PDA

View Full Version : Help! Schneider XL input



seandavid
11-Sep-2016, 22:02
Hi all,

Just looking at getting a wider lens, and I'm looking at the following:

Schneider 80mm XL
Schneider 90mm XL
Schneider 72mm XL

I'm not married to the idea of a Schneider, and would love any input from anyone in the know. I have read that the 80mm tends to often have issues with haze, so I'm wary of that, but definitely attracted to to its size and weight. I am looking at these for their larger image circles, but like I said, would love to know anyones thoughts on these lenses, or any others (Rodenstock?) I should be considering.

Thank you!

Bob Salomon
12-Sep-2016, 04:56
Rodenstock 4.5s

Luis-F-S
12-Sep-2016, 06:13
What do you have n what formats? The XLs are beasts!

seandavid
12-Sep-2016, 08:50
What do you have n what formats? The XLs are beasts!

Luis,

I'd be using my Chamonix (with universal bellows) 045F1 with this. I guess I'd want something in the 80-90mm range in order to not have to change my bellows?

Corran
12-Sep-2016, 08:52
Landscape? Or architecture? Or...?

seandavid
12-Sep-2016, 08:58
Corran, I would say a bit of both. Mostly landscape, but not necessarily in the traditional sense. I would definitely love to have room for movements. My only lens right now (135mm Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S) doesn't allow a ton of movement.

Corran
12-Sep-2016, 09:14
I have the 72mm and 90mm XL lenses. They are both very good. I still use my Nikkor 90mm f/8 usually when hiking because it's half the size and weight. The 72mm XL is used on my 6x17.

The image circle of the 90mm XL is certainly a little larger than the Nikkor but please understand the Nikkor has a humongous IC already. The 90mm almost covers 8x10. So consider if you really need the larger lens, or if brightness on the ground glass is the issue, one of the f/4.5 models may work for you (and they still have big ICs). If you go the 72/90 XL route be prepared to buy a lot of big filters if you use them. I haven't talked about the 80mm because I don't have one, but looking at the specs it's not the same type of lens (it's aspherical) and is smaller so it might be the "best" option for a modern, fast wide-angle but I don't know. The haze thing also worries me so I've never really looked at them seriously.

seandavid
12-Sep-2016, 09:32
Corran,

This is some great input. Brightness on the ground glass is definitely an issue. I often shoot in really low light. Either in the woods, or sun-up or sun-down. I should consider the Nikkors (4.5), but haven't researched them as much and wonder if sharpness (or anything else) is an issue or not?

The filter size is definitely a consideration, as I will use filters. That's why the 80mm Schneider is enticing, although the haze issue is a concern.

Thanks!

Corran
12-Sep-2016, 09:56
I can relate with those situations. Personally, I have generally not had issues focusing with my Nikkor 90mm f/8. I don't have either of the f/4.5 models from Nikkor/Rodenstock but I believe from various reports I've seen they are at least equal to the slower lenses. I know the Nikkor 90mm f/4.5 has 82mm filters, if that matters (I think the Rodenstock also has 82mm).

I don't think you can go wrong with any of these lenses really.

seandavid
12-Sep-2016, 10:09
Corran, thanks for that info. Totally helpful. Good to know about the filter size,too.

Peter Lewin
12-Sep-2016, 10:35
The problem is that I cannot generalize from one example, but I have the 80XL, and have had no hazing issues (I wish I could remember for sure how old mine is, but I bought it new at least 10 years ago). The lens is actually quite compact, certainly smaller than my 210 Symmar-S. I've been very happy with it. My camera is a Canham DLC, and while I use the lens with the normal bellows, to handle large displacements I would need the bag bellows. With no experience with the Chamonix universal bellows, I can't say at what point the bellows may inhibit movements.

seandavid
12-Sep-2016, 10:40
Thanks, Peter. That's helpful. If I can find a clean 80XL, it sounds like a great lens.

Bob Salomon
12-Sep-2016, 12:39
Thanks, Peter. That's helpful. If I can find a clean 80XL, it sounds like a great lens.

Just remember, this is a lens that has fall off so a center filter may be required.

seandavid
12-Sep-2016, 22:05
Just remember, this is a lens that has fall off so a center filter may be required.

