thoughts on a "super angulon 75/8"?

[Havoc]

I can get a "super angulon 75/8" for a reasonable price. But I can't find much about them as the 65 and 90 seem to be more popular. Would be to be used on 4x5 with minimal or no movements. The old Schneider page said they are meant for 9x12 but that they have about 20/17mm shift when used with 4x5. Would be fine for my use. Can they be used without a center filter? No idea what shutter it is in.

[Dan Fromm]

Havoc, the list has a link to my article on center filters. Read it. It also has links to Schneider catalogs. Hint: unless the price is very, very right I'd rather have a lens in a #0 than in a #00 shutter.

The CF rule of thumb for 4x5 is that lenses shorter than 90mm need one. But and however, tastes and subjects differ. A 75 mm lens centered on 4x5 will give corners 2 stops down from the center. With the right subject you might be able to live with this. Get the lens, use it and then you'll know whether you should get a CF.

A 50 mm lens on 2x3 is parallel to a 75 on 4x5. I have a 47 SA, shoot 2x3. Sometimes I like the results I get without a CF, some times I don't. I've broken down and bought one.

[Havoc]

I don't know about the shutter, that's a bit a guess. Looking at the price I'd say it will be a #00. Not ideal but if it is in good condition it isn't an issue either. But is that lens a reasonable performer? I read that the older SA's can be a bit all over the place. And as the 75 doesn't look to be popular I'm curious if that might be the problem.

As for filters, the SWD75 I use on the Wista gives me visible vignetting when I rack it up all the way. So more mechanical vignette than fall-off I'd say. But I haven't quantified it and it was on b&w so maybe I don't see it but it is there. Or I can live with it.

[Dan Fromm]

Not to be a complete idiot or anything, but if you a have perfectly fine 75/5.6 SWD why would you want a 75/8 SA? Weight savings?

So you'll know, I still qualify as a complete idiot. I've had a perfectly fine 65/8 SW for a while, also a perfectly fine 65/8 Ilex for much longer. I can justify getting and keeping the SW 'cos its in a #0, not in a #00, and came as part of a bundle. I sold the rest of the bundle, the SW is a free lens. But, I recently recently went crazy and bought a 65/5.6 SA. Heavier, a stop faster, more coverage than I can use but the price was very right.

I don't believe that a modern 75/5.6 SA clone will suffer from mechanical vignetting even wide open when centered on 4x5. Cos^4 is a killer.

[Steve Goldstein]

Mind what others have said about the #00 shutter. Its repair possibilities are very, very limited.

The 75/8 SA takes 49mm filters so will more easily fit into a lightweight system based on smallish filters (I use 52mm). Schneider's CF II was intended for this lens (also the old 47/5.6 SA), and Heliopan made a similar CF that'll require a 49-52 step-up. Both are only 1.5 stops, so really not quite enough, but much better than nothing. Remember that the front thread of CFs can be much larger than the mount, this Heliopan is 77mm in front, the Schneider is 67mm.

I once compared my 75/8 SA with a more modern f/4.5 75 (a couple of them, actually, from different manufacturers). Yes, coverage was more limited and the image wasn't as sharp, but I'll accept that for the portability as I rarely print bigger than 11x14 anyway. And I do have an f/4.5 if I want to carry it along with some bigger filters.

[linhofbiker]

My copy of this lens was very sharp. I used it with my Linhof Technika V 6x9 which allowed quite extensive rise. It was in a modern (at the time) compur 0 shutter. Sold them both a long time ago. Now concentrating on 5x7 and 4x10 B/W. Schneider lenses varied in quality during the 1960's and on. Best to find a "Linhof selected" version if possible. Though some say this is no indication of quality, but I have always been satisfied by my "Technika" marked Schneider's, Super Angulon's and Symmar's.

[LabRat]

When I did interiors, even if a WA lens had a big IC, the fall-off and distortion started to look screwy if even moderate movements were applied, so try to shoot on-axis... Maybe a little front rise, but go real easy on it...

I had a 75mm SA at one time, but a problem came up when trying to use it on a press or technical camera, when in use, the FS would need to be between the front bed rails, and the rear body rail, so no place for the FS mount to sit... A 65mm would ride inside the camera rails, and a 90mm would ride the front... Using recessed or extended boards almost worked, but not for me... I ended up finding a new home for it because I had other lenses that were not too different in FOV on my monorail and folding cameras...

