Schneider Super Angulon XL 47mm f5.6

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Says it has an image circle of 166mm@f/22. I would be using this on a 4x5. It obviously would not provide for any type of movement thereby turning the camera into a straight up basic camera, but with a really wide field of view for 47mm. What I am wondering about is distortion and if the image circle listed is correct, how much worse it would get at wider f/stop or if it would be visible after stopping down. I think, but not for sure I would want to use a center filter with this lens to help the vignetting. This lens would have a field of view approximately of a 107 degrees. This would be a 3 frame pano shot horizontally at 45mm for my 5DMKIII, (4 frame if shot in portrait mode) Same field of view on my 35mm set up would be a lens around 13mm (lots of distortion and little detail for landscapes and architecture)

Anyway, anyone with any experience using this lens and its capabilities/pitfalls or an equivalent lens in this range for use on 4x5. Movement not required as long as it covers the frame fully, but welcome if possible. I haven't seen any that I know of except for this one so far.

[Oren Grad]

Schneider's specification is 96 degrees coverage and 110mm image circle at full aperture, 120 degrees coverage and 166mm image circle at f/22.

Linear distortion is very well corrected for such an extreme wide - generally less than 0.5% - but of course apparent stretching of peripheral objects in the field - what many people mean by "distortion" - will be as extreme as the extraordinary field of view.

Desperately needs a center filter unless you want obvious vignetting as a special effect.

There is no other lens this wide for 4x5.

[Dan Fromm]

There is no other lens this wide for 4x5.

44/5.6 Super Aviogon. I've dandled one on my knee. Practically speaking, unobtainable so practically speaking you're right.

[Oren Grad]

44/5.6 Super Aviogon. I've dandled one on my knee. Practically speaking, unobtainable so practically speaking you're right.

Thank you! A quick search reveals that Michael Fatali offered one from his "lens vault" a couple of years ago, for $4,995; can't tell if it sold.

[Gudmundur Ingolfsson]

I have a Super Angulon 47 XL on a Cambo Wide and a Center filter. This is a fantastic camera for interiors and I have used up to 12 mm shift stoping down to f22. I had also intended to photograph the landscape with it, but the 47 mm is way too wide for the views I am interestet in.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

5k is a bit much. I do like the idea of the 47mm, and rarely shoot wide open, so f/22 would be my max, unless going for the vignetting effect. Center filter will be used then for sure. Thanks for the input.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Schneider's specification is 96 degrees coverage and 110mm image circle at full aperture, 120 degrees coverage and 166mm image circle at f/22.

Linear distortion is very well corrected for such an extreme wide - generally less than 0.5% - but of course apparent stretching of peripheral objects in the field - what many people mean by "distortion" - will be as extreme as the extraordinary field of view.

Desperately needs a center filter unless you want obvious vignetting as a special effect.

There is no other lens this wide for 4x5.

I was looking at a reference document put out by BH so didn't see the small image circle wide open (wasn't listed), good to know.

[Bob Salomon]

44/5.6 Super Aviogon. I've dandled one on my knee. Practically speaking, unobtainable so practically speaking you're right.

Dangled?

[EdSawyer]

Agreed, it has about 12mm of shift (I have one on a Cambo wide also). Center filter (the correct one, IIIC I think?) is a must, really. It requires an additional 2 stops of exposure as well, when using it. It's nearly impossible to focus, even w/o the CF. Your only hope really is to focus it in the center and recompose if necessary, it's basically black in the corners on the ground glass.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Sounds like it is gonna require some skill and judgment to use. Anyone have an image or two they could share they took with this lens?

[Gudmundur Ingolfsson]

178378178379 Interiors Hotel Reykjavík 2008, both shifted 12mm,one down, one up ! 4x5" format,
center filter, very slight cropping of the edges.

[Dan Fromm]

Dangled?

I thought you were a native speaker of English.

See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dandle

[Bob Salomon]

I thought you were a native speaker of English.

See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dandle

I am, but you wrote “dandledl!

[Joshua Dunn]

There is no other lens this wide for 4x5.

