Preferences for 150-165mm lenses in 8x10?

[interneg]

Out of the usual suspects (Super Angulon 165/8, Nikkor 150/8, Grandagon 155/6.8 etc) and any other more unusual lenses in that range, what do you like best for colour work in 8x10 - with potential enlargement to maybe 4x? Ideally I'd like to know how you find they perform when you optically print the resultant negs etc. Not so bothered about weight - and not super keen on spending on a Schneider 150SSXL.

As a secondary topic, have any of you used the older W.A. Dagor or 159/12.5 Wollensak for colour? I'm fully aware that anything above a contact print or 2x enlargement may be very questionable in the edges with these designs, even at deep stops.

[Vaughn]

Just the 159/12.5 Wollensak with B&W. I don't know if I have a bad copy, it was dropped, or operator error (more work with it needed, probably), but 'covering' 8x10 must have a different meaning.

[Peter De Smidt]

I have the Wollensak, but I haven't used it enough to have a good sense of it. A Nikon 150SW would likely be a good choice.

[Oslolens]

Just the 159/12.5 Wollensak with B&W. I don't know if I have a bad copy, it was dropped, or operator error (more work with it needed, probably), but 'covering' 8x10 must have a different meaning.Did you use a colour filter to increase sharpness? I must test mine to prepare for use. I have an uncoated one in the drawer with really low contrast, and I suspect it need a yellow filter to sharpen the corners.

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

[Greg]

5.9” No. 5 Gray Periscope in a COPAL 3. Covers 11x14 with some movements possible. Covering 8x10 is using the sweet spot of this optic.

[Jim Noel]

I have a 165 Angulon (not super), and a 159 Wolly. My preference is the Wolly because the Angulon is too sharp for my current tastes.

[Bernice Loui]

Most previous experience with the 155mm f6.8 Grandagon. Has essentially neutral color, optical performance is good from f11 to f32, Contrast is moderate-high for a modern multi-coated lens, Light fall off near the edges for 8x10 IMO is excessive for color transparencies (needs a center filter for 8x10 color transparencies), Image circle is ok for 8x10. This was used as the wide normal on 5x7 for a LONG time before the 150mm f5.6 SSXL replaced it.

The 150mm f8 Nikkor is similar with slightly higher contrast, but no better than the Grandagon for resolution. It does have a different color rendition than the Grandagon, slightly warmer color rendition (from memory long ago) than the Grandagon. After using both, preferred the Grandagon.

The 150mm SSXL is the smallest of the modern wide angles, really GOOD optical performance from f11 to f32, essentially neutral color, low distortion, does have light fall off like the others. Having owned and used this lens since 1998, it is essentially very similar to the other modern wide angle lenses exert for size. It does produce visually "snappier" images on film without the higher apparent contrast like what the Nikkor does.

Recent adder is the 165mm f8 Super Angulon. Only used it on B&W film. Not able to try the color transparency test on this lens as was done decades ago due to how much all that has changed.

Just not a lot of choices in this focal length that works good for 8x10. There are older and much smaller wide angle lenses that cover 8x10, but they are being pushed to the limits of their image circle of good optical performance and they still have light fall off problems.

It all goes back to what is needed for the print goals.


210211


Bernice

[Tin Can]

Never shot my 165 Angulon yet

Now it's on the long list



I have a 165 Angulon (not super), and a 159 Wolly. My preference is the Wolly because the Angulon is too sharp for my current tastes.

[Bernice Loui]

Depending on the specific sample, it can be good to iffy. Does not really cove 8x10 (despite what some claim that it does. Spec image circle is 275mm @ f22) all that good. Does good as a medium wide on 5x7. It has become the medium wide to carry with the Sinar Norma.


Bernice




Never shot my 165 Angulon yet
Now it's on the long list

[Tin Can]

Good to know Bernice, in field I now use 5x7

I may or may not try on bigger format in studio

If I get bored during 6+more months of lockdown

Thank you


Depending on the specific sample, it can be good to iffy. Does not really cove 8x10 (despite what some claim that it does. Spec image circle is 275mm @ f22) all that good. Does good as a medium wide on 5x7. It has become the medium wide to carry with the Sinar Norma.