Steve K

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/1978/45637947901_26ff92d59a_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2cwSpUH)Small Super Angulon Collection (https://flic.kr/p/2cwSpUH) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

I have a 75mm F8 chrome Super Angulon and I like it. Mine is in a special Sinar Norma barrel mount. I also have the correct center filter, mine is engraved "Center Filter for 75mm F8 Super Angulon".

Shown above with my other small Super Angulons (the 47mm F8, two 65mm F8's, and my 75mm F8).

These are good highly usuable lenses. Test first of course, if you can, before buying.

[diversey]

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LkUy3S01dFw/Vx1Pv_Mrx_I/AAAAAAAACFA/lvw7W4tq4Ao4eK_ISRJVyj-DLke-ebjeACLcB/s1600/img625web.jpg

I had one. It is hard for me to use this lens on 4x5 Camera. You have to use small aperture f16-22 to cover 4x5. Center of image is sharp, but peripheral is fuzzy. Definitely this lens is not for 4x5. The image above is the best one I got from this lens.

[Bernice Loui]

Not wise to generalize the overall performance of the entire Super Angulon offering based on testing a single lens sample.

Cannot tell squat about lens performance and images in general from images posted via the web. They are some what representative of what the real image is at best.

Had used-tested-owned many Schneider Super Angulons over the decades, some were awful, some were absolutely excellent. SAs from that era varied a LOT which is why in-depth testing of the target lens to be owned is so very important.

BTW, this applies not only to Schneider lenses, in-depth testing of all prospective lenses should be a given prior to consideration to ownership.


Bernice





I had one. It is hard for me to use this lens on 4x5 Camera. You have to use small aperture f16-22 to cover 4x5. Center of image is sharp, but peripheral is fuzzy. Definitely this lens is not for 4x5. The image above is the best one I got from this lens.

[Bernice Loui]

"Mechanical Vignette" or image cut-off caused by the camera & bellows, "when racked up all the way?" rather than the lens image circle?

Fujinon 75mm f5.6 SWD has a spec image circle of 200mm @ f22 allowing about plus or minus 47mm on 4x5 (image circle required of 153mm).
If the 75mm SWD is running out of image circle the solution could be to use a Schneider 72mm f5.6 Super Angulon XL which has an image circle of 229mm @f22 which will increase the usable rise about plus or minus 15mm or 76mm of rise-fall.

If this is a Wista field camera, it would be very questionable if a Wista field camera can achieve that amount (76mm) of rise-fall using the standard bellows and flat bed field camera as delivered. Possible the mechanical vignette is caused by the lens being so far into the field camera body with the flat bed in front cutting of part of the lens image circle?



Bernice





As for filters, the SWD75 I use on the Wista gives me visible vignetting when I rack it up all the way. So more mechanical vignette than fall-off I'd say. But I haven't quantified it and it was on b&w so maybe I don't see it but it is there. Or I can live with it.

[Havoc]

Thanks for your info.

I would get it to have a lighter kit. I'm looking at an operation for my neck this autumn and it will mean being careful for some time. So the Wista with the SWD and others will have to be kept for occasions where it can be brought close with the car. I already have a SA 90/8 to replace the SWD90 and that is a real difference. So ok, it has its limitations but I think that will be managable.


"Mechanical Vignette" or image cut-off caused by the camera & bellows, "when racked up all the way?" rather than the lens image circle?

Fujinon 75mm f5.6 SWD has a spec image circle of 200mm @ f22 allowing about plus or minus 47mm on 4x5 (image circle required of 153mm).
If the 75mm SWD is running out of image circle the solution could be to use a Schneider 72mm f5.6 Super Angulon XL which has an image circle of 229mm @f22 which will increase the usable rise about plus or minus 15mm or 76mm of rise-fall.

If this is a Wista field camera, it would be very questionable if a Wista field camera can achieve that amount (76mm) of rise-fall using the standard bellows and flat bed field camera as delivered. Possible the mechanical vignette is caused by the lens being so far into the field camera body with the flat bed in front cutting of part of the lens image circle?


