Super Angulon vs. Super Symmar XL

[paulr]

My inner geek woke up last night and inspired me to look into some of the hype I've been hearing about the 110mm SuperSymmar xl. Has anyone actually compared results from this lens to to the old 120 super angulon (the more recent multicoated one)? I compared Schneider's own MTF curves for these lenses. They're both remarkable performers, but the old Super Angulon appears to be a little sharper in almost every way at infinity. The new lens is better at 1:5 magnifications, so for studio work. At 1:10 it's a toss up ... maybe a slight edge to the new lens.

It seems with the new model you gain an extra stop, and the joy of a lens that weighs less than a brick, but no measured performance increase except at close distances (at the expense of performance at infinity). Distortion is also a bit worse with the new one. I expected the wide open performance to be better, but not so ... neither lens seems suited for use wide open.

Compared to a 115 Grandagon N (curve only available for 1:30) both schneiders are better at f22, but worse wide open.

Thoughts?

[Eric Woodbury]

Both are sharp enough. By the way, both cover 8x10.

[paulr]

they're both great. i only post this in case anyone's considering upgrading (for reasons besides back trouble).

[J. P. Mose]

While we are on the subject, how does the older 121mm Super Angulon compare to the lenses discussed above. Was the later 120mm Super Angulon a major improvement? I see many Linhof select 121mm SA on Ebay for attractive prices and was considering one for my 5x7 Super Technika V.

[neil poulsen]

One difference is that the 121mm isn't multi-coated, whereas later 120mm SA's are multi-coated.

[Mark Sampson]

My 121SA (from 1963) is quite sharp and has more coverage than my 4x5 camera has moves. I have no problems with the color rendition either. The Compur shutter is a bit awkward but that's a minor point. I use the lens for architecture and can't see a significant difference between it and the Nikkor-SW lenses I also use. A newer-design lens might be nice, especially if it was smaller and lighter, but right now I have better uses for that money.

[paulr]

this site has a comparison with an old angulon:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/AngSSXL.html

i don't read too much into this, because it seems the test was conducted pretty close to the lens axis, where you wouldn't expect much difference between decent lenses at normal apertures. it's also a case where there is a huge difference in coverage, so it's an apples/oranges comparison.

it's still interesting to see that within certain (sometimes significant) limitations, absolute lens performance hasn't changed much in recent years. by the way, the angulon is basically a dagor design, with only 4 glass-air surfaces, so single coating isn't much of a handicap.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

i don't read too much into this, because it seems the test was conducted pretty close to the lens axis, where you wouldn't expect much difference between decent lenses at normal apertures. it's also a case where there is a huge difference in coverage, so it's an apples/oranges comparison.

it's still interesting to see that within certain (sometimes significant) limitations, absolute lens performance hasn't changed much in recent years. by the way, the angulon is basically a dagor design, with only 4 glass-air surfaces, so single coating isn't much of a handicap.

Paul,

The reason Chris and I started testing lenses was to cherry pick the best compact, lightweight 4x5 wide angle. Chris travels a lot overseas and I backpack. So, we shared a common desire to get the smallest, lightest lens in the 90mm range capable of covering 4x5 and offering acceptable performance. At the time we did our testing, Schneider hadn't introduced the 80mm Super Symmar XL and the 90mm f8 Nikkor SW was the lightest current lens between 75mm and 120mm capable of covering 4x5. And, it is a terrific lens that I have taken on many a backpacking trip, but I wanted something smaller and lighter.

As the 90mm Angulon and the 100mm Kodak WF Ektar were the most likely candidates, we tested as many of those as we could get our hands on. And while our online lens test results get all the attention (and people often read more into those results than they should), we have also done some additional testing by using some of the lenses to make actual images of the type we normally shoot (in otherwords, we shot something besides a test chart with some of the lenses). The link you provided above shows the results of some of Chris' testing.

What we did learn with the older wide angles is that most offered pretty good to excellent performance in the center of the field, but the performance tapered off, in many cases quite dramatically, in the corners - and this was with the lens centered on the film area (no movements). We also learned that the performance of older lenses was not as consistant as the more modern offereings from the big four lens makers. Part of that sample-to-sample variation can be attributed to less stringent quality control practiced 40 - 50 years ago, but it also reflects that some of these lenses may have faults that have cropped up during the decades since the left the factory (separation, haze, cleaning marks, etc.). Anyway, the goal was to "cherry pick" the best few lenses and then do some "real" testing with them in the field.

I ended up shooting a 90mm Linhof Select Angulon side-by-side with a 90mm WA Congo (a wide field Gauss design). In terms of sharpness, coverage and contrast, they were pretty close, but for me the deciding factor was the color rendition. The older Angulon definitely had a cool color cast. Transparencies shot with the Congo were a much closer match to those made with my other modern, multicoated lenses. I've been using the WA Congo for about six years now, and as long as I don't push the coverage, I continue to be plased with the results. Unfortunately, Congo doesn't seem to have the best quality control in the world. Some of their lenses are great, some are not. Fortunately, I had access to three and was able to keep the best one and return the others.