Right. Maybe a rookie question, but does this apply to all film types?

Luis-F-S
13-Sep-2016, 02:07
...wonder if sharpness (or anything else) is an issue or not?

The filter size is definitely a consideration, as I will use filters. That's why the 80mm Schneider is enticing, although the haze issue is a concern.

Thanks!

Would they sell if sharpness were an issue? Even the cheapest lens is going to be sharper than you'll ever need!

Bob Salomon
13-Sep-2016, 05:49
Right. Maybe a rookie question, but does this apply to all film types?

If the films are used with this type of lens. It is an optical issue not a film issue.

Peter Lewin
13-Sep-2016, 06:53
Right. Maybe a rookie question, but does this apply to all film types?
As Bob said, the light fall-off at the edges is a matter of geometry & optics for all wide-angle lenses, so it applies to all film types. That said, I have never owned or used the center filter for my 80XL (the filters are very expensive), but have not missed it. I suspect that the problem is minor when shooting straight on (i.e. minimal displacements) which is my normal use (as I said earlier, while the bellows on my Canham is quite flexible, I would need a bag bellows to handle large amounts of rise, fall, swing, etc. to approach the edge of the image circle for the 80XL) Also, I typically edge burn my prints in the darkroom, the light fall-off on the wide angle lens would theoretically minimize that need (and I say theoretically, because again I have never had a problem). In fact I just printed a panoramic composition I made with the 80XL, and didn't notice any fall-off effects. If I get around to it I will post a scan of that negative today or tomorrow (my first priority is toning and mounting the actual print!)

If any XL users have had a different experience, now would be a good time to chime in!

Oren Grad
13-Sep-2016, 07:25
If any XL users have had a different experience, now would be a good time to chime in!

I've only ever bothered with a center filter in two extreme situations: 120 SA on 8x10 and 90 SA XL on whole plate. In both cases, that's pushing to the very limit of the image circle and maybe a bit beyond, trying to just cover the film in an exposure without any movements.

But YMMV: it's very much a subjective judgment about how much falloff one is comfortable with, and how much manipulation one is prepared to do in the darkroom or in Photoshop to compensate for it. I'm using B&W film but making contact prints and consider manipulation in the printing stage to be a hassle. So where the falloff is enough to be bothersome I'd much rather fix the problem at the source.

Corran
13-Sep-2016, 07:29
It also depends on the film used. B&W film with a healthy exposure gives you plenty of latitude to burn/dodge any fall-off, while slide film does not.

I don't use a CF on my 90mm lenses except when used on 6x17 (sometimes), which is much more susceptible to fall-off on the wider frame. I would say a CF on the 80mm is definitely not an absolute "must-have" filter unless you were planning on shooting nothing but chromes.

Bob Salomon
13-Sep-2016, 08:44
As Bob said, the light fall-off at the edges is a matter of geometry & optics for all wide-angle lenses, so it applies to all film types. That said, I have never owned or used the center filter for my 80XL (the filters are very expensive), but have not missed it. I suspect that the problem is minor when shooting straight on (i.e. minimal displacements) which is my normal use (as I said earlier, while the bellows on my Canham is quite flexible, I would need a bag bellows to handle large amounts of rise, fall, swing, etc. to approach the edge of the image circle for the 80XL) Also, I typically edge burn my prints in the darkroom, the light fall-off on the wide angle lens would theoretically minimize that need (and I say theoretically, because again I have never had a problem). In fact I just printed a panoramic composition I made with the 80XL, and didn't notice any fall-off effects. If I get around to it I will post a scan of that negative today or tomorrow (my first priority is toning and mounting the actual print!)

If any XL users have had a different experience, now would be a good time to chime in!

You can't burn and dodge transparencies.
The fall off starts after about the first 30% of the lens coverage. So it is there, with or without movements.
Yes you can burn and dodge negs, but can you do all of the prints exactly the same all of the time?
How well you see or don't see the fall off depends largely on what you shoot. If you will shoot a scene with open sky across the entire scene then you will see darkening across the scene. If you have dark woods on the edges then you probably won't see the fall off. If you shoot evenly colored skyscrapers that go across the full film then you will see the fall off.
Some people don't see fall off at all as they feel that it draws the eye into the center or they just call it the "wide angle effect" or look.

