Schneider Super Angulon 90mm v. Super Angulon 90mm XL

[Milonian]

My question is whether there is an appreciable gain in quality of image produced by the XL compared to the older version. This has probably been asked before but I could not see a thread on it. If it has, if someone could direct me to it I would be grateful.

[Lachlan 717]

You might see it if you're shooting test patterns in lab conditions.

You probably won't see it otherwise.

The improvement was with the IC.

The 90mm Super Angulon was a massive seller for a reason - it's a great lens.

[Milonian]

You might see it if you're shooting test patterns in lab conditions.

You probably won't see it otherwise.

The improvement was with the IC.

The 90mm Super Angulon was a massive seller for a reason - it's a great lens.

Thanks for your help.

[Michael Rosenberg]

I don't think you would see the difference in practical terms. If you are doing a LOT of architectural photography the XL would be great because the coverage gives you more movement. But it is a very heavy lens, and the rear element is large!

Mike

[Old-N-Feeble]

On what size film... with how much movement needed??

[Milonian]

On what size film... with how much movement needed??

Currently using 5x4 for landscapes - not a huge amount of movement. The question was more general - I'm interested to see if anyone has experience of both lenses and could see an appreciable difference between them. The reason is that there's a big difference in price between them - is it justified in terms of end result was where I was coming from.

[Milonian]

I don't think you would see the difference in practical terms. If you are doing a LOT of architectural photography the XL would be great because the coverage gives you more movement. But it is a very heavy lens, and the rear element is large!

Mike
Thanks Mike. Mostly landscapes without much movement as per my reply to Old-N-Feeble on this thread. Wista 5x4 incidentally.

[Milonian]

I don't think you would see the difference in practical terms. If you are doing a LOT of architectural photography the XL would be great because the coverage gives you more movement. But it is a very heavy lens, and the rear element is large!

Mike
Just checked your website. Coming from Scotland I was particularly interested in the Church/Cathedral photographs in England. Excellent! Great site all round.

[Old-N-Feeble]

To put another wrench in the works... what about a 90mm f/8 Nikkor-SW? It's reputation for image quality is stellar and it's very small and lightweight.

[neil poulsen]

To put another wrench in the works... what about a 90mm f/8 Nikkor-SW? It's reputation for image quality is stellar and it's very small and lightweight.

This lens has the same image circle as the S.A. 90mm f5.6. Given it's reduced weight, it's a good choice. But, it's smaller aperture might make it difficult to focus in some interior situations.

Anecdotally, this same discussion came up in a workshop that I took from Norman McGrath years ago. (He's a well-known architectural photographer.) He hadn't purchased the 90mm XL lens, because he was getting all the image circle needed from his (at that time) current S.A. f5.6 lens. This was his most frequently used lens.

[Corran]

I've used the old f/6.8 Angulon, Super Angulon f/8 (several of them, from various time periods), Nikkor f/8, and the 90 XL (90mm is my favorite focal length on 4x5...).

On extreme examination of hi-rez scans, I just maybe saw a bit of a difference between the XL and the more common lenses. Mostly, it was because I shot it a few times at f/16 instead of f/32, looking for the difference. At f/22 or smaller I imagine that would evaporate. The Angulon of course isn't nearly as good as all of the others but I shoot it at f/32 more or less always, which makes it about as good as anything else at that aperture.

So, I hike with the Nikkor usually or the Angulon when I want ultra-light. The XL is a pain to use with filters so I don't use it except for handheld stuff on my Linhof, since it has the widest aperture and because I have a cam that works for it (not technically made for it but so close as to work just fine).

Unless you need it for architecture or shooting as an extreme WA on 4x10, the XL is probably not a worthwhile investment, or maybe if you want that extra bit of sharpness at a more middling aperture and don't need the DOF.

[Milonian]

To put another wrench in the works... what about a 90mm f/8 Nikkor-SW? It's reputation for image quality is stellar and it's very small and lightweight.

I'll check that one out too!

[Milonian]

I've used the old f/6.8 Angulon, Super Angulon f/8 (several of them, from various time periods), Nikkor f/8, and the 90 XL (90mm is my favorite focal length on 4x5...).

On extreme examination of hi-rez scans, I just maybe saw a bit of a difference between the XL and the more common lenses. Mostly, it was because I shot it a few times at f/16 instead of f/32, looking for the difference. At f/22 or smaller I imagine that would evaporate. The Angulon of course isn't nearly as good as all of the others but I shoot it at f/32 more or less always, which makes it about as good as anything else at that aperture.

So, I hike with the Nikkor usually or the Angulon when I want ultra-light. The XL is a pain to use with filters so I don't use it except for handheld stuff on my Linhof, since it has the widest aperture and because I have a cam that works for it (not technically made for it but so close as to work just fine).

Interesting - thanks Bryan.

Unless you need it for architecture or shooting as an extreme WA on 4x10, the XL is probably not a worthwhile investment, or maybe if you want that extra bit of sharpness at a more middling aperture and don't need the DOF.

[Drew Wiley]

I prefer the Nikkor 90/4.5. Seems a cut above the SA, or at least did back in the day. Since wides have more falloff than normal lenses, and I hate fresnels, the
bigger aperture helps, esp if a center filter or contrast filter is in place. Big image circle. Don't use this focal length enough to warrant multiple options, but if I
did choose and f/8, it would probably be the Nikkor likewise.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Another nice thing about the 90mm f/8 Nikkor-SW is it can use a 67mm Schneider center filter designed for the 58 SAXL, 80 SSXL and 110 SSXL. It's not the full two stops correction but it's enough.

[Corran]

Perhaps one day I should try that (I have the 3B for my 58XL). I've never noticed any significant fall-off from the Nikkor.

[Milonian]

Thanks to all for replies.

[kleinbatavia]

I've used a few 90mm lenses, including the schneider SA. It's a good lens, but somehow I never got along with it. I've since switched to a nikkor 90 SW (8) and am very pleased with the results. Both for B/W and color work. It's a little more difficult to focus in bright light, but nothing a good dark cloth won't fix... (I do use a gg/fresnel combo on my camera).

[plaubel]

Maybe one short technical question concerning the non S Angulon is allowed , please:
In the Schneider data sheet https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/angulon/data/6,8-90mm.html , they describe two different focal lengths - the effective focal length and the back focal length, and i am not sure with the correct translation.

Thanks for your help,
Ritchie

[Dan Fromm]

Effective focal length is to a thick lens as focal length is to a thin lens. Distance from rear node to film plane with the lens focused to infinity.

Back focal length is the distance from the rear vertex of the rear element to the film plane with the lens focused at infinity.

[plaubel]

Hello, Dan,

thanks a lot, this really helps!

Ritchie

[Professional]

This 90mm XL is in my wish list, i shoot a lot of ultra wide scene and architecture is one area i love to shoot, so i better go with widest or higher IC just in case.