Oren,

While true Schneider did make the Super Angulon XL 38mm. It has an image circle listed by Schneider of 137mm at f/22. While that does not cover the 4x5 format I have always found Schneider's coverage estimates conservative. I have all of the Schneider Super Angulon XL series and for the 38mm I find if you stop all the way down (I don't have the lens in front of me but if memory serves it's f/32) and use no movements just the corners of the film start to fall off. So yes you are correct, the Super Angulon XL 47mm is the widest lens with legitimate coverage for 4x5, but there are a few other options if you can work with slightly less than 4x5 coverage.

-Joshua

[Oren Grad]

...the Super Angulon XL 47mm is the widest lens with legitimate coverage for 4x5, but there are a few other options if you can work with slightly less than 4x5 coverage.

Yes, that is true.

[consummate_fritterer]

I agree Joshua. Also, if one crops to a very slightly narrower ratio similar to 6x9 but using the full 5" width of the film it definitely illuminates that much. That's only about 147mm. It's pushing the lens' limits so may degrade a tiny bit in the far corners but it usually doesn't matter way out there. If you intend to crop a bit narrower than 4x5 and need the widest modern lens available the the 38mm XL is the answer. I don't know if the 35mm Apo Grandagon can be pushed that far.

[Corran]

In my testing of the 38mm XL, I found that cropping the slight vignetting on a full 4x5 sheet to the same aspect ratio resulted in just the FoV of the 47mm XL. But indeed, utilizing a different aspect ratio can net non-vignetted results with a slightly wider FoV. It certainly is the widest square image ever when used at a 4x4 crop. On 6x12 it is quite a lens.

On a side-note, I find it interesting that modern lens design for 35mm film or digital has surpassed the 38mm XL for widest lens ever. Even if you crop the 38mm XL to a 2x3 ratio, it's only about as wide as the 12mm Voigtlander. They recently now came out with the 10mm Voigtlander which is even wider.

[Dan Fromm]

I am, but you wrote “dandledl!

past tense of dandle.

[Bob Salomon]

past tense of dandle.

I was afraid of that!

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...] They recently now came out with the 10mm Voigtlander which is even wider.

I hope that one day you can try the 10mm lens. The first thing you should notice is how very large it is compared to other wide lenses for 35mm. I hope someone more knowledgeable can tell us whether its construction helps defeat the problems from angular projection of the rear lens to film/sensor.

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...] I don't know if the 35mm Apo Grandagon can be pushed that far.

The 35mm APO Grandagon can cover nominal 6x12cm. In my experience it requires the center-filter, and an aperture of ƒ22, which is disappointing but understandable. If you can try it using the external viewfinder note that it is easy to err in placing the format mask so that it is ever so slightly canted which will make for some wacky outcomes. (Seat the mask so the detent fits correctly.)

[Pere Casals]

Says it has an image circle of 166mm@f/22. I would be using this on a 4x5. It obviously would not provide for any type of movement thereby turning the camera into a straight up basic camera

You still have great movements: Tilt and swing !!!

You would have no translational movements, Shift/Rise, but with Tilt ans Swing you may keep in focus a near flower and a distant mountain, so this is no a nasty limitation for landscape, but it can be for architecture.

[consummate_fritterer]

The 35mm APO Grandagon can cover nominal 6x12cm. In my experience it requires the center-filter, and an aperture of ƒ22, which is disappointing but understandable. If you can try it using the external viewfinder note that it is easy to err in placing the format mask so that it is ever so slightly canted which will make for some wacky outcomes. (Seat the mask so the detent fits correctly.)

Can it cover 80x120mm actual image size? It probably doesn't matter much if shooting 56x112mm (or thereabouts) without movements, but it does if using the full 120mm width of 4x5 film and only cropped to 80x120mm. It can matter too if you need a bit of movement on 6x12cm. But for 56x112mm roll film images, it seems the 35mm Apo Grandagon wins the blue ribbon for widest modern lens. For slightly cropped 4x5, the 38mm XL wins.

[Bob Salomon]

Can it cover 80x120mm actual image size? It probably doesn't matter much if shooting 56x112mm (or thereabouts) without movements, but it does if using the full 120mm width of 4x5 film and only cropped to 80x120mm. It can matter too if you need a bit of movement on 6x12cm. But for 56x112mm roll film images, it seems the 35mm Apo Grandagon wins the blue ribbon for widest modern lens. For slightly cropped 4x5, the 38mm XL wins.
No, your format requires almost a 151mm circle. The 35mm Apo Grandagon had a 125mm circle at infinity at its optimal aperture of f16.