Will you need it, it depends on what you shoot and how you shoot. For a center filter to have an effect the lens must be stopped down at least two stops from wide open.

Drew Wiley
13-Sep-2016, 11:28
Will the front standard on that lightweight field camera even realistically support the weight of a huge lens without risking vibration or compromising acute focus?
I'm not kidding.

Ed Richards
13-Sep-2016, 14:40
The 80mm is a jewel. Tiny, huge image circle, incredibly sharp. The end of the line for large format lens design. The 90 and the 72 are great, but huge. Unless you are doing extreme architecture, you will never use all the movements the 80mm allows. Plus it uses 67mm filters.

Drew Wiley
13-Sep-2016, 15:31
Depends on the look you want; or in the case of a commercial architectural shot, whether falloff is even acceptable by professional repro standards. Chromes
aren't the only problem film. Some color neg films will show a color shift toward the corners due to placement lower on the dye sensitivity curve. Center filters
add cost and weight, esp if you need an 82mm version or bigger.

Mark Stahlke
13-Sep-2016, 16:12
If any XL users have had a different experience, now would be a good time to chime in!
Here is the shot that convinced me to buy a CF for my 80XL.
155015

Mark Stahlke
13-Sep-2016, 16:25
This shot also suffers from the 80XL's fall off.
155016

Pfsor
13-Sep-2016, 17:29
Here is the shot that convinced me to buy a CF for my 80XL.
155015

In this very case, I'm afraid the presence of the falloff in your picture is not necessarily a sign of centre filter necessity. If you did not know that in your picture the light in the landscape was uniform you could easily suppose that a simple hole in cloud cover is responsible for the light distribution in the picture. And it certainly has its appeal too.

On my wall I have a panoramic picture of vast landscape where the edges of it are visibly darkened. Once an amateur photographer sawing the picture said - you needed to use a centre filter for this picture! I told him that the difference in the light was entirely natural and made by quickly moving cloud cover. The cloud cover is clearly visible in the picture - only a predetermined mind would think that such cloud cover needs to allow for uniform illumination.

RJ-
13-Sep-2016, 17:57
Thanks, Peter. That's helpful. If I can find a clean 80XL, it sounds like a great lens.

Hi Sean,

the Schneider SA XL range are all incredible lenses. I've used most of them for work although the 47mm XL and the 90mm XL remain my favourites.

Bob's point about the centre filter is really valid for critical imaging and lighting control; you may just about get away without using one for the 80mm XL, since it's possible to do without for the 90mm XL on slide film. But it's much easier with a 90mm. Filter size isn't a reason for a photographer to limit his perspective and choice for a lens for large format surely?

Here is an example on the 47mm XL shot on a Silvestri 5"x4" with IIIc corrected centre filter (minus two stops). I really do not like 5"x4" and hence the 4"x4" thumbnail:

https://flic.kr/p/McrE4p

https://flic.kr/p/McryZB

And without the centre filter:

https://flic.kr/p/M2CMky


Good luck!

Kind regards

RJ

jesse
14-Sep-2016, 10:17
Hi Sean,

the Schneider SA XL range are all incredible lenses. I've used most of them for work although the 47mm XL and the 90mm XL remain my favourites.

Bob's point about the centre filter is really valid for critical imaging and lighting control; you may just about get away without using one for the 80mm XL, since it's possible to do without for the 90mm XL on slide film. But it's much easier with a 90mm. Filter size isn't a reason for a photographer to limit his perspective and choice for a lens for large format surely?

Here is an example on the 47mm XL shot on a Silvestri 5"x4" with IIIc corrected centre filter (minus two stops). I really do not like 5"x4" and hence the 4"x4" thumbnail:

https://flic.kr/p/McrE4p

https://flic.kr/p/McryZB

And without the centre filter:

https://flic.kr/p/M2CMky


Good luck!

Kind regards

RJ

This is my hometown Hong Kong!;)

Jac@stafford.net
14-Sep-2016, 10:35
About center filters - if we use a relatively low contrast film, falloff is easier to deal with, and I think for LF most of use such film.

