Nikon SW 90 vs Schneider 90 XL for 4x5?

[Daniel Geiger]

I currently own a Schneider Super-Angulon (non-XL) 90 mm f8 with an image circle of 216 mm on the new ArcaSwiss F-line 4x5. This is my first 90 and have only been shooting LF for a few months now. I have run it out of coverage several times, particularly with strong near/far differences (sea turtle in front on beach, palm trees/horizon in back: limited tilt) plus some front or rear rise [no "fall" on Arca]. This type of images is why I started LF and will do it quite a bit more in the future. I like the focal length. I consider upgrading and ponder two contenders:

- Nikon SW 90 with image circle of 235 mm, no center filter [A Kerry Thalmann future classic]

- Schneider Super-Angulon XL 90 mm with image circle of 259 mm, requires center filter.

I noticed the filter diameter differences (67 vs 95 mm) and the price (~900 vs ~2,000 with center filter; according to lens table on LF forum). I trust the max apperture difference (f8 vs 5.6) will be balanced out due to the center filter so I trust the screen images will be approximately equally bright.

I trust I won't ever have any worries anymore with the Schneider, but the need for a center filter is a bit annoying. I don't think I will move up to 5x7 format. But is it utter overkill for 4x5? Any comments by folks who have been in a similar situation in the past? One thing I can't figure out from the specs is whether there are limitations with the Schneider of using Lee filters (grad ND).

Thanks for your wisdom.

[Andre Noble]

Sell it, get the Nikon.

[Ted Harris]

Why are you so sure younwill need a center filter? You might but I doubt it. I can't remember when I needed a center filter with a 90 and Idon't even use one with a 75 most of the time.

See if you can try the lens out without a center filter and then make your choice.

[Herb Cunningham]

I have used a Nikon 90mm f4.5 for a long time on 4x5, never ran out of coverage, with arca f line and a lot of rise.

I have the 72mm SA XL and don't use a center filter on b/w, haven't done any color with it.

[Eric Woodbury]

I don't use center filters with BW either. And I don't do color. I'm not missing them. I don't think f5.6 will do you much good except to focus. Get a better dark cloth for that.

As far as 90s go, I have the 72mm SA XL and the 110mm. This is for 57 which I thought I would never do either ... that was 15 years ago. Sold the 90.

[Gem Singer]

Hi Daniel,

Since you are considering the Schneider 90XL, It may be a good idea to consider the Schneider 110XL instead. It is smaller, lighter weight, around the same price as the 90XL, and you will never run out of coverage for 4X5. You might also discover that there is no need to use a center filter with the 110XL.

[Robert Jaques]

I purchased the Nikon SW 90 F8 a year ago and have no regrets. The 67mm filter and not having to use a center filter were two of the reasons I purchased this one. I have not found a situation were I've ran out of movements. Razor Sharp !!!

[Paul Droluk]

I have used both Nikon 90's (4.5 & 8) on our Fotoman 617 camera, which has an image diagonal of 177mm. I can assure you that if you shoot transparency material (Velvia-Provia etc.) you will DEFINATELY need a center filter. That's why I ultimately switched to the Schneider 90XL... it has a Schneider made specific CF. Nikon implies no CF is requited... NOT TRUE. One of our customers bought a Heliopan (3X) for his 90/4.5 Nikon on 617 format, and it still wasn't enough correction on transparency material.

[Daniel Geiger]

Thanks for all the opinions and experiences:

Eric: I have a blackjacket hybrid dark cloth on order (see View Camera's latest issue), to replace the horse blanket.

Re 90 vs 110, I do like the wide angle feel of the 90 quite a bit. These are roughly 28 vs. 35 mm in SLR terms, and I either use the 50 or the 28, hardly ever the 35 (currently don't even own a 35), so the 110 equivalent is not my style. Weight is not an issue.

Now the center filter question. I do shoot color (Velvia-Provia: Paul you hit it on the nail on the head). I have noticed light fall-off with my current Schneider Angulon (non-XL); when I bought the lens, the people at the store didn't think I needed a center filter, but the LF-forum table lists one. In general, light fall-off diminishes as you close the diaphragm. So I'd guess that fully open, a specific CF is under-compensating, should be optimized about 2-3 f-stops down from fully open, and will over-compensate when stopped down all the way. Is that true? Is there any data on that?

Thanks again for the insight!