If the circle of the lens is 200mm and you need 153mm for coverage, then I would think the maximum shift is (200-153)/2 = 23.5mm Which is about the limit of the Wista. From what I see it are rounded dark corners, looks like the image circle to me. I would also think that if it was the flat bed then I would have more a straight (fuzzy) edge? Don't know because I always shift up, never down. For some reason I always run out of up shift. Think I need one of those "skyscraper cameras". :D

But yes, it would mean the SA would give even less shift.

[Bernice Loui]

What is the image taking aperture? Image circle grows at smaller apertures. Required image circle might not be enough at near full aperture say f8 or f11.

The spec image circles are typically at f22, at larger apertures while it can illuminate the ground glass, film does not see light projected by the lens the same way. Very generally speaking, the f4.5 or f5.6 75mm wide angle lenses tend to have a larger spec image circle then their f8 versions and there could be exceptions.

It's all a trade off.


Bernice






If the circle of the lens is 200mm and you need 153mm for coverage, then I would think the maximum shift is (200-153)/2 = 23.5mm Which is about the limit of the Wista. From what I see it are rounded dark corners, looks like the image circle to me. I would also think that if it was the flat bed then I would have more a straight (fuzzy) edge? Don't know because I always shift up, never down. For some reason I always run out of up shift. Think I need one of those "skyscraper cameras". :D

But yes, it would mean the SA would give even less shift.

[Bob Salomon]

What is the image taking aperture? Image circle grows at smaller apertures. Required image circle might not be enough at near full aperture say f8 or f11.

The spec image circles are typically at f22, at larger apertures while it can illuminate the ground glass, film does not see light projected by the lens the same way. Very generally speaking, the f4.5 or f5.6 75mm wide angle lenses tend to have a larger spec image circle then their f8 versions and there could be exceptions.

It's all a trade off.


Bernice

The faster versions are also different construction.

[Havoc]

What is the image taking aperture? Image circle grows at smaller apertures. Required image circle might not be enough at near full aperture say f8 or f11.

Mostly I'm somewhere between f/19 and f/27, rarely f/32 or higher.

[Jac@stafford.net]

What is the image taking aperture? Image circle grows at smaller apertures. Required image circle might not be enough at near full aperture say f8 or f11. Does the image circle really increase or does the spread of light change to more evenly distribute illumination? I do not know.


[...]Very generally speaking, the f4.5 or f5.6 75mm wide angle lenses tend to have a larger spec image circle then their f8 versions and there could be exceptions.An exception would be a Biogon design.

[Dan Fromm]

Does the image circle really increase or does the spread of light change to more evenly distribute illumination?

Three things happen on stopping down. The exit pupil gets smaller. This reduces mechanical vignetting. Off-axis aberrations diminish. This increases the circle of good definition. Blur due to diffraction increases. Since diffraction is worse off-axis, this reduces the circle of good definition.

In practice, although diffraction limits resolution attainable, its effects are much worse at high magnification (>> 1:1) than at very low (shooting far distant subjects). At high magnification, stopping down can reduce coverage and depth of field.

Finally, cos^4's effects are independent of aperture. Reduction of mechanical vignetting on stopping down is often confused with reduction of cos^4's effect. Makers of center filters understand what's going on, recommend using CFs at apertures two stops down from wide open so that the CF has to offset only the effects of cos^4. Note that f/4.5 Biogons suffer from cos^approximately 3, not cos^4.


An exception would be a Biogon design.

Sophistry. Zeiss Oberkochen brought only f/4.5 Biogons to market. With respect to other modern w/a lenses, the situation is more complicated.

Fuji SW lenses are 6 elements in 4 groups f/8, SWDs are 8/4 f/5.6. The SWDs have more coverage.

Nikon SWs are all 8/4, some f/4 or f/4.5, others f/8. Their two 90 mm lenses, f/4.5 and f/8, have the same coverage.

Schneider and Rodenstock offered slow 6/4 and fast 8/4 w/a lenses. Fast ones have more coverage than slow ones of the same focal length.

More elements offer the designer more degrees of freedom for correcting aberrations, including off-axis aberrations that limit coverage.