And when starting to establish exposure with a center filter, begin with 1.5 stops of compensation and don't be surprised if you need 2.5 stops, then stop down at least two stops from wide open in order to make the filter work properly. It's physics. I loaned a w/a with center filter to a fellow who could see no improvement. He had shot it at maximum aperture, thus no significant effect.

As to which lens, well it's difficult to find a poor modern lens for LF. I have never been disappointed with Rodenstock in any way whatsoever.

Luis-F-S
14-Sep-2016, 11:37
Luis,

I'd be using my Chamonix (with universal bellows) 045F1 with this. I guess I'd want something in the 80-90mm range in order to not have to change my bellows?

With 4x5 you don't need an XL lens. I'd get the regular Schneider SA or the Rodenstock Grandagon and be done with it. It will be a whole lot cheaper and readily available, much smaller in size, you won't need a center filter and neither you nor anyone else will be able to tell the difference in an image between the two. I have 90 XL and I've not used it for some 15 years, and then only used it for architectural interiors. Never used a center filter with it. If I needed something that wide today, I'd probably use a WA Dagor, but I shoot very little 4x5 these days, mostly 8x10.

Bob Salomon
14-Sep-2016, 11:48
With 4x5 you don't need an XL lens. I'd get the regular Schneider SA or the Rodenstock Grandagon and be done with it. It will be a whole lot cheaper and readily available, much smaller in size, you won't need a center filter and neither you nor anyone else will be able to tell the difference in an image between the two. I have 90 XL and I've not used it for some 15 years, and then only used it for architectural interiors. Never used a center filter with it. If I needed something that wide today, I'd probably use a WA Dagor, but I shoot very little 4x5 these days, mostly 8x10.

Why are you assuming that someone who is discussing an 80mm wouldn't want a 75mm? After all, it is much closer to an 80 then a 90 is.

And, 72, 75, 80 or 90mm they all have falloff that can be reduced with the proper center filter on 45, or larger. Weather or not you personally don't see or feel the need for one doesn't mean that someone else does see the need.
No one should, without experience, buy the center filter until after they have shot with the lens under the conditions that they will use the lens and have used it on typical scenes that they plan on shooting. Then they, and they alone, can decide if they do or do not need or will or will not benefit from a center filter.

Center filters are/were made because better lens manufacturers were fully aware of cosines failure and the fall off caused by it and offered center filters for those users who would benefit from them.

Whatever rhetoric you use to excuse your use of a center filter does not eliminate the fact that after about 30% out towards the edges and corners, from the center of the coverage of the lens, fall off starts.

Luis-F-S
14-Sep-2016, 12:21
Why are you assuming that someone who is discussing an 80mm wouldn't want a 75mm? After all, it is much closer to an 80 then a 90 is. Center filters are/were made because better lens manufacturers were fully aware of cosines failure and the fall off caused by it and offered center filters for those users who would benefit from them.....Whatever rhetoric you use to excuse your use of a center filter does not eliminate the fact that after about 30% out towards the edges and corners, from the center of the coverage of the lens, fall off starts.

Bob, I've been a very successful professional photographer since 1974 and I've never owned a center filter, nor have I felt I've needed one. I shot Architecture on chromes with 4x5 and 135 using a number of the lenses (including a 47 SA, 58 SAXL, 65, 72, 90 XL, 115, 135, 150, 180, 240 & 300) several of which the company you worked for in a former life represented and sold and never felt the need for one. I really don't care what lens the OP buys or whether he buys a center filter. I was merely relating that IMHO for 4x5, you don't need an XL lens and may also NOT need a center filter, I know I never did, and I actually used the stuff to make money, not sold it. Initially, the OP was asking about a 72, or 80 or 90 lens. If he were using it on 5x7 I'd be a little more concerned about coverage, but almost any decent WA 72-90 lens made within the past 20 or so years will easily cover 4x5 for 98% of the situations most photographers will ever use them for. For me, the cost and size differential is not worth it for an XL lens for the less than 2% of the times it will ever-maybe ever-maybe never-be used. But, hey, it's not my money, lens or cameras. I already own more lenses than I will ever need, or use in the time I've got left on this planet, and nearly all-99.999 % of the commercial work I still do is digital anyway.

RJ-
14-Sep-2016, 12:46
This is my hometown Hong Kong!;)

Fantastic hometown Jesse ~ where 47mm XL is sometimes not wide enough...!

