Schneider 550mm XXL Fine Art lens

[Rob Vinnedge]

Has anyone acquired the new Schneider 550mm XXL Fine Art lens yet? I just read Michael Mutmanski's article in View Camera on the 1100mm version and was wondering how the shorter focal length lens compares. As a side note, I'm also curious as to why Michael Mutmanski feels that optical performance isn't an issue with the new lenses, which were designed for the ultra large formats. True, depth of field is a main concern, but wouldn't resolution and all the other optical corrections be important as well?

[Arne Croell]

Rob, I think Michaels statement refers to the fact that ULF means contact prints 99% of the time. Resolution of superfine details, which would be enlarged on a smaller format, are not that important then. Or in other words, a ULF lens needs a high MTF over the field at small frequencies (say, 2-10lp/mm) and can afford to not be as good in the higher ones.

[steve simmons]

We will be reviewing the 550XL as soon as we can - either in the Jan/Feb or the March/April issue.

steve simmons

view camera magazine

[Michael Mutmansky]

Arne has it correct. The realities of a ULF camera in the field and the nature of diffraction-limited optics make the 1100XL lens far superior to the practical capabilities of a field shooting system. Since I know of only one enlarger in the US and possibly only one in Europe that can enlarger larger than about 11x14, this lens seems to be exclusively marketed for the contact printer.

Unfortunately, we are space limited in an article like that. I would have explained why I made that statement much more clearly if I had the space to do so.

As Steve says, we are talking with Schneider about getting the 550XXL for review. This lens has a much larger potential market with banquet shooters, and I expect it to generate a lot more interest because it can offer substantial performance that I don't believe any other commonly available lens (regardless of vintage) can provide. It's only comparable modern lens to compare it agains is the Fujinon 600C, and that lens ha nowhere near the IC of the 550XXL.

I'm looking forward to using it with the banquet camera for vertical images with substantial vertical rise. I have done this with the 600C and run out of coverage, and I expect the 550mm to beat it hands down in this respect.

---Michael

[jtf]

I understand well how diffraction is not an issue, but I know nothing about ULF lenses in particular, but is it possible (or is it heresy) that an older, more reasonably priced lens is adequate to ULF while the XXL is overkill?

[John D Gerndt]

To answer jtf, the best case is about 30 line pairs per milimeter for paper resolution and that level of definition is matched and bettered in older lenses. Still, there are a limited number of older lenses that will cover what these XXL lenses will so they are meeting a need.

I don't have that need. I'm glad. Still, I'd like to meet someone who has filled that need and see the results of that kind of investment. It is sort of like meeting someone who owns a boat, a Big boat. It is fun to ride along (even buy the gas/film) but who really can afford to own such a thing.

Cheers,

[Rob Vinnedge]

Thanks for all the info. I'm looking forward to the 550 mm XXL news. Michael, sorry for my misspelling of your name. It was spelled both ways in the magazine.

[Michael Mutmansky]

Well, sure, there are many adequate solutions out there, and some people will actually prefer them due to the way the lens may render the image, or the contrast the lens provides.

However, a multicoated lens will generally perform better in high contrast situations than a single coated lens, and typically much better than an uncoated lens. A modern shutter will generally be more reliable than a hat for short exposures, and a modern designed lens will typically have better performance out into the corners than an older design.

These are all generalizations of course, but I expect this to hold true for the XXL lenses, especially when you consider that they were designed for pictrial use, not copy work, which most lenses used for the biggest ULF cameras were originally designed for.

ULF shooters are using optics because they work, but they were generally never intended for the application. So, we close down to eliminate chromatic aberrations in the corners, along with field curvature. We also close down for depth of field reasons related to the subject, but I can say that my experience with the 1100XXL indicates that the lens should be completely useable even at full aperture on a 20x24 for most applications.

If you have an older lens that is adequate for 20x24, but you are required to stop it down to f64 to make a sharp negative into the corners, the three stops of extra light might be a real improvement depending on the subject matter, and be the difference between a worthwhile image and one destined for the bin.

