Schneider Kreuznach Super Angulon MC XL 5,6/58

[Kornscharfsteller]

I got offered a lens with the following description

Schneider Kreuznach Super Angulon MC XL 5,6/58 Copal 0 (Code 16189)

and this image:

217385

I am considering to buy it to use it with my new Chamonix C45F-2 4x5 camera.

Would it be a good fit for my Chamonix as a wide angel lens?
What is known about this lens?
It is any good?
Are there any known "diseases" that this lens often has when it ages?

The above info is basically everything I have got. The seller cannot really tell me if it is fully functional because he it is not a photographer and he just inherited the lens.
He says that the lens "looks basically flawless" and the shutter "does something" when releasing it.

Is it risky buying it like this? How much money should I offer, considering these risks.

How much money is it worth if it turns out the lens is actually more or less flawless?

[Keith Pitman]

That is a ultra wide angle lens. It would be good for architecture, especially interiors. I would not recommend the lens for your only wide angle lens.

If you continue to consider buying it, try to buy it "on approval" e.g., make sure you can get your money back if the shutter does not function correctly or the glass is damaged. If the buyer doesn't accept "on approval," discount the offer price heavily--if you have to get the shutter serviced, it will cost you $125 and up.

As far as the lens' worth, check the sold listings on Ebay to get an idea.

[Greg]

If you will be shooting color, then plan on also buying a center ND filter. A Schneider IIIb (part #10590). Exposure correction is 1.5 and the filter thread M67x0.75. I believe that Rodenstock and Heliopan also offered center ND filters that would fit the 58mm. Their exposure correction might be 2.0 or 2.5. Maybe another forum member could confirm or correct this post?

If you are only shooting black & white, then you may or may not want to use a center ND filter. I use a 90mm Super Angulon XL on my whole plate for only shooting black & white and resisted acquiring a center ND filter for it for the longest time. I finally did acquired a center ND filter for it, and now use it 100% of the time.

[Kornscharfsteller]

If you will be shooting color, then plan on also buying a center ND filter.

If you are only shooting black & white, then you may or may not want to use a center ND filter..
Why do I need a center ND filter for this lens when shooting 4x5? Is this because of some heavy vignetting? Is the coverage circle of this lens not large enough for 4x5? Why do I need it for color more than for b&w?

[Lachlan 717]

Super wides = super vignetting.

The unavoidable laws of physics…. This lens has light “falloff”; yes, the image circle is being pushed with 4x5”, but we’re not discussing mechanical vignetting here.

Colour positive film doesn’t have the latitude of negative film. Thus, WYSIWYG.

[Dan Fromm]

If you will be shooting color, then plan on also buying a center ND filter. A Schneider IIIb (part #10590). Exposure correction is 1.5 and the filter thread M67x0.75. I believe that Rodenstock and Heliopan also offered center ND filters that would fit the 58mm. Their exposure correction might be 2.0 or 2.5. Maybe another forum member could confirm or correct this post?

If you are only shooting black & white, then you may or may not want to use a center ND filter. I use a 90mm Super Angulon XL on my whole plate for only shooting black & white and resisted acquiring a center ND filter for it for the longest time. I finally did acquired a center ND filter for it, and now use it 100% of the time.

See http://www.galerie-photo.com/center-filters-for-large-format-lenses.html

[Corran]

More wide = more better. Love my 58xl. Send him my way, I've thought about buying a second copy.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Rc-ypBKRMRM/Vd6RDS3T_SI/AAAAAAAAIdg/XH0De4iNw10/s800/deadriver-2105.jpg

PS valuations are not allowed.

[Kornscharfsteller]

More wide = more better. Love my 58xl.
Was that (nice) image shot using a center ND filter? I wonder how strong the vignetting actually is on 4x5 on that lens without a center ND filter.

[Kornscharfsteller]

So the question still stands: Is this lens generally considered to be a really good super wide angle lens? Are there better ones?

Also, it looks like that lens goes on eBay between 600 and 900 Euro. That seems rather overpriced, or not?

[Huub]

There are only a few modern super wide lenses offered for the 4x5 format and this is one of them. The others are the 55mm Rodentock Apo-Grandagon and the 47mm Schneider SA XL, which is even a step wider. It ain't a super sharp lens with a super large image circle, but for this focal length it is among the best there is. Even when i don't have personal experience with the Rodenstock 55mm my bet is that you won't see much differences in pratical applications.