See you in Hong Kong sometime!

Kind regards,

RJ

Corran
14-Sep-2016, 12:53
Perhaps someone can answer this question since we are discussing center filters and fall-off.

With DSLR lenses, fall-off is often measured and reported, and the fall-off is mitigated by stopping down. There are clear illustrations of this online, made by photographing a uniformly toned wall. So my question is, wouldn't this also happen with LF lenses? I know wide-angle DSLR lenses are retrofocus designs so perhaps there are differences here. But if fall-off is reduced with stopping down, what is the actual fall-off of the Schneider 90mm f/5.6 XL lens 2-stops down (where the CF starts working) compared to 5-stops down or more? If shooting landscapes at f/22 or f/32, is the fall-off noticeably less than at f/11? If so, perhaps that's where some discrepancies in opinion/experience come from. For example, I can remember some images I shot with my 90XL that seemed to have a bit more fall-off than I expected but I shot them at f/16.

Jac@stafford.net
14-Sep-2016, 12:56
Fantastic hometown Jesse ~ where 47mm XL is sometimes not wide enough...!

Have you been lucky enough to use the Rodenstock Grandagon 35mm over 6x12cm?
.

MAubrey
14-Sep-2016, 13:16
With DSLR lenses, fall-off is often measured and reported, and the fall-off is mitigated by stopping down. There are clear illustrations of this online, made by photographing a uniformly toned wall. So my question is, wouldn't this also happen with LF lenses? I know wide-angle DSLR lenses are retrofocus designs so perhaps there are differences here. But if fall-off is reduced with stopping down, what is the actual fall-off of the Schneider 90mm f/5.6 XL lens 2-stops down (where the CF starts working) compared to 5-stops down or more? If shooting landscapes at f/22 or f/32, is the fall-off noticeably less than at f/11? If so, perhaps that's where some discrepancies in opinion/experience come from. For example, I can remember some images I shot with my 90XL that seemed to have a bit more fall-off than I expected but I shot them at f/16.
When we're talking about wide angle lens design, DSLRs have the challenge of the mirror box. Symmetrical wides aren't possible because the mirror gets in the way, so they use retrofocus designs instead.

The trade offs between symmetrical and retrofocus designs are:

Lots of vignetting (symmetrical) vs. minimal vignetting (retrofocus)
Lots of complex distortion (retrofocus) vs. minimal distortion (symmetrical)

The fastest way to see this is to see how things differ between similar lenses (FL & aperture) of different designs. Here are the spec sheets for two highly respected Zeiss lenses:

The C/Y 21mm f/2.8 Distagon (retrofocus):
http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/contax_yashica/distagon2-8_21mm_e.pdf

Contax G 21mm f/2.8 Biogon (symmetrical):
http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/contax_g/biogon2-8_21mm_e.pdf

You can see that for the biogon, vignetting doesn't change at all (well, it changes slightly), but it improves nicely with stopping down for the distagon. Conversely, the biogon's distortion is so much lower than the distagon that they even change the scale in displaying it. The MTF numbers are very good in both cases, so deciding between the two is a matter of picking your poison (distortion vs. vignetting) and your preferred body style (short register distance rangefinder vs. longer register distance SLR).

Large format cameras, like rangefinders, don't need to worry about a mirror box, though, so they get symmetrical designs--vignetting doesn't change *as much*, but minimal distortion.

Oren Grad
14-Sep-2016, 13:17
But if fall-off is reduced with stopping down, what is the actual fall-off of the Schneider 90mm f/5.6 XL lens 2-stops down (where the CF starts working) compared to 5-stops down or more? If shooting landscapes at f/22 or f/32, is the fall-off noticeably less than at f/11? If so, perhaps that's where some discrepancies in opinion/experience come from. For example, I can remember some images I shot with my 90XL that seemed to have a bit more fall-off than I expected but I shot them at f/16.

FWIW, Schneider's data sheets have charts with falloff curves. The one for the 90 SA XL shows f/5.6 and f/22, with a seemingly substantial gap between them - but how that translates to subjective perception won't necessarily be obvious.

