PDA

View Full Version : Alternative to 90mm XL



poorartist
2-Nov-2015, 13:54
I've had my Schneider SA 90 XL for years and I love it...but I shoot almost exclusively with my Wista Sp these days and the opening behind the lens board of the optional wide angle bellows is just a little smaller than the back element meaning I end up stuck only using the 90, sacrificing the movements by only using the standard bellows which it does fit through or removing the back element in the field which I don't want to do.
I'm thinking of selling it and trying to find something comparable that is ever so slightly smaller in the back. I'm looking for suggestions for a lens of equal quality?
Any suggestions very welcome,
Best,
Jesse

Bob Salomon
2-Nov-2015, 14:18
90mm 4.5 Grandagon-N

Ari
2-Nov-2015, 14:51
The XL can't be matched by another 90mm in terms of image circle, it has by far the largest IC of any modern 90mm.
Image quality is matched by the likes of the Grandagon Bob listed, as well as the Nikon 90mm f4.5, the Fuji 90mm f5.6 or a Caltar 90mm f4.5

Daniel Stone
2-Nov-2015, 16:35
The Nikkor-SW 90mm 4.5 is a great performer, as well as the 90/4.5 Grandagon-N like Bob suggested. I currently use the Nikkor(on 5x7, so movements are a big tight), but it works well, and is VERY sharp.

-Dan

EdSawyer
3-Nov-2015, 10:00
The 90mm f/8 Nikkor is the 90mm to beat as far as 4x5 goes.

Michael R
3-Nov-2015, 10:17
Another vote for the 90/4.5 Grandagon-N. I bought a Schneider 90/5.6 XL a few years back (couldn't decide between the Schneider and Rodenstock and it was sort of a toss up). Love it, but in retrospect the Rodenstock might have been a slightly better choice. Its image circle is huge enough (not that much smaller than the XL's circle), and in exchange you get an extra half stop brightness for composition/focus.

Jeff Keller
3-Nov-2015, 10:20
Have you considered going down to a SA 72mm XL or up to a SS 110mm XL?
-jeff

Doremus Scudder
3-Nov-2015, 10:22
... the opening behind the lens board of the optional wide angle bellows is just a little smaller than the back element meaning I end up stuck ... Any suggestions very welcome,
Best,
Jesse

Jesse,

I'm not sure about the bag bellows for the SP, but my Wista (wooden) SW has a bag bellows that incorporates a threaded ring for mounting to the back of the "naked" two-piece recessed lensboards. The ring is (was) held in with three small screws. I removed these and the ring. The bag bellows mounts to the rear of the front standard with the same clips and slider bar that the regular bellows uses. I did this to be able to use lenses on "normal" recessed Technika boards, which wouldn't fit with the threaded ring in place. The three screw holes are hidden by the front standard and pose no light-leak problems. If your bellows is similarly configured, removing the ring might give you enough more room to mount the XL.

Best,

Doremus

Bob Salomon
3-Nov-2015, 11:37
The 90mm f/8 Nikkor is the 90mm to beat as far as 4x5 goes.

Does that mean that you personally have handled all of the othe Rodenstock, Fuji, Schneider and Nikon 90mm lenses? Or does that means that you do not have personal experience with all of the others?
Since the 90mm Nikon has fall off just like all of the others, but Nikon never made center filters like Rodenstock, Schneider and Fuji did, how do you compensate for the fall off? Or do you just ignore it?

Old-N-Feeble
3-Nov-2015, 11:57
Bob, the Schneider CF for the 90mm f/8 SA seems to work very well with the 90mm f/8 Nikkor SW. I haven't used it myself but have seen several example images.

richardman
4-Nov-2015, 00:34
If we are looking for comparison, which is the smallest 90/4.5 with good performance?!

Michael R
4-Nov-2015, 07:56
As far as optical performance goes, I definitely wouldn't bother quibbling between the Rodenstock 4.5 and Nikkor 4.5. The image circle of the Nikkor is stated to be 235mm @ f/16. I think the Rodenstock is 239mm, so no real difference there.

As Bob mentioned earlier, there is a dedicated center filter for the Rodenstock lens, which can be an advantage depending on user requirements.

Size-wise, attached are the specs for the Nikkor. It uses a #0 shutter (Rodenstock is in a #1) if that matters.

