Schneider Super-Symmar XL 110mm f5.6 v. Nikon Nikkor-SW 120mm f8 [Archive]

Salmo22

13-Sep-2022, 07:30

While I no longer engage in multi-day siege backpack trips with my LF gear, I do regularly hump my 4x5 kit to photograph scenes that exceed Weston's limit of "500 yards from the car". My Nikkor-SW 120mm f8 is a favored lens. Sharp as a tack. Wonderful contrast. A terrific focal length when I'm traversing the grand landscape. All it's superb qualities aside, it is a portly fellow whose presence is felt in both kitbag and on the end of my 4x5. I'm looking at potential svelte substitutes for those times when my L4-L5 segments are not up to the task. The Schneider Super-Symmar XL 110mm f5.6 has caught my eye and I'm looking for input and comment.

With lensboard, my 120/8 weighs in at nearly 1.5 pounds while the 110/5.6 is listed at 1/2 half pound less. The Schneider has a slightly smaller image circle, but ample coverage for 4x5.

What the lens data sheets don't tell me are things like sharpness, contrast, rendering, etc... What are the qualities of the 110/5.6?

Editorial Observation: While perusing eBay, I note that the 110/5.6 has one of the longest descriptive titles I've seen; "Schneider Super Symmar 110mm f5.6 XL 105° Aspheric MC Lens". Is that a marketing strategy?

mhayashi

13-Sep-2022, 07:52

I can’t compare ssxl 110mm with the nikkor as I don’t have the latter, but the ssxl 110mm is the one of the best I have used in past, in terms of contrast and sharpness. For 4x5 use near the center, I don’t feel the need for the IIIb center filter.
When you buy one, examine a sample before you buy as there are some bad batches with foggy peripheral with internal elements inside and coating issues discussed in the forum too.

John Layton

13-Sep-2022, 08:29

Salmo...I acquired a nice version of the 110XL for the very reasons which you state - with my "other" lens being a 120mm Super Angulon (MC).

...and while I generally find the 110XL to be a great performer - there is something about its "personality" which I haven't yet thoroughly warmed up to. At the same time...there is something about "personality" of the 120SA which prevents me from letting it go.

My advice to you would be to see if you can acquire the 110XL while hanging on to the 120 Nikkor - and use them both for awhile for similar images before finally deciding which one you might choose to let go.

In my case...no matter what I'm keeping my 120 - figuring that as these seem to be a dime a dozen these days, I might as well (even if the 110XL eventually wins out) keep it if for no other reason than to have as a "sacrificial" lens to take out in conditions which might place it at some risk. Hmmm...sounds a bit cruel to be honest!

Salmo22

13-Sep-2022, 08:43

In my case...no matter what I'm keeping my 120 - figuring that as these seem to be a dime a dozen these days, I might as well (even if the 110XL eventually wins out) keep it if for no other reason than to have as a "sacrificial" lens to take out in conditions which might place it at some risk. Hmmm...sounds a bit cruel to be honest!

Your suggestion is my ultimate strategum. The Nikkor SW 120/8 will be with me always. But two back surgeries have me evaluating slender substitutes for those times when avant-garde minimalism rules the day - i.e. my fused L4/L5 is not playing well with others.

konakoa

13-Sep-2022, 10:50

For lighter lenses in the same focal length I propose the Schneider 120 Super Symmar HM or the Schenider 120 Apo Symmar “L”. I have both and can’t find fault with either.

The “L” is tiny, and I have it on a Horseman FA. The image circle and coverage won’t be near that of the Nikon 120, but the lens is really sharp and I’m not disappointed in the image quality in any way. Here’s an old posting of mine with some photos of the lens: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?133421-Medium-Wide-lens-suggestion-for-the-Horseman-FA&p=1351818&viewfull=1#post1351818 Image circle of this lens is 189mm at f/22.

The 120 HM is interesting. Predates the aspheric designs and uses fluorite elements. A bit more coverage for not a lot of weight either. Image circle in my technical info is that it's 211mm at f/22.