[Corran]

I hope that one day you can try the 10mm lens. The first thing you should notice is how very large it is compared to other wide lenses for 35mm. I hope someone more knowledgeable can tell us whether its construction helps defeat the problems from angular projection of the rear lens to film/sensor.

Me too! I believe it was designed to be more retrofocal so as to overcome issues with digital sensors and wide angles. The 12mm is not and is pretty awful on my Leica M9. That's fine, I'd rather shoot film.

I realize now we have left out discussion of the Hypergon, in reference to the extremes of ultrawide lenses. I'd rather have one or two of those for LF than the 10mm :).

[consummate_fritterer]

No, your format requires almost a 151mm circle. The 35mm Apo Grandagon had a 125mm circle at infinity at its optimal aperture of f16.

Mr. Soloman, the hypotenuse of an 80x120mm image is 144mm which is only 7mm longer than Schneider's spec of 137mm for the 38 XL. Those 7mm outside of spec may not be ultra-sharp but the lens easily illuminates that much and it's unlikely the slight loss of quality will be objectionable or maybe not even noticeable in the last 3.5mm of each corner.

[Bob Salomon]

Mr. Soloman, the hypotenuse of an 80x120mm image is 144mm which is only 7mm longer than Schneider's spec of 137mm for the 38 XL. Those 7mm outside of spec may not be ultra-sharp but the lens easily illuminates that much and it's unlikely the slight loss of quality will be objectionable or maybe not even noticeable in the last 3.5mm of each corner.

Sorry, for some reason I thought your format was 83 x 125mm. In any case the 35 Apo still covered 125mm
But speaking of misprints, it is Salomon, not what you spelled!

[Corran]

Here's a rotated, cropped 4x5 sheet from the 38mm XL, showing the edge of the image circle in the corners (with the CF):

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/g38xl-ics.jpg

Cropping to the edge of the circle plus a bit more to get rid of the shading that is probably a bit more mechanical vignetting from the CF, the DPI measurements in Photoshop show the IC to be just at 139mm. So 137mm at infinity is probably all the 38 XL can get.

Some have stated that focusing close and stopping way down gets the whole 4x5 film, but I haven't seen it cover, even focused really close. I always use the CF though on 6x12 and my 4x5 tests because of the intense fall-off, which is not even fully corrected by the filter.

[consummate_fritterer]

Sorry, for some reason I thought your format was 83 x 125mm. In any case the 35 Apo still covered 125mm
But speaking of misprints, it is Salomon, not what you spelled!

That's not your fault, sir. I originally wrote 83x125mm and edited my post. The 38 XL surely won't properly illuminate 83x125mm. I do apologize for misspelling your name.

[consummate_fritterer]

Here's a rotated, cropped 4x5 sheet from the 38mm XL, showing the edge of the image circle in the corners (with the CF):

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/g38xl-ics.jpg

Cropping to the edge of the circle plus a bit more to get rid of the shading that is probably a bit more mechanical vignetting from the CF, the DPI measurements in Photoshop show the IC to be just at 139mm. So 137mm at infinity is probably all the 38 XL can get.

Some have stated that focusing close and stopping way down gets the whole 4x5 film, but I haven't seen it cover, even focused really close. I always use the CF though on 6x12 and my 4x5 tests because of the intense fall-off, which is not even fully corrected by the filter.

If the center filter causes mechanical vignetting then maybe it is limited to 137mm or so. I don't know. I suppose one could trim the center filter frame to eliminate that issue assuming that's even possible but that's a very expensive filter to butcher.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

178378178379 Interiors Hotel Reykjavík 2008, both shifted 12mm,one down, one up !

Was that with center filter and 4x5 film? Did you crop it any?

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I hope that one day you can try the 10mm lens. The first thing you should notice is how very large it is compared to other wide lenses for 35mm. I hope someone more knowledgeable can tell us whether its construction helps defeat the problems from angular projection of the rear lens to film/sensor.

I use an IRIX 15 mm lens (gonna get their 11mm) and it has a 100 degree field of view on the long side of 36x24. It is an impressive lens with extremely little distortion. I am sure it has a decent size image circle, but haven't measured it. Could be used on an Cambo Actus I think. My friend wants to try it out.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

You still have great movements: Tilt and swing !!!