[Roger Scott]

I use a Nikon 90mm/f8 with 4x5 and haven't found any need for a centre filter on transparencies at the apertures I most commonly use (f19-f45). With focussing at f8, yes the corners are darker (part of that is my fresnel lens) so if you're shooting wide open a centre filter might help although light falloff becomes minimal by around f16 which is where the lens starts becoming optimal anyway. If you need to use larger apertures you're probably better off with a different lens. On 617 or 5x7 it will become more necessary due to the increased angle near the edges of these formats. In your 35mm SLR terms a 90mm lens on a 5x7 camera is equivalent to about 22mm.

Regards,

[Paul Droluk]

Daniel, I don't know of any imperical data published to describe the visual effect of the CF using various f-stops. Schneiders literature simply advises stopping down 1-2 stops from maximum. I referred to my experience with 617 because you had mentioned that you had run out of coverage on several occasions... that's 216mm vs. the 617 diagonal of 177mm. I never shoot below f16 and try whenever possible to use f22, where most 90's are optically optimized. The filter factor for the Schneider's 4A filter (XL specific) is 3x-1.5 stops, same as for their 3B filter made for your current lens.

[Michael S. Briggs]

There is a lot of confusion about center filters. Some is because none of the popular optics or LF books explain them well. People get confused because Nikon and Fuji don't sell center filters and guess that Nikon and Fuji lenses have more uniform illumination than Rodenstock or Schneider lenses.





From optical theory, there is no reason to think that Nikon or Fuji lenses are better, and good reason to think that the Biogen-type lenses from all four manufactures will have similar illumination falloff. These lenses include the Nikkor-SW, Fuji-SW, various Grandagons, and Super-Angulons. So I don't think it is correct to say that the 90 mm Nikkor-SW doesn't need a center filter and the 90 mm Super-Angulon-XL requires one. The availability of center filters from the lens manufacturer probably more reflects marketing decisions than differences in the lens performances.





I would choose between these two lenses based on cost, size, weight and coverage. The lenses are very different in these parameters. The 90 mm SA-XL is huge for a 90 mm lens. My judgement is that few 4x5 photographers will fully use the coverage that this lens provides, so a smaller and cheaper lens would be a better choice for most 4x5 photographers.





And whether you "need" a center filter for either lens depends on the photography that you do and your tastes. You can more likely to find a center filter useful if you frequently use extreme movements or use transparency film. With negative film, you can increase the exposure to overexposure the center of the image and deliver "correct" exposure to the corners.





A center filter will work at all reasonable taking apertures, i.e., starting from about two stops down from the maximum aperture. With most lenses, stopping down about two stops will eliminate mechanical vignetting and leave the non-unformity from geometric optics, which doesn't depend on aperture. Even when used at the apertures that I suggest, center filters are normally designed to under compenstate for non-uniform illumination. No lens has perfectly uniform illumination; some non-uniformity is acceptable. A center filter that was sufficiently dense to produce uniform illumination would be inconveniently dense, leading to long exposures.





Some previous discussions: Center Filter Requirements at http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/315332.html,
Center filter for Nikkor 90mm f4.5 at http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/501033.html,
Image circle and fall-off at http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005gK2,
and hoya neutral density center filter at http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AJZW.

[Daniel Geiger]

Dear Michael,

thanks a lot for your in-depth response and also the links to the previous threads. Most illuminating! I guess I am one of the more picky photographers-on-a-pea types, shooting so far only transparencies, so will have to deal with a CF. On my current 90 mm I find the fall-off rather bothersome, so I trust I will find it objectionable which ever other lens with larger coverage I will choose.

One thing that did not make all that much sense is the idea that a lens of same focal length on same format and film but with larger coverage will have more even illumination. Given some rudimentary understanding of geometry, I'd think that the light-fall-off function is a question of angle, and that the focal length (on given format/film) will produce a particular-identical angle, so the light-fall-off should be identical regardless of coverage [I'll ignore here the 1-2% differences due to coating or what have you]. That seems to be supported by the comparison of the Schneider data between the 90 and the 90XL: the 90 (non-XL) has LESS light fall-off at its periphery than the XL! At the periphery the 90 has approx. 20% of center brightness, whereas 90 XL has about 12%. But of course the 90 has less coverage (216 vs 259 mm). And yes, the Schneider data did not show much difference between f-stops (delta f-stop between f/5.6 and f/22 around 2/3 f-stop at periphery, whereas center to periphery fall-off is around 2.5 f-stops (down to 20% at periphery). And as Kerry Thalmann pointed out in some other thread, fall-off is worst at infinity focus. Thank you Schneider!

So in the end it will be a question of price vs coverage. Looks like I'll bite the bullet for the Schneider XL. Never worry about coverage again.

Thanks again for all your input. Best wishes