Bernice

[Vaughn]

Did you use a colour filter to increase sharpness? I must test mine to prepare for use. I have an uncoated one in the drawer with really low contrast, and I suspect it need a yellow filter to sharpen the corners.

No, I have not tried that...but I will keep it in mind, thanks. I have used the lens on my 5x7 and it seems to behave itself nicely there. However my 'test' of the lens on 5x7 also had a camera light leak, so while the coverage and sharpness was good, I am not sure of the lens' tonal capabilities. I'd like to get a FujiW 150mm with inside writing for the 5x7 some day for general use...no rush as my FujiW 180mm is serving me fine. The 180mm has the inside writing and is rumoured to cover 8x10 (barely, with an IC of 305mm) at infinity, but I have not tried it.

[Ari]

150XL is hard to beat, but the price...
Glad I got mine when prices were saner.
There is fall-off in the corners, as Bernice says, but it's easily corrected with a Schneider Digital Center Filter, which was a free plug-in.

[interneg]

I recall that the 165 Angulon was supposed to be an 18x24cm lens at most & have heard so many conflicting accounts about its actual 8x10 coverage that I decided to omit even asking about it.

While the 150mm SSXL may be the 'best' of the lenses, I'm really not keen on the current prices - especially if adding the centre filter to it. I suspect that looking for a later 165/8 Super Angulon + its centre filter (if necessary) may be the best balance between availability and cost - does this seem like a reasonable plan of attack, or are the earlier (cheaper) chrome barreled ones with the integrated Compur Shutter not too bad to service / replace the shutter on?

[Oslolens]

I'd like to get a FujiW 150mm with inside writing for the 5x7 some day for general use...no rush as my FujiW 180mm is serving me fine. The 180mm has the inside writing and is rumoured to cover 8x10 (barely, with an IC of 305mm) at infinity, but I have not tried it.
I had two of those 180mm, I lended one of them to do a art-repro slide, but they are not for 8x10" with an inch or so not sharp.
Regarding the 159mm, I have one uncoated and a coated. I think in order to get sharp pictures is understanding where to focus due to curvature of focus combined a small enough aperture combined with a yellow or orange filter.

[Carsten Wolff]

Scale-up and sample variation notwithstanding, I'd dare say a coated 158mm Cooke VIIb would be a nice choice as well. I used to have its smaller brother (108mm) and used that on 5x7" and 6x17cm a fair bit in colour. Not that often found in decent shutters, mind you, but which vintage lens is these days :).

PS: I had a Wide Angle Dagor in ~4 3/8" as well, and the colour-rendering of that lens was definitely a bit too "vintage" to my taste (yellowish colour cast, and low colour contrast). Sold it for that reason. No idea how its bigger sibling would be, but the Cooke was definitely more usable for colour work.

[Mark Sampson]

In my industrial-shooter days we had a 1960s version of the 165/8 Super-Angulon. No complaints about sharpness, coverage, or color rendition. A fine lens but huge and heavy. But then we rarely used it, and the size & weight were not a concern in our work.

[Bernice Loui]

Going the 165mm f8 Super Angulon route, highly recommend procuring one of the later versions with the 90's Schneider lettering, black Copal shutter. The later ones have more modern coatings, lower flare-better contrast. Copal shutters work, later versions of the Compur shutters work, Early compur shutters (the one with the over-sized dial to ease setting) can be a problem to service or wore out. Shop and wait for a good deal, nice ones do come up for under 1K_U$D.

Takes a 105mm front filter size, BIG lens.

Modern wide angle lenses in similar modern vintage shutters work, work good. The current one which is vintage 60's works good, no disappointment in any way with B&W film.


Bernice




I suspect that looking for a later 165/8 Super Angulon + its centre filter (if necessary) may be the best balance between availability and cost - does this seem like a reasonable plan of attack, or are the earlier (cheaper) chrome barreled ones with the integrated Compur Shutter not too bad to service / replace the shutter on?