Drew Wiley
4-Nov-2015, 11:31
Some of these lenses are so similar that finding a center filter should be no issue. I personally use the 82mm Schneider CF (3b ?) on my Nikon 90/4.5 and it handles the illumination falloff issue precisely with 1-1/2 stops of exp compensation. On 4x5 film even this lens has such a surplus of image circle that I don't understand why someone would even need even more. Perhaps if you were shooting a 6x17 panoramic format? It was reputed to be the best 90 back when I bought it; but I'd imagine that any of em by the "big four" are exemplary performers.

Corran
4-Nov-2015, 13:48
The 3B is 67mm thread. That's what I use on my 47mm and 58mm XL lenses, but, I've lately been using it on 6x17 when shooting my Nikkor 90mm f/8. It works well. The 90mm XL has less falloff on the 6x17 (due simply to larger IC) but either way, I have large filter problems - 86mm on the 3B CF or 95mm on the XL. I don't really have any of those size filters. I do have the 100mm Lee push-on adapter for the 90XL though, which is great. I'll get the CF for the 72XL or 90XL sometime and use them interchangeably.

The 90mm XL seem slightly sharper to me than the other 90mm lenses I have used (Nikkor and Schneider 90/8 lenses, Fuji 90mm f/5.6) when really looking at a high-rez scan. But only when not stopped down past f/16 or maybe f/22.

Regarding the OP, I wonder if he has a newer 90XL that has the removable part?

dave_whatever
4-Nov-2015, 14:26
Don't forget about the common or garden non-XL super angulon 90/5.6, it would seem to be the obvious suggestion, and is a fantastic lens.

Drew Wiley
4-Nov-2015, 15:04
I always get my center filter numbers confused, because I own both a 67mm and an 82mm.

agregov
4-Nov-2015, 16:54
I own both the Rodenstock 4.5 and 6.8 lenses. The image circle is a bit bigger for the 4.5 and has a stop more light. I shoot lots of architectural work and don't recall having image circle issues with movements when using the 6.8 lens. The extra stop of light with the 4.5 (at least for me) doesn't add much more detailed information on the ground glass. If one shoots in a lot of subdued light, the 4.5 may make a difference. But for most regular outdoor shooting I'd argue the 4.5 versus 6.8 doesn't matter much. The downside with the 4.5 is the weight (1.5 pounds) and size (pretty huge) and 82mm filter requirements.

Can't go wrong with either. But if the XL feels too big, getting a Rodenstock 4.5 may not help much. Personally, I find the 6.8 a great all around performer--super optics (I have seen zero difference between the two lenses in my shooting), good image circle size for most movements, relatively light and smaller in size (~1 pound), and more practical for standardizing on a few filter sizes (67mm). A final bonus is the 6.8 is usually quite affordable ($500 or less). Even cheaper if you go with the Caltar version.

EdSawyer
5-Nov-2015, 11:11
90mm on 4x5 really doesn't need a center filter, IMNSHO.

Old-N-Feeble
5-Nov-2015, 11:42
Ed, I think you're right in most situations but not all. It depends on subject matter, how much rise/fall is used, criticality of evenness of exposure, type of film used, etc. Even subject brightness range can play a roll if darker areas are within the outer fringes of lens coverage because exposure issues are compounded.

Drew Wiley
5-Nov-2015, 12:42
Significant falloff is an optical fact with these wide angle lenses, Ed. YOU might not feel the need for a center filter, but someone else might. There is a reason they make, recommend, and sell them, you know. If you personally happen to like darkening toward the corners, that's fine. It is a creative option. Sometimes
you can dodge/burn to correct that; sometimes, you can't due to excessive loss of information. Maybe the detail in deep shadows won't be sufficient, maybe
there will be an unbalanced color shift in a color neg film, or just outright excessive contrast in a chrome affecting printing or reproduction.

Bob Salomon
5-Nov-2015, 13:07
Significant falloff is an optical fact with these wide angle lenses, Ed. YOU might not feel the need for a center filter, but someone else might. There is a reason they make, recommend, and sell them, you know. If you personally happen to like darkening toward the corners, that's fine. It is a creative option. Sometimes
you can dodge/burn to correct that; sometimes, you can't due to excessive loss of information. Maybe the detail in deep shadows won't be sufficient, maybe
there will be an unbalanced color shift in a color neg film, or just outright excessive contrast in a chrome affecting printing or reproduction.

And you can't burn and dodge a chrome.

Also, the falloff starts after about the first 30% of the coverage of the lens. So it is basically always there. A center filter does not eliminate the falloff but it does even it out and minimizes it.