You would have no translational movements, Shift/Rise, but with Tilt ans Swing you may keep in focus a near flower and a distant mountain, so this is no a nasty limitation for landscape, but it can be for architecture.

Very true. I am still working to learn how to tilt/swing, not as easy as it looks on paper.

[Pere Casals]

Very true. I am still working to learn how to tilt/swing, not as easy as it looks on paper.

Steven, that's quite easy...

Simply thing how you want to place the plane of focus, then if you tilt-swing the lensboard the focus plane does the same, it also tilts-swings in the scene in the same way. In the rear stand standard it just works the counter, if you tilt/swing in one sense then the focus plane in the scene does it in the other sense.

... but if you tilt/swing in the rear then (with on axis tilt) the center of image circle remaind in the center of the sheet. A tilt/swing in the front standard displaces de image circle like if illuminating with a torch, and you may have to put the image center in the center of the sheet again with shifts/rise...

...just take a 3D scene with near and distant objects and pactice half an hour by placing objects at different distance in the focus plane, doing it both with front or rear movements... after that you can also can practice shift-rise.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Steven, that's quite easy...

Simply thing how you want to place the plane of focus, then if you tilt-swing the lensboard the focus plane does the same, it also tilts-swings in the scene in the same way. In the rear stand standard it just works the counter, if you tilt/swing in one sense then the focus plane in the scene does it in the other sense.

... but if you tilt/swing in the rear then (with on axis tilt) the center of image circle remaind in the center of the sheet. A tilt/swing in the front standard displaces de image circle like if illuminating with a torch, and you may have to put the image center in the center of the sheet again with shifts/rise...

...just take a 3D scene with near and distant objects and pactice half an hour by placing objects at different distance in the focus plane, doing it both with front or rear movements... after that you can also can practice shift-rise.

Thanks for the pointers and info.

I so wish I didn't have to work. Photography, especially the travel to a places, set up etc to finally pushing the shutter release and all that follows afterwards is so much more fun than being an engineer. But it keeps the roof over the family 's head so guess it's all good.

[RJ-]

Very true. I am still working to learn how to tilt/swing, not as easy as it looks on paper.


Steven - Corran's right. Even at f22+, it is difficult achieving full 5x4inch film area with the SA XL 47mm f5.6 lens on a field or technical camera. It is possible on a dedicated plane parallel rigid rear standard dedicated architectural type camera with geared shift for precise zero'ing (and still hard work). The challenge with this super wide angle, lies more in trying to terminate and zero all movements completely.

I've always preferred the square format and work 4x4 inch format, using 1/2 inch either side for handling. Perhaps this is too different a work flow, although it enables the lens to be used with cross-shift movements (image), without the fastidious energy to work within its tight image circle.

RJ

178573

[Corran]

Hi RJ - nice photo!

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I like the square format as well. I am not locked in to a certain aspect ratio. Definitely a nce image. Zeroing isn't so bad, but if you go for square crop and shoot it that way, then you have plenty of image still with movements. Just have to make sure the vignetting doesn't creep into the part of image you want to keep.

[RJ-]

Thanks Corran - it is a kind of "here's one I did earlier" - shot a decade ago - at night. Returning to using the lens recently, I'm amazed at how much I have been struggling with remembering how to use it - this includes photographing my tripod feet....unintentionally.

Steven - in field use, checking for vignetting on an already darkened LF ground glass with an extreme wide-angle lens - at night - in a busy city precinct isn't as easy.

Advocates of the shining pen torch from the object end of the lens to check the corners will struggle with craning their neck 120 degrees across each corner to check for vignetting. This is how tight the tolerances of the IC for the SA XL 47mm f5.6 is - especially at wider apertures.

When we willingly embrace limits, we discover our freedom. The square format makes the best use of the image circle of any production lens, over and above the rectangular format. I do shoot rectangular format too! Although with this particular lens and its limitations, I've found it easier to adapt the format to match the lens.


RJ

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Thanks Corran - it is a kind of "here's one I did earlier" - shot a decade ago - at night. Returning to using the lens recently, I'm amazed at how much I have been struggling with remembering how to use it - this includes photographing my tripod feet....unintentionally.

Steven - in field use, checking for vignetting on an already darkened LF ground glass with an extreme wide-angle lens - at night - in a busy city precinct isn't as easy.