I have a 110 as well and really haven’t meshed with it on 4x5. Very sharp, fantastic contrast…but the focal length just doesn’t work for me there. (I don’t much care for 90mm on the 4x5 either.) Yet I do like the 110 on my 5x7. On that camera however it does need the center filter as it’s very wide and has some noticeable fall off in the corners without the filter.

Steve Goldstein

13-Sep-2022, 11:01

Another lens you might consider is the 120mm Super-Symmar HM. Both the SSHM and SSXL take 67mm filters instead of the Nikkor's 77mm. The SSHM weighs 409gm with caps, the SSXL weighs 425gm, and the Nikkor weighs 610gm. The SSHM is physically longer (80mm) than the SSXL (60mm). The SSXL is in a Copal 1, the other two inhabit Copal 0 shutters. The SSHM's 211mm image circle is much smaller than the SSXL or Nikkor, but it will cover 5x7 straight on so there's plenty of movement available for 4x5.

I'd love to say I own all three and have done in-depth comparisons of these three, but I'd be lying.

I use a single-coated 125mm inside-lettering Fujinon-W for this focal length - it has the same coverage as the SSHM at a fraction of the size, weight, and cost. There are later multi-coated Fujinons with similar, though slightly smaller images circles, all more than adequate for general 4x5 use. L3/L4/L5 certainly appreciate my Fujinon!

The one thing the SSXL will provide over the SSHM or the Fujinons is real usability of 5x7 and (barely) on whole-plate, so that would be a consideration if you use either of those formats.

Greg

13-Sep-2022, 11:27

I'm looking at potential svelte substitutes for those times when my L4-L5 segments are not up to the task.

Many years ago I was an avid ultralight backpacker. My camera of choice was either an Olympus XA-4 for shooting 35mm color or an Agfa Isolette for shooting 120 black & white. Back then I was very "ounce" conscious. I no longer backpack but do take one day photo excursion hikes. Until recently I was "pound" conscious but with the mindset of carrying a few extra pounds not really mattering all that much. After an accident seriously affected the hiking abilities of my legs, I made the very hard decision of substituting a FX DSLR for my 4x5 outfit and making digital negatives to print from.... Never looked back. FYI: I still shoot film black & white film up to 11x14 from the back of my car so haven't given up shooting LF or ULF by any means.

Bernice Loui

13-Sep-2022, 11:31

Having owned/used the 110mm f5.6 SSXL from it's introduction back in the late 90's.. it been sitting unused for years these days, replaced with a 115mm f6.8 Grandagon. Yes, the 110mm SSXL is plenty "sharp" snappy contrast and all that.. after many, many, many sheets of film color, B&W, 4x5, 5x7.. got tired of the overly snappy image personality. Yes, it easily covers 5x7 with ample image circle to allow ample camera movements. It's light fall off is a bit worst than the common Biogon type wide angle lens.

The 110mm SSXL is smaller than the similar focal lenght wide angle, IMO it is not the magical/miracle lens so many project this lens to be. It is more of just another modern LF lens with it's specific personality that meets specific image goals. ... Similar to LF view camera lenses of that era (Schneider's HM series, Fujinon CMW, APO sironar and ...) that were designed and intented to meet the needs of commercial AD contrasty/hard-edged look images in color that was SO fashionable at that time.

As for similarities of lens personalities, the 115mm f6.8 Grandagon & 120mm f8 Super Angulon are very similar in lens personality given they are of similar production vintage of coatings and in as delivered condition. Have both these lenses currently and have used both for years...

Used the 120mm f8 SW nikkor in the past, it has a bit higher contrast then the 120mm f8 SA and 115mm f6.8 Grandagon.
Both the 120mm f8 SW nikkor and 120mm f8 Super Angulon ... just covers... 8x10 direct on at infinity at apertures smaller than f22. The 115mm f6.8 Grandagon, 110mm f5.6 SSXL does NOT cover 8x10 at infinity. This means GOOD optical performace at the absolute edges of 8x10 film, not just lens illumination percieved to be "image circle coverage"..