[Dan Fromm]

Was that (nice) image shot using a center ND filter? I wonder how strong the vignetting actually is on 4x5 on that lens without a center ND filter.

1) learn to do the arithmetic. With a 58, the corners of 4x5 will be 2.8 stops down from the center.
2) there's a link to an article in post #6 above. Read the article.
3) since you don't like the idea of using a CF, just buy the damned lens and find out whether you can tolerate its vignetting.

[John Brady]

I’ve owned both the 58xl and the 47xl, back when I was shooting 4x5. Both are really good lenses, but my favorite was the 47xl. It is one of the widest angles of view in a large format lens, I think 120 deg. The image circle is the same on each, the center filters are optional, when I sheet color, especially velvia 50, it was mandatory. With black and white I prefer no center filter, I like my edges a little darker to draw you in anyway. The vignetting is not extreme with black and white. The 58xl utilizes a slightly lighter center filter because it doesn’t vignette as much as the 47xl.

[Corran]

Thanks. No CF on that photo. Agree with everything John says above.

[lassethomas]

1) learn to do the arithmetic. With a 58, the corners of 4x5 will be 2.8 stops down from the center.


And more or less supported by Shneider's own data stating 20% illumination at f/22 and infinity focus and an image circle of 166.2mm.
20% is about 2.2 stops.

217408

From Schneiders Datasheet

[lassethomas]

So the question still stands: Is this lens generally considered to be a really good super wide angle lens? Are there better ones?

Also, it looks like that lens goes on eBay between 600 and 900 Euro. That seems rather overpriced, or not?

Yes it's considered a really good super wide angle. And not much to choose from and my guess is that you won't see any difference from other offerings in normal shooting conditions. So if you want to shoot that wide just go for it.
And as long as you don't shoot transparencies a center filter is optional.

Don't worry about the corner sharpness, worry about composition instead. How to not include everything in the frame.

[Bernice Loui]

That is the way Nature IS, Nature will NOT be denied.

All the Schneider XL wide angle lenses are absolutely Excellent in every way. Know they are designed and optimized to be used at f16 to f45. If this is a focal length that works your image goals, there is little reasons to not own-use it. Schneider's series of XL wide angles were the last of their kind with 115 to 120 degree angle of view. There will be no more view camera lenses made or designed like these, unless you're willing to spend six figures of U$D to fund an optical specialty company to design and build a special. Even then, that special will have it's specific set of trade-offs including light fall off just like this Schneider XL and the long list of others.

As for "sharpness" and all those habituated Foto marking monikers, much if not all of that marketing stuff does not apply to the world of sheet film view camera stuff from when working Photographers_creative artist were using this stuff daily to put food on their table, roof on top of their studio and daily survival.

There is way far more than "sharpness" and all that Foto blather that results in an expressive image.


Bernice





And more or less supported by Shneider's own data stating 20% illumination at f/22 and infinity focus and an image circle of 166.2mm.
20% is about 2.3 stops.

217408

From Schneiders Datasheet

[Greg Y]

That is the way Nature IS, Nature will NOT be denied.

There is way far more than "sharpness" and all that Foto blather that results in an expressive image.

Bernice


Bernice, Honestly I love it when you say that stuff. Never stop!

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49847472842_0875e8db7a_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2iWRk1W)Graflex Grandagon on Norma Board (https://flic.kr/p/2iWRk1W) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr
6
I used the Graflex XL Grandagon lens on the 4x5 Norma, back in the 80s before there were SA-XL lenses. It did work OK for my uses and almost covered 4x5 when focused hyperfocally. Recently I did a CLA repair on it and it is now usuable again

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48566847992_50bf2fb1f4_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gZFMS9)Reprint DII Rock Bridge 2 (https://flic.kr/p/2gZFMS9) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

4x5 Sinar Norma 58mm f5.6 Graflex XL Grandagon, Ilford HP5 (not +!) D76 1:1 8x10 Unicolor Unidrum Omega DII laser aligned Omegalite diffusion head Arista #2 RC Multigrade dev

[Lachlan 717]

If I was in your place, I’d get the72mm SAXL.

Much bigger IC and far easier to use.

(And less physics for you to argue with…)

[Corran]

72mm XL is a great lens! But it's not a replacement for the 58mm XL...unless you are shooting 5x7 ;).

[Bernice Loui]

Same Schneider XL lens design series, different focal length. The 58mm will NOT cover 5x7, the 72mm does. The 72mm results in a different angle of view on 4x5 than the 58mm..