[ic-racer]

I use a 125mm Fujinon SW mostly because I got it cheap. It is a 4x5 lens, but I use it on my 8x10 camera, the lens does not even fit on my 4x5. I have a bag bellows, but it is not needed as you can see. In terms of sharpness, this lens is fantastic. It is modern design with multi coating. I use it at f22 like I would on 4x5.
The literature on the Fuji lenses is a little ambiguous in terms of coverage. For the way I print (not showing the rebate) this lens covers my printed area. Show are two photocopies of 16x20 prints.

210279
210280
210282

[MAubrey]

Good to know Bernice, in field I now use 5x7

I may or may not try on bigger format in studio

If I get bored during 6+more months of lockdown

Thank you

The Angulon 165's IC is 300mm at f/16. I have a late one in a Compur Electric #3. It makes a nice moderate wide on 5x7 with lots of room for movement, but it will cover 8x10 at f/22. There is no hard stop for the IC, it just gets progressively softer, which can be compensated with smaller f-numbers.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150911120246/http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/angulon/data/6,8-165mm.html

[Bernice Loui]

Conflicting info.. Page from the Linhof book notes the 165mm Angulon's image circle being 275mm, f22 at infinity. Yes, the image circle grows by moving reproduction ration reduction.. but that is not always relevant.
210312

Even with an image circle of 300mm at f22, to "just" cover 8x10 is 312mm. Stop down more to gain image circle, image resolution drops off. That is a fixed-given trade off.

Been down this road of vintage wide angle lenses with Protar, WA Dagor, Wide Field ektar, and... based on this experience the modern wide angle lenses of the "Biogon" _ish variety has better optical performance. Add the older shutter problem as another consideration to using these older wide angle lens designs brings up other considerations to lens choice question.

The 165mm Angulon in barrel is used on 5x7 as a medium wide for non-geometrically and non-optically performance demanding images. It is small, light weight with good enough optical performance. Images that require better optical performance, the 150mm Schneider SSXL is used or the 165mm Super Angulon. Both have better optical performance than the 165mm Angulon.

Regardless, light fall off remains a factor regardless of vintage or modern wide angle lens. How much light fall off is acceptable, that depends on the image maker and all that.

Older non-"Biogon" _ish wide angle lens designs simply do not have the optical performance of the more modern "Biogon" _ish wide angle lens designs. The older wide angle lens design offer much smaller physical size and lower weight trading off optical performance. Both older and modern wide angle lenses are absolutely capable of producing GOOD images. It is all back to what is acceptable and what is not acceptable for the
image maker and print goals.


Bernice



The Angulon 165's IC is 300mm at f/16. I have a late one in a Compur Electric #3. It makes a nice moderate wide on 5x7 with lots of room for movement, but it will cover 8x10 at f/22. There is no hard stop for the IC, it just gets progressively softer, which can be compensated with smaller f-numbers.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150911120246/http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/angulon/data/6,8-165mm.html

[Peter De Smidt]

Maybe I'm unusual, but I don't focus at infinity very often. I'm often focus much closer to the camera. Doing so increases the image circle. I've used my 120 SA on 8x10, and it covered just fine. This fits nicely with super wide photography as often one has to get very close to the subject to get an effective picture. Don't treat photographing with a super wide just like you would with a longer lens. Get closer!

[Vaughn]

I had two of those 180mm, I lended one of them to do a art-repro slide, but they are not for 8x10" with an inch or so not sharp.
Regarding the 159mm, I have one uncoated and a coated. I think in order to get sharp pictures is understanding where to focus due to curvature of focus combined a small enough aperture combined with a yellow or orange filter.

Thank you. Working with the 159mm/f12 under the redwoods was not a great place to experiment with this lens for me...and while I'd love to blame the lens, you are correct that I need a lot more experience with it. It might find some work on the 5x7.

I have 210mm and 250mm available for 8x10. The 180mm might be interesting for closer work, as Peter mentioned, but my 210mm is great for that (Graphic-Raptor) also, but not in a shutter.

[Kevin Crisp]

Maybe I lucked out with my uncoated f:12 Wollensak, but it was adequately sharp for me edge to edge. I don't shoot 8X10 any longer, but I still use it for 4X10 and it does a nice job for me.