FWIW, the 90 SA XL falloff curve is steeper than that for the 90/8 SA, and varies more by aperture. On the other hand, the curve for the 80 SS XL is steeper still.

The 90/8 SA and 80 SS XL charts show three apertures rather than two - f/8, f/11 and f/22 for the former, and f/4.5, f/8 and f/22 for the latter. It appears that most of the improvement is achieved by f/8 or f/11. Looking also at some Rodenstock Grandagon sheets that I have, there too it looks as though gains are much smaller after the first couple of stops.

RJ-
14-Sep-2016, 13:30
Have you been lucky enough to use the Rodenstock Grandagon 35mm over 6x12cm?
.

Hi Jac,

I'm not much of a panoramic format photographer although the Rodenstock Grandagon lenses seem superior for colour rendition to my eyes than the Schneider Super Angulon XL series which I settled for. I find that the Schneider SA XL series suited my work flow better due to the wider coverage although now, I would probably settle for a Grandagon or two, in between the 47mm XL and the 90mm XL focal lengths for 4x5".

Here is a Schneider Super Angulon XL 47mm f5.6 shot on the original Velvia 50 emulsion 120 roll film {for 6x12cm} with centre filter. Bob Salamon's advice about the centre filter is what I would adhere to: at this kind of extreme wide-angle, it easier to work with a perfectly exposed transparency or negative across the format, rather than having to compensate. The Cibachrome printing of the slide was really hard as it was with the centre filter.

https://flic.kr/p/LMiPP1

This image is from my favourite location in China a decade ago. It has probably been destroyed by commercial Budweiser cafes and tour buses by now. The Silvestri Hermes adapts 5x4" to 6x12cm film back using the Schneider SA XL 47mm deftly, so it's quite easy to throw in a frivolous panoramic shot. I think (from recollection) that the 35mm Grandagon did not offer 4x5" coverage and was more of a panoramic specialist lens. Like you, I've never seen one in use. Perhaps it's in the ranks of the high budget extreme wide-angle vintage lenses with a choice of a sole aperture setting.

Kind regards,

RJ

Corran
14-Sep-2016, 13:49
Thanks MAubrey and Oren. I've never really delved deep into manufacturer's data sheets nor compared a retrofocus and symmetrical WA like that, but I had suspected the fall-off characteristics were different.

Interesting about the differences between the SA, SSXL, and SAXL fall-off characteristics. That explains my experience w/ the SAXL. I wonder why the 80mm SSXL is the steepest curve? Just because it's wider?

For years I've used a CF on my 47mm and 58mm XL lenses as a matter of course. Lately I've been foregoing the CF on b&w film when shooting the 58mm XL and have not had any significant issues (see my last image post in the LF Landscape thread). Is there fall-off? Sure but not to an extreme amount, and it could be dodged just a tiny bit if needed. With the 90mm Nikkor on 4x5 I would never bother with a CF in the field. Even using extreme front rise with architecture shots a bit of fall-off in the sky area would be welcome I think.

Michael R
15-Sep-2016, 08:00
Corran - re falloff, in general the Super Angulons should have less steep curves than the aspheric Super Symmars because as I understand it the Super Angulons incorporate the "tilting pupil" optical design trick (as do the Rodenstock Grandagon Ns) to reduce the falloff rate slightly, whereas the Super Symmar design apparently doesn't allow for this.

The aspheric Super Symmars are really very different designs vs the more typical short focal length designs of the Super Angulons, Grandagons, Nikkors etc.

Since OP is using a Chamonix, one small drawback I haven't seen mentioned in the thread, specific to the 90mm Super Angulon XL, is that the rear cell won't fit through the hole in the front standard without unscrewing the protective ring around the rear element. I own the 90mm XL and this extra step doesn't bother me much but I mention it here as something to keep in mind. It's a great lens, but if I could go back and do it over I'd go for the f/4.5 Grandagon N in retrospect just because it's a little smaller and because since I do a lot of low light work, even a half stop extra speed could potentially come in handy for focusing. Although the Grandagon N has slightly less coverage than the SAXL, it's still got a lot, and should be plenty of room for all but the most extreme applications. It also uses smaller filters - although only if you don't use a center filter because I believe the outer filter thread of both the Schneider and Rodenstock center filters are the same for those lenses.