Yes, the IC of the 72mm is larger than the 58mm. Ease of use is a non-issue for a camera easily capable of pushing the 58mm or 72mm beyond it's IC limits. If ease of use is related to angle of view, that is a different aspect of these two focal lengths entirely.


Bernice



If I was in your place, I’d get the72mm SAXL.

Much bigger IC and far easier to use.

(And less physics for you to argue with…)

[John Brady]

217439217440217441

Hopefully these will display alright, this is a great reference for these lenses. I have never figured out how to display images on this site. (If anyone wants to pm me instructions, I would be forever greatfull)

I’m a big fan of the super angulon XL’s, I have the 72xl and the 90xl that I use on my 5x8. The 72 is crazy wide for 5x8.
I am tempted some days to get back into 4x5 just to use with the 47xl.

[Kornscharfsteller]

Hopefully these will display alright

This seems like a very interesting document.
The images are a bit too lowres though. Do you happen to have it at a higher resolution, or maybe even as a PDF? May/should I PM you for that.

[Kornscharfsteller]

217439217440217441

According to those charts the image circle is big enough for 4x5. And there is even a bit of room (almost 1cm) of shifting without exceeding the image circle. so if I do not tilt and shift, does that mean I wouldn't need a center ND filer (at least at some smaller arptetures)?


217520

217521

[John Brady]

As mentioned earlier, you only need a center filter if you are concerned about the edges being darker than the center, vignetting. With black and white I find it to be subtle but pleasing, back when I shot Velvia 50, I found it necessary. It's a great lens, if you can buy it right and you want a super wide lens, I would go for it.


According to those charts the image circle is big enough for 4x5. And there is even a bit of room (almost 1cm) of shifting possible without exceeding the image circle. so if I do not tilt and shift, does that mean I wouldn't need a center ND filer?

[Bob Salomon]

According to those charts the image circle is big enough for 4x5. And there is even a bit of room (almost 1cm) of shifting possible without exceeding the image circle. so if I do not tilt and shift, does that mean I wouldn't need a center ND filer?

The charts tell you that the light fall off from center to edge is why you need a center filter.

[Oren Grad]

This seems like a very interesting document.
The images are a bit too lowres though. Do you happen to have it at a higher resolution, or maybe even as a PDF? May/should I PM you for that.

Try this link:

https://web.archive.org/web/20121004035605/http://schneiderkreuznach.com/pdf/foto/large_format_lenses.pdf

[lassethomas]

To be very clear. The lens will have a image circle that covers 4x5. But within that image circle there will be a difference of illumination of 2.2 steps (all according to Schneider's documentation). Meaning that the extreme corners will be exposed 2.2 stops less than the center of the image in that image circle.
This is due to nature and all similar lenses will have more or less the same behavior.

If this is acceptable to you or not is something you have decide, we can not help you with that. If not then you need to invest in a center filter.
You will not find any similar wide angle lens covering the same angle that have any significant difference in performance concerning vignetting ( as Bernice has explained this is due to nature and nature will not be denied).

My take is that, owning similar lenses, this is acceptable for black and white and color negative films, but not for slides. But you assessment may vary.

If you want such a wide lens, get it, you will not find anything better.

[Adam Kavalunas]

For what its worth, I shot 4x5 landscapes with the Rodenstock 55mm for about a decade, exclusively with color slides (velvia, astia, provia). I never found the vignetting to be a problem. I also scanned the slides and edited them digitally so correcting the vignette wasn't difficult, although I rarely did so, as I like a vignette on a super wide angle image. I don't have the image circle chart in front of me, but I never ran out of rear tilt (the only movement I used for the most part) since you rarely need more than a few mm using such a wide angle lens. I can only assume the Schneider 58mm XL would be very similar and you'd be very happy with it.

[Delfi_r]

I have the SAXL 5.6/58 mounted on a Cambo Wide DS, it's a very good lens, and with a large coverage. The SAXL 5,6/72 it's with my Supertechnika V 13x18 and it's a much larger lens not suited for some 4x5 cameras.

The 58 mm focal length on 4x5" covers a room from one of his corners. 47 mm on 4x5" and 72 mm on 5x7" show you even all the walls (if you don't mind the geometries of the image). Wide angles are useful when trying to take a building on a narrow street or a house without some modern additions as electric poles. You need some longer lens for other situations when the extreme angles are not needed.