Is the XXL overkill? I state in the article that the cost vs. the benefits must be weighed by the individual. If you shoot a 20x24, you will be spending anywhere from about $13 to $20 per sheet for B&W film. While it is perfectly OK to try to do it as inexpensively as possible, realistically, the cost of admission for these ULF systems is extreme to begin with. Anyone who has the stomache for the expense associated with the consumables associated with the large ULF cameras will probably not be fretting too much over a few thousand between one lens and another. Someone who does probbaly should be thinking about a smaller format.

---Michael

[robert_4927]

Michael, I'm sure it performs quite well. But just off the top of my head you would need what?.....42" of bellows just to focus and that's close to about 7ft. of bellows for 1:1? I guess I would have to stick to stopping down the old Dagors and Artars. But then again I like the look of the older lenses. Sure would be nice to test drive one though.

[Steve Hamley]

Comment to Robert and Michael (Dagors and cost)

The 550mm Fine Art, unlike the 1100mm appears to be two cemented triplets, aka Dagor (or maybe Angulon?). As far as the $6K cost that Badger lists it for, try seeing what a 24" Gold Dot Dagor would sell for in in todays dollars. I'll bet a nickel that the 550mm Fine Art is cheaper or at least no more expensive. I've watched eBay and multiple dealers for years, and have never seen a 24" Dagor for sale - although there may have been one or two. An uncoated, barrel 19" Dagor recently went over $2K, and a 16-1/2" over $1K. I haven't worked the numbers, but it would seem Schneider's pricing isn't entirely unreasonable for a modern 22" multicoated Dagor in shutter that will cover what it does.

Is it worth it? If you need the coverage and shutter (I'm a big fan of shutters) yes. Resolution-wise on formats that you don't need the IC - probably not. I'd like to have one for the 8x20, but it does require digging very deep.

Steve

[David A. Goldfarb]

Focal Point charges around $150 a surface to single-coat a lens, so figure $600 for a Dagor, plus some de-cementing and reassembly charge, let's say another $200. Copal #3 shutter--around $550. S. K. Grimes mounting--maybe $250 for two rings. That's on the order of $1600 aside from the cost of an old Ser. III f:7.7 long focal length Dagor, which as Steve Hamley says, will be over $2000.

[robert_4927]

Steve , You are absolutely right. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of it . I also shoot an 8x10 , 8x20 and 14x17. I shoot a 30" red dot in shutter (700.00) A 16 1/2" Dagor in shutter ( 1500.00) 14" blue dot trigor in copal#3 (1000.00) And I even use the rear half of a 14" verito which is 24" on 8x20 (350.00) What I was saying to Michael was referring to the 1100 but if you're asking me about the 550 and if it is actually a Dagor design then what I'm getting at is I don't need it. Now if I was shooting 20x24 then maybe I would be as excited as you about them. If you re-read my post I said I like the look of the older lenses . And what I just listed is a whole series of lenses that covers my formats and meets my vision for about half the price of the 550. And if you ever see a 24 gold dot dagor please take a picture of it for me because the only one I've ever even heard of is from the old dagor catalog. So my guess would be it would be worth about ten times the 550 just in collector value. There are a lot of lenses out there that will cover your 8x20 without having to fork out 6 grand. But your rationalization to buy it sounds good so I'm with you, go for it, I'm behind you all the way. After that we can always say ...well now we need a bigger camera to cover this image circle and before you know it you'll be driving a brand new 20x24.

[jtf]

To answer jtf, the best case is about 30 line pairs per milimeter for paper resolution and that level of definition is matched and bettered in older lenses.

30 lp/mm seems extreme for a contact print, or even a modest enlargement when 8 lp/mm is enough for the human eye. Or was that a typo?

[jtf]

However, a multicoated lens will generally perform better in high contrast situations than a single coated lens, and typically much better than an uncoated lens.

My impression is that for ULF contact prints, multicoating is pretty much irrelevant unless one is shooting with pinpoint light sources in the frame. Shadows disappear fast with multicoated lenses - no crossover that a lack of coatings can give you. Imaging contrast is not always your friend, especially with unmanipulated contact prints.