[MAubrey]

Conflicting info.. Page from the Linhof book notes the 165mm Angulon's image circle being 275mm, f22 at infinity. Yes, the image circle grows by moving reproduction ration reduction.. but that is not always relevant.
210312

Even with an image circle of 300mm at f22, to "just" cover 8x10 is 312mm. Stop down more to gain image circle, image resolution drops off. That is a fixed-given trade off..
f/16, not f/22. Schneider's data is for f/16. And in this case, Schneider is the proverbial "horse's mouth."

Also, modular transfer function improves as you stop down across the frame, so IC increases, image resolution increases, too, until you're diffraction limited, at least.

And of course an Angulon isn't comparable to a 150mm SSXL! Nobody said such a silly thing.

Everything is a compromise. You under no obligation to like mine.

[Bernice Loui]

Again, even if Schneider's published data on image circle states 300mm at f22, which version of Schneider's "horses"mouth is correct? This Schneider catalog sheet from back when these were sold is written: image circle of 278mm at f22.
210347

Lot more than just resolution as defined by diffraction. It is a balance for any lens, as the lens is stopped down there comes a point of best geometric correction -vs- diffraction due to aperture size. This goes back to the worn and tired words about image circle, taking aperture, diffraction and all that has become tire some to beyond worth discussing any more.


Bernice



f/16, not f/22. Schneider's data is for f/16. And in this case, Schneider is the proverbial "horse's mouth."

Also, modular transfer function improves as you stop down across the frame, so IC increases, image resolution increases, too, until you're diffraction limited, at least.

And of course an Angulon isn't comparable to a 150mm SSXL! Nobody said such a silly thing.

Everything is a compromise. You under no obligation to like mine.

[MAubrey]

Again, even if Schneider's published data on image circle states 300mm at f22, which version of Schneider's "horses"mouth is correct? This Schneider catalog sheet from back when these were sold is written: image circle of 278mm at f22.
That's a good point! Which horse's mouth indeed! Schneider also published data on IC that states ~429mm for the 165!
210361210362
I can't imagine how soft those corners were!

I can say that the Angulon 165 is good enough for pin-sharp contact prints on 8x10 at f/22 straight on. I don't have access to an 8x10 enlarger.

It is a balance for any lens
Agreed. That was my point about compromises. We don't need to rehash that stuff again.

Cheers!

[Conrad . Marvin]

Just for the record, I used to use a 165 Angulon for 5x7. One day I found myself in need of an 8x10 lens for a building shot. 40” x5’ print was tack sharp corner to corner. Of course I didn’t have to use the corners of the negative.........

[Bernice Loui]

Much like today, there was an obsession over image circle and what a given lens will cover. There was a marketing advantage to claiming "your" lens has the largest image circle. That ~400mm Plus image circle could be achieved by approaching or exceeding life size aka 1 to 1 image reproduction ratio. Which does bring up a very real world way in which many wide angle lenses are used. They are often used by moving the camera in to create large print image object close to the lens -vs- shrinking objects away from the lens. This tends to increase the projected image circle of the lens.

Historical curiosity about the Angulon, it is essentially a "reverse Dagor" done to get around the Dagor Patent. Having used both WA Dagor and Angulon, they have similar performance. These lens designs go back a long time and have stood the test of time for good reasons.. they have quite remarkable optical performance for what they are and given when these were designed and made. Many decades passed before notably better optical designs were done to surpass the optical performance of this seemingly simply and lowly design. The modern trade-off became HUGE compared to the Angulon in the march to improving optical performance.

Not a lot wrong with the Angulon (lf the sample is a good one), this 165mm Angulon in barrel lives with the Sinar Norma in the roller pelican case, serves as the medium wide for 5x7. Does well for this as it is essentially a Dagor in this focal length. Typical taking aperture for the 165mm Angulon is f16 and smaller. It's optical performance at f6.8 to f11_ish is not that "hot"...