Other similar 125mm f8 NSW Fujinon, currently owned, similar to the 120mm f8 SW Nikkor, but does NOT cover 8x10 regardless of what some toot about how it does cover properly 8x10. Makes a good medium wide on 5x7 except this lens is Big and Bulky.

Highly recommend trying would be a good/proper example of 120mm f6.8 Angulon or 4 3/8" wide angle Dagor.. Both are tiny compared to any of the modern wide angles of similar focal lenght. Optical performance is good stopped down to f16 or smaller. Both have ample image circle for 4x5 with camera movements. IMO, these are absolutey viable alteratives to the modern wide angles.. If size/weight/bulk are a top priority, these older wide angle lenses should be considered.

Bernice

tgtaylor

13-Sep-2022, 11:50

I purchased the 120mm Nikkor-SW brand new from B&H for a little over $700 IIRC. This was an "impulse" purchase for me and after I got the lens I was somewhat disappointed to find its FOV almost identical to my 150mm Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S which I also purchased new for a little over $700. At the time I thought that the Nikkor was a waste of money, but I kept the lens and when I moved into 8x10 mounted it on an 8x10 board and use it exclusively with that and 5x7 format - being equivalent to a 90mm (4x5) on 5x7. The apo-Sironar weighs in at about 250 gms (1/2 lb), takes a 49mm filter, and will fold-up with a 4x5 field camera. Optically it is a superb lens and over the years its used value has more than doubled.

Thomas

xkaes

13-Sep-2022, 11:50

As a backpacker who loves the 125mm on 4x5, I have an f5.6 Fujinon that weighs 1/2 pound -- and has a 200mm image circle. That's plenty for me. If you want something with a larger image circle -- 300mm -- there is a Fujinon 120mm f8 that comes in at just over a pound.

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm (http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm)

Bernice Loui

13-Sep-2022, 11:58

Schneider offered a 120mm f5.6 APO symmar, spec image circle of 189mm @ f22, often enough for 4x5 with camera movements.

If a slightly longer focal lenght can be tolerated/used, there are many 135mm ff5.6 modern plasmats that work good on 4x5.

Bernice

Bruce Watson

13-Sep-2022, 12:23

What the lens data sheets don't tell me are things like sharpness, contrast, rendering, etc... What are the qualities of the 110/5.6?

My sample is perhaps the sharpest lens I've used. The nearest challenger for that "title" would be it's 80mm SSXL little brother.

This lens is very sharp. If you're looking for a portrait lens, this probably isn't it. It has state of the art coatings (it's one of the last LF lenses designed/produced, so of course it does) so it has little in the way of reflection problems -- said another way it's nice and contrasty. This lens maximizes what TMY can do. And that's sayin' something.

If that's not what you want, than that's not what you want. But me, personally, I never got tired of it at all. Sorry Bernice. It pushed me and my image chain to the limit, and that's what I wanted.

On those rare occasions when I used it close enough to something so that I could actually see the bokeh, I have to say I liked the rendering of those out of focus areas with this lens too. Smooth.

The 110mm SSXL is my desert island lens. If I were forced to use only one lens, this is the one I would pick.

So yeah. It's a perfect lens for me. But will it be a perfect lens for you, or anyone else? Everyone has to answer that question for themselves. Sorry.

I should add that in all my years using it I never used it with a center filter. Same for the 80mm. Probably because all I was shooting was 5x4; with this much coverage that's about what you'd expect anyway. Said another way, light falloff in the corners with 5x4 isn't really a problem if you're usually in the center of the coverage circle, which most photographers typically are.

And if you want to use it with a filter, the lens barrel is a bit short -- your filter might touch the lead element right in the center which isn't good. I never found much use for filters so that wasn't a problem for me. If I had wanted to use filters I would have found a cheap broken filter of the right size (what it it -- a 72mm? 77? IDK), removed the glass, screwed in the empty ring, and magically had a "step forward" ring (like a step-up ring, but with only the one screw thread size) to add a mm or so of extra spacing between the lead element and the filter in question. But it's something to think about if you like using filters.