And then there's Konica, not LF. They offered two w/a lenses for Koni-Omega cameras. The first, 60/5.6 is 6/4. The later one, 58/5.6 is 8/4. I have both, have never asked either to cover more than 2x3. Both do.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Dan, you have probably seen this before: a 3" Biogon with a rear element larger than the film's ~4" vertical dimension. Does this defeat the ~cos^3 or does it mean that the full coverage is simply ignored (cut off) instead?

194205...194207

[Dan Fromm]

Jac, I've had one of those lenses. Pacific Optical Paxar (B). It isn't quite a Biogon as designed by L. Bertele.

The USAF data sheet for it shows illumination 45 degrees off-axis at around 38% of illumination on axis. That's a tiny bit better than cos^3. The difference has no practical significance.

Since the data sheet's resolution tables and illumination chart cut off at 45 degrees I don't think the lens is intended for a format larger than 4x5. Even though my little 38/4.5 Biogon covers 84 mm with good illumination and sharpness, f/4.5 Biogons are always treated as covering 90 degrees and no more.

I wonder a little about the USAF data sheets' illumination curves. The one for the 3"/4.5 Goerz Aerogor (= Biogon) shows 45 degrees off-axis at 38% of center. 3"/4.5 Aerojet Delft (sort of a Biogon), 45 degrees at 28%. 3"/4.5 Pacific Optical Paxar (A) (also a Biogon), 15%, worse than cos^4.

[Bernice Loui]

Here are all three.. Pacific Optical, Goerz, Viewlex versions of the "Biogon" made for the US military. Some number of these appeared on the surplus market many years ago and they were not expensive. Think all three of these lens cells sets cost a total of $50 including shipping.
194231

194232

Never got enough motivation to make a barrel for them and try them for a host of reasons. About this same time of "view camera lens" impulsiveness, ended up with a few Aero Ektars most of the 6" are long gone, only the 12" f2.5 in Fairchild shutter remains, a few Metrogons, then a few 36" f8 whoppers also in Fairchild shutter.


Bernice




Jac, I've had one of those lenses. Pacific Optical Paxar (B). It isn't quite a Biogon as designed by L. Bertele.

The USAF data sheet for it shows illumination 45 degrees off-axis at around 38% of illumination on axis. That's a tiny bit better than cos^3. The difference has no practical significance.

Since the data sheet's resolution tables and illumination chart cut off at 45 degrees I don't think the lens is intended for a format larger than 4x5. Even though my little 38/4.5 Biogon covers 84 mm with good illumination and sharpness, f/4.5 Biogons are always treated as covering 90 degrees and no more.

I wonder a little about the USAF data sheets' illumination curves. The one for the 3"/4.5 Goerz Aerogor (= Biogon) shows 45 degrees off-axis at 38% of center. 3"/4.5 Aerojet Delft (sort of a Biogon), 45 degrees at 28%. 3"/4.5 Pacific Optical Paxar (A) (also a Biogon), 15%, worse than cos^4.

[Bernice Loui]

Possible to "back up" for the subject? Increasing the lens-camera distance could help with reducing the amount of rise needed.

Possible to attach a sample image to get an idea of what ya trying to accomplish and how the lens limitation occurs?


Bernice



Mostly I'm somewhere between f/19 and f/27, rarely f/32 or higher.

[Dan Fromm]

We have all, including the OP, forgotten what the OP asked about. Namely, and to wit:


I can get a "super angulon 75/8" for a reasonable price. But I can't find much about them as the 65 and 90 seem to be more popular. Would be to be used on 4x5 with minimal or no movements. The old Schneider page said they are meant for 9x12 but that they have about 20/17mm shift when used with 4x5. Would be fine for my use. Can they be used without a center filter? No idea what shutter it is in.

He has a 75/5.6 Fujinon SWD, wants something of the same focal length that's lighter.

The lens he asked about (75/8) SA more than covers 4x5. So why are we going on about coverage?

[Bob Salomon]

We have all, including the OP, forgotten what the OP asked about. Namely, and to wit:



He has a 75/5.6 Fujinon SWD, wants something of the same focal length that's lighter.

The lens he asked about (75/8) SA more than covers 4x5. So why are we going on about coverage?

Coverage is only one consideration.

Resolution, distortion, color, fall off are just as important.