Note the size difference between the 165mm Angulon -vs- the 165mm Super Angulon -vs- the 150mm SSXL. Each has its plus/minus for a given image need.
210370


Bernice

[David Lindquist]

Like Schneider, C.P. Goerz American Optical Co./Goerz Optical Co., Inc. became more conservative in their coverage claims for the Wide Angle Dagor. A 1960 piece of Goerz literature I have claims 100 degrees for the Wide Angle Dagor. A 1967 brochure (if I'm interpreting the date code correctly) claims 90 degrees. Typically they specify this is at f/45.

David

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50710960443_9f45f4a007_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2kg9VNc)5x7 Norma Ready to Go Norma 165 Sup Ang (https://flic.kr/p/2kg9VNc) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

I've been working with this one and it's ready to go. 5x7 Norma with 165mm F8 Sinar Norma Super Angulon. This is the deluxe version with aperture contol from behind the camera, Compur Special forward mounted shutter. I've heard the Compur Special was desirable because smaller shutter equals higher shutter speeds. Desirable as the the lens was marketed at the time as being fully corrected wide open. So you have all the options with the deluxe version. Notice the Sinar Norma Monocular with bag bellows, no need for focusing cloth and I can see every speck of ground glass grain with the original Sinar setup.

According to my Schneider literature the 165mm F8 chrome Super Angulon covers 11x14 with an image circle of 393mm. Finest results without stopping down.

https://live.staticflickr.com/1916/31852196528_17c309036a_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/QwEQjd)Super Angulon Catalog (https://flic.kr/p/QwEQjd) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

[MAubrey]

Much like today, there was an obsession over image circle and what a given lens will cover. There was a marketing advantage to claiming "your" lens has the largest image circle. That ~400mm Plus image circle could be achieved by approaching or exceeding life size aka 1 to 1 image reproduction ratio. Which does bring up a very real world way in which many wide angle lenses are used. They are often used by moving the camera in to create large print image object close to the lens -vs- shrinking objects away from the lens. This tends to increase the projected image circle of the lens.

Historical curiosity about the Angulon, it is essentially a "reverse Dagor" done to get around the Dagor Patent. Having used both WA Dagor and Angulon, they have similar performance. These lens designs go back a long time and have stood the test of time for good reasons.. they have quite remarkable optical performance for what they are and given when these were designed and made. Many decades passed before notably better optical designs were done to surpass the optical performance of this seemingly simply and lowly design. The modern trade-off became HUGE compared to the Angulon in the march to improving optical performance.

Not a lot wrong with the Angulon (lf the sample is a good one), this 165mm Angulon in barrel lives with the Sinar Norma in the roller pelican case, serves as the medium wide for 5x7. Does well for this as it is essentially a Dagor in this focal length. Typical taking aperture for the 165mm Angulon is f16 and smaller. It's optical performance at f6.8 to f11_ish is not that "hot"...

Note the size difference between the 165mm Angulon -vs- the 165mm Super Angulon -vs- the 150mm SSXL. Each has its plus/minus for a given image need.
210370


Bernice

I have the same set! Well, nearly. I don't have the Super Symmar and my 165mm SA is multicoated. But I certainly enjoy using them!

[David Lindquist]

Like Schneider, C.P. Goerz American Optical Co./Goerz Optical Co., Inc. became more conservative in their coverage claims for the Wide Angle Dagor. A 1960 piece of Goerz literature I have claims 100 degrees for the Wide Angle Dagor. A 1967 brochure (if I'm interpreting the date code correctly) claims 90 degrees. Typically they specify this is at f/45.

David

Reviving this thread as I have information further narrowing down when Goerz got more conservative in describing the coverage of the Wide Angle Dagor. A price list dated June 1960 gives the coverage of the "Wide Angle Golden Dagor" as 100 degrees. A descriptive leaflet from Goerz dated October 1963 gives the coverage of the Wide Angle Dagor as 90 degrees and this coverage is reached at f/45; at f/22 it's 80 degrees.

The June 1960 price list doesn't so much say at what aperture the 100 degrees is achieved, rather it gives "film size" for f/8 and f/32. For example for the 6 1/2 inch Wide Angle Dagor the respective film sizes given are 5 1/2 x 7 1/2 and 10 x 12.