The reason I related this story is to underscore the importance of real-world testing. If I would have just based my lens choice on shooting a test chart, someone else's tests or recommendation, or even the manufacturer's literature, my choice might have been different. To me, color rendition ended up being the deciding factor. Someone who shoots black and white may have reached a different conclusion, even when comparing the same exact lenses I used. The ultimate test is the results you achieve using the materials you prefer and the subjects you normally shoot.

I have since added an 80mm Super Symmar XL that gets used unless absolute lightest weight is critical, and then I take the little Congo.

Kerry

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Trying to steer this back in the same general direction of Paul's original post...

Does anyone have MTF charts for the Schneider Super Symmar HM and Rodenstock APO Sironar-W (originally just called APO Sironar) series? I haven't been able to find either online. Since these were both 80 adgree lenses that were available at the same time (late 1980s to late 1990s). I'd be curious to see how the MTF charts compare.

The Schneider was an 8 element/6 group design (including a flourite element) while the Rodenstock was a 7/5 design that was more compact and a lot lighter weight. I'd be interested to see, on paper at least, what benefit (if any) Schneider theoretically achived with the added elemet (and weight) .

Kerry

[Oren Grad]

Kerry -

I've got a scrap of paper floating around somewhere that shows MTF at one frequency for the Rodenstock 300 N, S and W - a very nice depiction at a glance of at least some of the tradeoffs involved among the lenses. I'm not sure I remember the source, but Arne Croell's name sticks in my mind - perhaps he's got data on the 210 and 150, which are the focal lengths for which there were counterparts in the SS-HM line.

[paulr]

"Does anyone have MTF charts for the Schneider Super Symmar HM and Rodenstock APO Sironar-W "

I have curves for the super symmar hm. Nothing for the apo sironar-w, but i have curves for the apo sironar -s and -n lenses at all apertures (I think the ones on Paul Buzi's site are only for one or two apertures).

Looking at the 210 schneiders, the main advantage of the super symmar hm lens is coverage. it has flatter curves than the apo symmar at f22 and infinity. on axis it's not as good, at the edges it's much better. wide open or at higher magnifications the apo symmar is better.

Looking at the 120 schneiders, the super symmar hm is a little better than the super angulon, but has only 75% of its coverage. It's a bit better at infinity, and a bit better better wide open. and it's a stop faster. It seems to outperform all the true wide angle lenses.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Looking at the 120 schneiders, the super symmar hm is a little better than the super angulon, but has only 75% of its coverage. It's a bit better at infinity, and a bit better better wide open. and it's a stop faster. It seems to outperform all the true wide angle lenses.

Yep, the 120mm Super Symmar HM is a GREAT lens that often gets overlooked. I sold mine after I bought my 110mm XL. I really like the 110mm XL, and since I also use it on 4x10, it's a better fit for my needs than the 120mm HM. However, for those shooting 4x5 who want awesome perfmance for considerably less money than the 110mm XL, the 120mm Super Stymmar HM is hard to beat.

So, how's the 150mm Super Symmar HM compare to the 150mm APO Sironar-S? I know it's not an apples:apples comparison due to the difference in coverage (80 degrees vs. 75), but until I can locate MTF charts for the APO Sironar-W series, it's the next best thing.

Kerry

[John C Murphy]

Kerry,

I bought the SSXL80 after renting the SAXL72 (75?) from Lens and Repro. From my test shots, the Symmar made rocks and tree trunks look a lot better to me. This may seem like a stupid reason to buy a lens, but I am happy with my choice.

Did you notice anything like this during your tests, or is this all in my head?

[Oren Grad]

i have curves for the apo sironar -s and -n lenses at all apertures

I'd be real curious to see those, if they're in a form that's not a huge hassle to share...

[paulr]

i don't have curves for the 150 super symmar hm. comparing the 210 to the rodenstock -s is a bit tough, because rodenstock only has curves for 1:10, and at f11 and f22. The schneider's curve is flatter, and much better all the way to the edge of the image circle (which is a 5 degree bigger image circle). the rodenstock is a little sharper on axis. the apo sironar -s is closer to the regular apo symmar s in these regards.

[A.B. Davenport]

Kerry,

Perhaps I'm "seeing" too much into the scans, but it looks to me that the Super Symmar XL has more contrast while the Angulon seems to have smoother tones. I know my 165 mm Angulon has less contrast than my 10" Wide Field Ektar but with smoother tones.

Alan

[paulr]

I looked at those pics again and saw the same thing. at those magnifications more contrast=sharper. but the difference isn't as big as i might have expected. I bet off axis the difference would be dramatic.

[Michael S. Briggs]

Re the original question, another advantage of the Super-Angulon (and Grandagons, Nikkor-SW, Fuji-SWs) over the Super-Symmar-XL is more even illumination. In some applications this might save the hassle and expense of a center filter. See http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/503195.html
and http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/501033.html.





Re picking lenses by comparing MTF curves: I'm not sure that small differences in MTF curves between manufacturers are meaningful. Some small difference in the assumptions of the calculation might change the curve more than the difference.