[Mark Woods]

80 lines/mm is the lab standard for motion picture work. Some motion picture lenses resolve at 200 lines/mm (I've seen this with a microscope and it's not an urban legend). Before this thread, I couldn't conceive of less resolution than that. If one is doing lf why would one settle for less than 80 lines/mm?? Just because it's a big neg doesn't mean you can dumb it down since it's contact printed. With that thought about original lens resolution, a lens--negative combination of 80 lines/mm that was smaller and enlarged to the same resolution of a lf neg shot with less resolution would be the same or sharper. It makes no sense to me why to accept a lens that resolves less "since it's lf." Unless you like the look. Then all bets are off.

Kind Regards,
MW

[Nick_3536]

80 lp/mm basically limits you to F/20 with a perfect lens. You'll find that a problem with larger formats.

[jtf]

Sorry, Mark Woods, I find no sense whatsoever in what you say concerning contact prints, and the rest you wrote is just confusing to me.

[Oren Grad]

30 lp/mm seems extreme for a contact print, or even a modest enlargement when 8 lp/mm is enough for the human eye. Or was that a typo?

See Sandy King's comment on this point in this thread (http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/503975.html).

[Michael Mutmansky]

jtf,

Multicoating is no less important in ULF than it is in any other format. You have a specific DR requirement in your printing process, you have to meet that requirement through your choice of film, developer, developing time. You also have to factor in the contrast of the scene, the flare introduced by the lens and camera. Put all of these together and you can produce a negative that will meet your DR needs with a bit of testing.

It will be easier to actually meet a high DR requirement with a multicoated lens than it will with an uncoated lens, because the inherent contrast of the lens will be greater. A low contrast lens will typically have more fog exposure across the film, which can raise the shadows, but that can easily be adjusted for by a slight increase in the exposure with the multicoated lens.

There are some aspects of older lenses that can be considered preferrable to a modern lens, but I dont think that contrast is generally one of these, because that is fairly easily adjusted in the development (for B&W) to create a similar effect with either lens.

-----

One other aspect of the 550XXL lens that I am especially interested in testing is it's full aperture capabilities. The performance of the Fujinon 600C is quite excellent, but the corners can go soft if not stopped down a reasonable amount. How much depends on the format that you are using. It will be interesting if the 550 will permit a larger aperture for higher speed shooting, and possible more selective focus applications while still holding the corner sharpness.

-----

I don't really consider these lenses any different than a fast telephoto prime lens in the Canon or Nikon lines. They are specialty lenses, made in relatively small numbers, and command high prices. They are a source of pride for the manufacturers, as they are their 'flagship' lenses.

In this case, the XXL lenses indicate to me that they are interested in continuing to make LF taking lenses into the future, and while the numbers of LF lenses sold each year will probably continue to decline, Schneider seems to be in it for the long haul.



---Michael

[Oren Grad]

Michael, based on your tests, do you think that the 1100XXL is able to achieve 30 lp/mm across the rated image circle at optimum aperture?

[Steve Hamley]

Folks, some bits of info.

I had a quote from Focal Point a couple of months ago to recement the front glass of a 16-1/2" dagor which has a bit of fog. The price John quoted was $180 per cemented interface. So that's $360 for a Dagor cell or $720 for the whole lens. That doesn't include coating. So you have to have a potentially very valuable Dagor (read: long) to justify the cost of fixing cement and/or coatings. So to have an uncoated barrel Dagor coated and shuttered would indeed cost about $2,000 plus the cost of the lens. There are people who charge less than Focal Point, but John does have a good reputation.

Robert, I wasn't casting any aspersions, just floating the idea that the 550mm Fine Art is probably about the same price (or cheaper) as a similar length late vintage coated Dagor both in the current value of the dollars the vintage Dagor originally sold for and what both would bring today. The reason you don't see 24" Gold Dot Dagors or 550mm Fine Art lenses very much is because both are extremely pricey lenses, and why buy a 24" Dagor when a 24" Artar would cover even ULF formats at a fraction of the price. That's still a valid question, and one asked and answered in this thread.

