What's The Skinny on the Schneider 47 XL Lens?

[Andre Noble]

What's your feeling on the Schneider 47XL lens in terms of build quality and optical performance quality?

For background: I would like a very wide angle lens that will cover both 6x9 and 4x5. I am predominantly interested in 6x9 with ample movements. In general, I would normally be looking at the Grandagon 45 or 55 as these are in the ballpark focal length which will give me what I am seeking - which is approximately the equvalent of a 20mm lens in 35mm format with movements for architecture on the 6x9 format.

My impression is that the Rodenstock Grandagon wide angle lenses for 4x5 film have no reports of weird, unwanted things (specks, flecks, etc) inside the elements where there should be none -unlike the Schneiders XLs. From reading user reports on the web, my impression is the Grandagon wide angle lenses have better optical performance (resolution, less fall off) than their Schneider XL focal length counterparts as well.

However, I have read posts with at least two people who are very impressed particularly with their 47 XL's (and again, a few reports of people encountering weird things inside the elements as well).

My next lens will probably be either the Schneider 47XL or Rodenstock Apo Grandagon 55.

So my question is, Is the 47XL a standout amongst the Schneider XL line? Are there still/any quality control problems with this lens that you are aware either from experience or hearsay?

Thanks for any ideas.

[Kirk Gittings]

I've had one since they first came out (5 years ago?), using it for 6x9 on architecture. There are some flecks inside but they do not seem to effect the performance. I tested it pretty thoroughly when I bought it and its performance was and is remarkable. I have no experience with the others. Almost all my lenses are newish Schneiders. I need them to have the same color when I am switching lenses on different angles of the same building.

[paul owen]

Great lens! No flecks! Superb performer! BTW, never had a problem with any of my Schneider lenses as far as flecks are concerned!!

[Henry Ambrose]

I have the 58XL (the 47's brother) which gives excellent performance on 4x5 and 6x9. In comparing between Schneider and Rodenstock it seems to make more sense to compare the 45 to the 47 and the 55 to the 58 as their angles of view are more similar.

I have not read any bad reports on any of these four Rodenstock and Schneider wides.

If you can't see anything inside a lens with basic visual inspection its probably just fine. Whatever you do NEVER, NEVER use a flashlight to inspect the inside of your new and expensive lens. What you see will drive you mad!! Pretty much every brand will have some stuff inside.

[Andre Noble]

Hello Henry Ambrose,

The Rodenstock 45 Grandagon does not have the coverage to also cover a 4x5 sheet I desire...

The problem with the Schneider 58XL is too much on the long side and also, based on actual user comparisons I received from a query two years ago, clearly not as good as the Rodenstock Apo Grandagon 55 in terms of optical performance (light fall off at the edges and resolution).

My true desire is the 47XL because of coverage and angle of view, but I personally cannot tolerate a lot of flecks or anything less than Superb wormanship, resolution and color rendition since I plan to use this lens A LOT, but at the same time, can only afford to buy one LF lens per decade practically.

[Frank Petronio]

Lens brand loyalty usually stems from spending thousands of dollars and then trying to rationalize your decisions. It's like colleges - once you are an aged alumni, that former hellhole is now the greatest place on earth, deserving of your endowments and continued charity (even as tuition prices rise 10X the inflation rate...)

If paid full price for a 47XL I would damn well convince myself that is is the very finest 47mm lens in existence, and that the 45mm Grandagon is just too wide for my subtle and refined vision ;-)

[Andre Noble]

Right On! (regarding alma maters)

[Tim Chakravorty]

"Lens brand loyalty usually stems from spending thousands of dollars and then trying to rationalize your decisions. "

Truer words have never been spoken !! Well done, Frank ! :-)

Heck if spent 2k on a POS Tokina, I would convince myself its about as optically perfect as the laws of physics allow it to be.

I of course also think that my 5 year old Mazda is the finest automobile ever made :)

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi Andre

I have the 47XL and the Apo Grandagon 55mm and I like booth very much. If I could only have one of them it would be the 47 XL because it saved my needs many times when the 55mm was to long a tiny bit.
So I have no flecks and also no Schneideritis on mine and it is about 2 years one of my workhorses!
Mine is regarding sharpness equal to the 55mm and it covers even a bit more then the 55mm APO Grandagon has a coverage of 163mm the XL has 166mm as stated in the brochure and thies is quit conservative if you stop down to f22 or 32! So in my opinion the 47XL is state of the lens Art in itself!
And thies is a statement from a Rodenstock and Nikon fan, so a no brainer!
Good luck and go for it!

[sammy_5100]

Armin,

you said "the XL has 166mm as stated in the brochure and this is quite conservative if you stop down to f22 or 32!

can you tell me (about) how much coverage you get if you stop the 47 xl down to f32?

thanx

[Henry Ambrose]

Andre,
If the 47 is the only super wide that will cover 4x5 then what are your choices other than buying one and seeing if its of sufficient quality for you? If the 58 is too long for you I'm pretty sure the 55 will be as well so that leaves the 47 as your only choice. Buy it from a reputable dealer who will take it back if its not right. And don't forget the center filter if you're going to use it on 4x5!

I own 4 Schneider (3 are XLs) and 2 Rodenstock modern lenses. None of them have problems with flecks or crap inside. I've been thinking about a 47. If I shot more roll film I'd buy one without hesitation, I just don't shoot that much roll film and the 58 is already real wide on 4x5.

I understand your concern about what you get for your hard earned money. I work hard for mine too. I also own some very nice lenses from the big names and I am sure we could find a little dust in them. I've looked through lots and lots of lenses - from really cheap ones to very very expensive ones - and even taken some apart and I've never seen a flawless lens. Some of the cleanest ones were cheap Nikon 35mm SLR lense that were near spotless inside. Go figure.

If you get a 47 come back and tell us what you think about it!

[Jim Rice]

I certainly wouldn't kick the 47 XL out of bed as it were, but the greatest car ever made is my 1986 BMW 735i.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi Sammy

The Brochure of Schneider stated shift 9/8mm and in non critical aplications not a white wall for example I could go up to 12mm on f 22 and up to 14mm on f32 but without any center or other filter.
At 14 mm and f 32 the corner2-3 mm was a tiny bit darker!