So, as usual I've gone on way longer than anyone wants me to. Good luck with it.

Bernice Loui

13-Sep-2022, 13:14

FYI, size comparison...

-Fujinon 125mm f8 NSW, Top Left.

-Schneider 120mm f8 Super Angulon MC, Top right.

-Rodenstock 115mm f6.8 Gradndagon N, Lower left.

-Schneider 110mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL, Lower right.
~by far the tiny_est of the four.

230811

Bernice

Salmo22

13-Sep-2022, 13:17

My sample is perhaps the sharpest lens I've used. The nearest challenger for that "title" would be it's 80mm SSXL little brother.

This lens is very sharp. If you're looking for a portrait lens, this probably isn't it. It has state of the art coatings (it's one of the last LF lenses designed/produced, so of course it does) so it has little in the way of reflection problems -- said another way it's nice and contrasty. This lens maximizes what TMY can do. And that's sayin' something.

If that's not what you want, than that's not what you want. But me, personally, I never got tired of it at all. Sorry Bernice. It pushed me and my image chain to the limit, and that's what I wanted.

On those rare occasions when I used it close enough to something so that I could actually see the bokeh, I have to say I liked the rendering of those out of focus areas with this lens too. Smooth.

The 110mm SSXL is my desert island lens. If I were forced to use only one lens, this is the one I would pick.

So yeah. It's a perfect lens for me. But will it be a perfect lens for you, or anyone else? Everyone has to answer that question for themselves. Sorry.

I should add that in all my years using it I never used it with a center filter. Same for the 80mm. Probably because all I was shooting was 5x4; with this much coverage that's about what you'd expect anyway. Said another way, light falloff in the corners with 5x4 isn't really a problem if you're usually in the center of the coverage circle, which most photographers typically are.

And if you want to use it with a filter, the lens barrel is a bit short -- your filter might touch the lead element right in the center which isn't good. I never found much use for filters so that wasn't a problem for me. If I had wanted to use filters I would have found a cheap broken filter of the right size (what it it -- a 72mm? 77? IDK), removed the glass, screwed in the empty ring, and magically had a "step forward" ring (like a step-up ring, but with only the one screw thread size) to add a mm or so of extra spacing between the lead element and the filter in question. But it's something to think about if you like using filters.

So, as usual I've gone on way longer than anyone wants me to. Good luck with it.

Bruce - I was raised by a professional photographer that valued razor sharp and contrasty negatives - it is embedded in my DNA. My Nikkor SW 120/8 does a terrific job with respect to sharpness and contrast, but my unfamiliarity with the 110mm SSXL is a big reason for this thread. The only reason I gave the 110mm SSXL a second thought is Mark Citret employs the 110mm SSXL as one of four lenses he uses for his creative work. As a Mark Citret admirer, that got my attention. Thanks for your comments.

Salmo22

13-Sep-2022, 13:21

Bernice Loui

13-Sep-2022, 13:27

If the image values are "sharp-contrasty-snappy" The 110mm SSXL is for you..

Do be aware, there was a rash of 110mm SSXLs with problems.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?96673-Schneider-lens-defects-800mm-and-110mm-XL

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?149059-110XL-Fog-Issue-Serial-Range

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?94746-110mm-Super-Symma-Hazer%97Schneider-Drops-the-Ball

~This was precisely why the paid pre-order happend for the 110mm SSXL when it was introduced. Waited for about a year for Schneider to deliver the 110mm & 150mm SSXL. Really liked what the SSXL did back then, sharp, excellent contrast, snappy.. Use both the 110mm & 150mm LOTs back then.. at some point in time, got tired of lens personality, went back to the 115mm Grandagon..

These are all excellent LF lenses, this discussion also serves as an example of how different image goals should drive lens choice based on image goals.