I certainly agree that if you don't need the IC, there's no real reason to buy one unless it performs wide open and you need that capability, or you want (rather badly) multicoating. Most ULF shooters (even 8x10) stop down considerably for DOF. Also, in my experience most process lenses perform reasonably well near maximum aperture (also according to Chris Perez' site) and reach maximum resoultion at f/16, so a 24" Artar would seem to be good competition for the 550mm Fine Art if you can shoot at f/16 DOF issues not withstanding. Michael is correct that there are other issues to be considered, like multicoating and modern shutters, but I'll go out on a limb and offer the statement that for most of us (obviously) the difference isn't worth the $5,000 difference between a 24" Artar or 600mm Fuji C and the 550mm Fine Art. that said, I'd love to have one. I too, would like to turn an 8x20 vertical and have some rise available.

Steve

[jtf]

Oren, thanks for the pointer to Sandy King's comments regarding perceiving greater resolution than the often cited 8lpmm. Someday I hope to be fortunate enough to see King's work in person to experience the difference of ULF. Mr. Mutmansky's comments are well taken and again I hope to see an XXL made print in person. Clearly I have to see the outcomes to understand. My modest 5x4 is in a minor universe compared to ULF.

[robert_4927]

Steve, I have a vertical back that I use on my 8x20. Solves all the rise problem and I don't have to worry about the stress on the rails by turning it on its side. It is a nice option to have 2 backs with this format just for the fact that all your movements remain the same. Since my 8x20 is built on a 8x10 bed it has an 8x10 front standard. With this set up it is almost impossible to get the lens into the sweet spot of the ground glass with the vertical back on it and the 8x10 front standard even with a radical bed tilt. So I had an extra front Standard (bed and hardware) made with the vertical supports from a 16x20. It only takes an extra 30 sec to roll off the 8x10 front standard and roll on the taller front standard for the vertical back. I don't mean to get off topic but this does come in handy when shooting with a lens that barely covers the format. As far as coatings goes. I work in Pt/pd so contact printing is about all I do anymore so multicoatings are not a big issue to me. I have shots from a 24" apo artar and shots from a 24" red dot and you would be hard pressed to tell the difference. I think the Apo Artars (non red dots) are probably some of the best deals out there in the used market. But that's just my opinion and I'm sure not all will agree.

[robert_4927]

I just looked up the 550xxl. I must say it sure is one gorgeous lens. And it will probably be the mother of all lenses for ULF. Now I wish I hadn't looked. I'm sitting here trying to justify how I can order one. Sharp in the corners at wide apertures. Now a Dagor sure can't make that claim. Can't wait to see the test results.

[Michael Mutmansky]

Oren,

Let me look at the negatives I made and see. I think it can for a good portion of the image, if not for the full 900mm IC they have set in the specifications.

One thing to remember about the 1100mm XXL is that it is not operating at full aperture when in a shutter, so even if you use it wide open, it is stopped down about a stop inherent to the limits of the #3 shutter. I suspect that the lens is probably considerably less sharp into the corners at full aperture, as most lenses are.

-----

Robert,

I don't know if the 550XXl will be sharp in the corners at full aperture, but I do expect it to perform much better than the 600mm alternatives that are available to us, simply because it is a wide angle design.

Are there any lenses out there that have a 900mm image circle in this focal length? Most don't come anywhere near that, so when you are hitting the edge on an Artar (520mm IC) or Fujinon C (620mm IC), you still have several hundred millimeters of IC left with the XXL. That tells me that it should be able to deliver sharpness on a negative at fairly wide apertures without difficulty. We'll see if field curvature is controlled enough to make good images at large apertures. It will be an interesting lens to put through it's paces.

---Michael

[Steve Hamley]

Michael,

Keep us posted. I'm doing the same thing Robert is, trying to figure out how to justify one ...

Steve

[Bernard Languillier]

One stupid question.

