty of coverage and very small - I wish that my current camera could focus it.

[dbramley]

Thanks Bob, I know Rod quite well and sat in on his class for a couple of semesters. 58mm is quite wide. Between my 90 and 300 I shoot 90% with the 90. Personal vision I guess. I have been playing around with 4X5for 3 years; it's now time to get serious so I am going to invest in some lenses to fill in the gaps.

Thanks to all,

Dan

[Eric James]

Since you mention the Rodenstock 150mm, I assume that you aren't too brand loyal. Perhaps you're trying to limit your investment in center filters, but have you considered the Rodenstock 55mm? Many here have reported that it out performs the 58XL.

[andrew vincent]

I've used both on a linhof master technika classic - they're both a pain, but the images are spectacular if you love ultrawide. I had a linhof selected 58mm, which might have been a really fine sample, but felt that the images were razor sharp. I loved it, and did a whole series using that lens for 90% of the images. But I eventually sold it to get the 47mm, just to have the widest large format lens available. It's amazing too. No complaints whatsoever. Just be sure you understand what you're getting into. A 47mm is nothing, nothing like a 90mm on a 4x5mm - it's not wide angle so much as ultra-extreme-bordering on ridiculously wide angle.

[jb7]

47- when you need it, it's there-

I also use a 72 and a 90-
and they get far more use-
but sometimes, as has been mentioned,
you just can't get back far enough-

The point about image circle (compared to a 58) and cropping is a good one too-

j

[Daniel_Buck]

I agree with those who have suggested you try renting the lenses first! I did this when I was trying to decide on 90/8 versus 90/5.6, and it worked out great.

I used to rent lenses for a weekend for my 35mm camera from PhotoMark when I was in Phoenix, before I would purchase them (online, or used) so that I knew that I did (or did not!) like the lenses. It's a great way to be sure you like the lens.

[Bjorn Nilsson]

I've been contemplating these two lenses too and one thing that isn't mentioned here is that they both have the same image circle (166mm) at infinity. The 47 casts a 120 deg usable circle while the 58 casts a 110 deg circle. The flange to film distance does indeed vary by 11mm (59.1 vs. 70.0mm).
Personally I decided to pass when I found my 80mm plenty wide and quite seldom used. Also, as Andrew said, there is no comparison to e.g. a 90mm, as the 47 is a totally different experience. (Which is why I did give the 58mm a thought in the first place.)

//Björn