David

[GhoSStrider]

Just the 159/12.5 Wollensak with B&W. I don't know if I have a bad copy, it was dropped, or operator error (more work with it needed, probably), but 'covering' 8x10 must have a different meaning.


I've got a coated version of the 159mm f9.5. It's a completely different lens but Wollensak advertised it having less coverage than the f12.5 (the f9.5 is at 91.2º and the f12.5 is listed at 100º when stopped down). I don't have any complaints about my lens. It's small and decently sharp for its age. I definitely don't see any of the corner smearing like your example image shows.

216909

[rawitz]

Same article as the subject in other thread:

For myths and facts about SuperAngulon MC and SSymmar XL here some original Schneider datas for SA 165 MC and SSXL 150

222682

What we see clearly is, the SSXL 150 is a better optical performer at aperture 8, but (slightly) worse at 22 to the SA 165.
More important, the 150 has clearly more light-falloff compared to the 165, at 22 in the extreme image-border 20% to 30%.
I remember, the Schneider folks at the Photokina around 2000 told me, the advantage of the SSXL is the much smaller size and the simpler and cost reduced manufacturing, therefore they will discontinue the bigger SA 165 and 210 sooner or later. So they did.
But they also told me, that the 150 and all the SSXL are not recommended to use without centerfilter. the SAngulons lightfallof at 22 is not too critical.

happy holidays
Rainer

[Bernice Loui]

Yes indeediee. Schneider phased in the 150mm SSXL to replace the 165mm f8 SA in time.

Back in the 8x10 film days, the 155mm Grandagon was the "go to" very wide angle for 8x10. Needed a center filter for color transparencies to correct for light fall off. In time the 8x10 sheet film stopped. This turned the 155mm Grandagon into a medium wide for 5x7, center filter not really needed. Keep in mind the 155mm Grandagaon is HUGE and about the same size as the 165mm f8 SA.

It was the later 1990's when Schneider announced the SSXL aspheric wide angle lenses. Decided to go for the 110mm SSXL and 150mm SSXL as a pre-order promo. Nearly a year passed before delivery. Adding to this deal, Schneider did a trade in your old view camera lens for new discount, any view camera lens was eligible for this discount. This further sweetened the deal. It was the 110mm SSXL that arrived first, good lens on 5x7, does NOT cover 8x10 and has significant light fall off. Yet, text on the web-internet continues to float the fantasy the 110mm SSXL covers 8x10 and .... This simply NOT true as the optical performance image circle dies before properly covering 8x10 and the light fall off is BAD.

The 150mm SSXL got pressed into medium wide duty for 5x7, center filter not really needed and it was about half the size of the 155mm Grandagon.

Being one of those who does not press view camera lenses past f32 and often not past f22, both SSXLs worked very good. Based on decades of experience with these two copies, Optical performance is good at f8 to f22, there after the performance begins to drop off.

In recent years, the 110mm SSXL got parked being replaced by a 115mm Grandagon or 105mm Fujinon. The 150mm SSXL still serves for medium wide 5x7 as needed, but for lug around portability the 165mm f6.8 Angulon works good enough.

Regardless of what folks say about the SSXLs, they NEED a center filter if the light fall off problem is to be corrected and the image goals demand this.


Bernice





Same article as the subject in other thread:

For myths and facts about SuperAngulon MC and SSymmar XL here some original Schneider datas for SA 165 MC and SSXL 150

222682

What we see clearly is, the SSXL 150 is a better optical performer at aperture 8, but (slightly) worse at 22 to the SA 165.
More important, the 150 has clearly more light-falloff compared to the 165, at 22 in the extreme image-border 20% to 30%.
I remember, the Schneider folks at the Photokina around 2000 told me, the advantage of the SSXL is the much smaller size and the simpler and cost reduced manufacturing, therefore they will discontinue the bigger SA 165 and 210 sooner or later. So they did.
But they also told me, that the 150 and all the SSXL are not recommended to use without centerfilter. the SAngulons lightfallof at 22 is not too critical.

happy holidays
Rainer

[Luis-F-S]

I use and old uncoated 6.5" W.A. Dagor from the late 1930's. Covers great and is a great lens!