I have been considering vaguely getting into ULF in the coming months in order to get the ultimate quality for some cases.

Since enlarging is not an option, and since contact print is too limitative size wize (I am already getting drop down gorgious 4*5 scan print outs at that size), the only reasonnable option to fully tap into the potential of 11*14 is to get a high end flat bed scanner (iQSmart2 or Fuji5000).

Now, I read here that the lenses might not be up to the challenge...

Here comes the question: does 11*14 really deliver additional image quality at image sizes aroud A2?

Thanks,
Regards, Bernard

[paulr]

if you're talking about contact printing (the assumption here, right?) there's no need to even mention 80 or even 30 lp/mm ... these resolutions are completely irrelevent, unless you plan to hang a loupe next to your prints. what matters is how much contrast (MTF) the lens can preserve in the 1 to 5 lp/mm range. schneider knows this, so i'd be willing to bet these lenses are true low frequency/high modulation monsters.

[Eric Leppanen]

Has anyone asked Schneider for MTF charts for the 550 XXL?

[martin_4668]

I have actually sold 1pcs 550XXL lens....but for a collector, I am not sure if will ever take a picture....sorry guys, no further info.
Nevertheless...USD 5500 later, I´m sure its a fab.lens
http://www.photografica.com/shop/templates/Group.asp?GroupGuid=3673

regards

[Lukas Werth]

First to Bernard's question: I really can't imagine that there will be any gain whatsoever in quality in a scanned 11x14 over a scanned 8x10, not in tonal quality, not in sharpness, whichever lens may be used.

This brings me, second, to a somewhat critical remark about the discussion in this string: I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings, but I wonder if over this all this technical drooling and efforts of measuring the whole quality and charme of ULF is not missed. I don't think there is a definitely measurable advantage for many ULF's at all. The real mystique of these formats comes through the subtle possibilities of personal interpretation, of finding an adequate language for rendering subtle elements of reality - or something beyond quite that, by unbeatable contrast range and tonality, matched by a process of choice, and, yes, this nearly three-dimensional concreteness of a well-made contact-copy is also brought out by sharpness of details - but all this is more a matter of personal interpretation than objective technical possibilities, more a question of knowing how to handle a tool for a certain purpose - or rather, vision - than obtaining the latest gadget. For a given purpose, an old petzval lens may be as or more adequate than a new Schneider lens.

Sorry if this sounds somewhat mystifying, but when reading this string I was strikingly reminded of the technical rave of 35 mm cameras before the advent of digital, when the common perception was newer meant better (as nowadays with digital). I find it sobering to remember that the earliest proceses of all, calotypes and daguerrotypes, are able to deliver pictures of a quality which cannot be surpassed even today.

Lukas

[kreig]

After reading both the View Camera artical and all the posts here, I have one question: How does diffraction affect the 1100XXL? At what f/stop does the lens perform best, and what is the results of useing this lens at the smallest possible setting of f/128??

Ok, ok, ok, 3 questions.

Kreig

[Michael Mutmansky]

Kreig,

The lens is just like every other lens in that the diffraction will act upon it increasingly as the aperture increases (as the physical size of the aperture decreases). The lens will probably perform best at f22, and smaller apertures will show an increase in diffraction sharpness reduction.

However, this is an almost meaningless aspect for contact printing, because at normal apertures, the sharpness loss is not going to lower the lens performance below that necessary for contact printing. When closed all the way down, there may be enough of a reduction that it would be visible, but this is a bit different from an unsharp enlarged print, and still may be considered acceptable, depending on your requirements and tolerance levels.

For example, if you contact print on silver paper, the paper will be able to resolve better than if you print on a hand coated alternative process. While the sharpness loss may not be noticed on a pt/pd print, it may be noticed on a silver gelatin print.

There are formulas out there to calculate diffraction limits and other related performance variables, but I am not terribly interested in the actual values, and I don't think the typical photographer should be either. It's much more important to understand what diffraction is, what it does, and how to avoid it. Then, apply that knowledge to the photography as best possible given the shooting conditions.

---Michael