Advocates of the shining pen torch from the object end of the lens to check the corners will struggle with craning their neck 120 degrees across each corner to check for vignetting. This is how tight the tolerances of the IC for the SA XL 47mm f5.6 is - especially at wider apertures.

When we willingly embrace limits, we discover our freedom. The square format makes the best use of the image circle of any production lens, over and above the rectangular format. I do shoot rectangular format too! Although with this particular lens and its limitations, I've found it easier to adapt the format to match the lens.


RJ

I try to make sure the lens is squarely centered on the frame front to back before shooting. At night corner vignetting isn't as big a problem as during the day. But the square crop is as you say works very well with a circle. I like the freedom of wide lenses for many things and sometimes you have to know your limitations with them and use those to your advantage.

[rdenney]

Steven - Corran's right. Even at f22+, it is difficult achieving full 5x4inch film area with the SA XL 47mm f5.6 lens on a field or technical camera. It is possible on a dedicated plane parallel rigid rear standard dedicated architectural type camera with geared shift for precise zero'ing (and still hard work). The challenge with this super wide angle, lies more in trying to terminate and zero all movements completely.

I've always preferred the square format and work 4x4 inch format, using 1/2 inch either side for handling. Perhaps this is too different a work flow, although it enables the lens to be used with cross-shift movements (image), without the fastidious energy to work within its tight image circle.

RJ

178573

Let's not overstate the difficulty. I don't have the XL, but have routinely used the 47mm Super Angulon f/5.6 with the 6x12 format, which it barely covers, in a 4x5 Sinar F1/F2. That camera certainly does not meet the definition of a rigid-body architectural camera, but getting it to work wasn't really all that difficult.

The key is to set up a camera that does not require any compression at all of the bellows. And that's the problem with field and technical cameras--the bellows are usually general-purpose pleated constructions that have to be squashed flat to allow use of the 47, even on a recessed lens board. The stress applied by the compressed bellows will force the standards apart a bit and they won't be parallel. But on my Sinar, I use the Wide Angle Bellows 2 and the 47 is mounted on a flat lens board. I use the non-metering back from an F1, not the thicker metering back from an F2. There is still room for about six degrees of tilt. Parallel can be checked with calipers--it does need to be precise. If I wanted to use the 47XL, it would be worth it to build a Sinar F kit solely for that purpose--the camera plus the bellows would cost less than half the lens, and the camera could be built on a 6" rail extension with the tripod adapter behind the rear standard. That would be a lot cheaper than a specialty architectural camera, but more fiddly, too. I use that setup with a 47 and a 6x12 back and it works.

Back to the OP: The movements you need for a short lens are less than for a long lens. Example: Let's say we want to render the surface of a floor sharp, with the camera basically horizontal and about three feet above the floor. Scheimpflug tells us that the film plane, the plane that is at right angles to the lens axis at its nodal center, and the subject plane all intersect. With a parallel setup, they intersect at infinity, but with tilt or swing they can intersection more closely. Back to the example: With the typical 6" lens (150mm), we'd need (arctan 6"/36" =) 9.5 degrees of tilt. With a 2" lens (the 47 is a hair less than that), we need (arctan 2"/36" =) 3.2 degrees. 3.2 degrees is a very fiddly setting, and precision is important.

But even three degrees of lens tilt will put two corners in shadow. You can, however, tilt the back, which keeps the film in the illuminated circle. The problem with that is the attitude of the film plane determines the perspective projection, and with a lens like this, it has to be critically aligned or the image goes wacky. So, tilt the back to move the focus plane as needed, and then tilt the whole camera to restore the back to true vertical (or otherwise aligned with the subject to achieve the perspective projection you want). Geared movements certainly do make this easier.

Shifting the lens (horizontally, or rise/fall vertically) allows us to correct the field of view without tilting the back. But here we run out of lens coverage pretty quickly. That's the price one pays for going to the wide extreme. So, for subjects such as architectural interiors, the trick is to find the vantage point that is within the field of view and still shows what you want to show.

You will need a tilting loupe so you can point the loupe into the center of the lens for checking focus. It will need to be tilted quite a lot. And it's a good test of the effectiveness of your dark cloth--the image won't be bright.

Or, you can use a tiny aperture and depend on depth of field.

Rick "BTDT" Denney