Bernice

Bruce - I was raised by a professional photographer that valued razor sharp and contrasty negatives - it is embedded in my DNA. My Nikkor SW 120/8 does a terrific job with respect to sharpness and contrast, but my unfamiliarity with the 110mm SSXL is a big reason for this thread. The only reason I gave the 110mm SSXL a second thought is Mark Citret employs the 110mm SSXL as one of four lenses he uses for his creative work. As a Mark Citret admirer, that got my attention. Thanks for your comments.

xkaes

13-Sep-2022, 14:39

-Schneider 110mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL, Lower right.
~by far the tiny_est of the four.

Bernice

The Schneider 110mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL wins in this size match-up, but both the Fujinon NW and CM-W 125mm f5.6 (neither are included above) are half the weight -- if weight is an issue.

Mark Sampson

13-Sep-2022, 15:20

xkaes

13-Sep-2022, 15:25

Salmo22

13-Sep-2022, 15:41

I can understand Mr. Welker's conundrum. Long ago my "medium-wide" lens was a 135/6.3 Kodak Wide Field Ektar, a fine lens. Then I visited New York City and immediately ran out of coverage. So I went to Ken Hansen's (i think) and found a 121/8 Schneider Super-Angulon (a 1957 example). Well now, no coverage issues on 4x5. But it's about the same size and weight as the newer SA120/8, the Nikkor 120/8 SW, Rodenstock, et.al.; a real howitzer to carry around. Yet I've kept both the Schneider and the Kodak for maybe 25 years now... and use the Kodak when weight and pack size is a problem. But I've learned to prefer the 121mm f.l. ( yes that 14mm can make a difference). And now I live in Arizona and go on short hikes with my 4x5... where the Schneider stays home.
But I fully understand the attraction of a small modern lens... my advice will be to try that 110 Schneider XL and see if the saved half-pound makes a difference. After all the lens will not decline in value... and it may change your thinking about that big ol' Nikkor-SW. Feeling comfortable and confident in your gear is worth a lot!

Well said Mark. This isn't an easy decision for me. I've burned a ton of sheet film with the Nikkor 120/8 SW. Lots of satisfying images. I'm actually on my second copy. My first was tragically drowned in a canal in rural AZ - https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?162407-A-Lens-Lost&highlight=arlington I'm confident that the 110mm SSXL is an excellent lens. Used prices indicate a strong following and popularity - twice the cost of the 120/8. The upside of that big Nikkor is I could beat a moose's brains out with it should I be charged by Alces alces gigas in anger.

xkaes

13-Sep-2022, 18:12

I was unaware that there were any moose in Arizona, and if there are any, I can understand why they might be angry.

Salmo22

13-Sep-2022, 19:07

I was unaware that there were any moose in Arizona, and if there are any, I can understand why they might be angry.

While not native to Arizona, alien spacecraft will occasionally drop off a bull moose or two when they need more room in their UFO for the friends of Travis Walton. And yes, the moose are not happy about it at all.

Feanolas

14-Sep-2022, 11:39

Salmo22

14-Sep-2022, 11:58

I've done a lot of "landscapes" in Arizona, from Organ Pipe to the Grand Canyon. My 8 ounce 125mm f5.6 has come in handy, of course, but I never needed more than 200mm of image circle on my 4x5.

Is your experience different getting those Saguaros straight?

Excuse my tardy reply. I initially became interested in the Nikkor-SW 120/8 when, on this forum, Kirk Gittings gave it a definitive thumbs-up. I'm an admirer of Kirk's work and value his opinion(s). While there was no guarantee from Kirk, for me it was love at first sight through the ground glass. I think we all respond uniquely to different pieces of ground glass. For reasons I can't really explain, the Nikkor-SW 120/8 just "clicked" for me. I'm sure that your 125/5.6 works very well for you. But it is the quality with which the Nikkor SW 120/8 renders images that has bewitched me.

PS - I've lived in Arizona all my life, 67 years, and haven't found a truly "straight" Saguaro yet ;)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50691642548_633dc0894f_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2kerVg3) THERE WAS A CROOKED MAN v.17A (https://flic.kr/p/2kerVg3) by Jeffery Dale Welker (https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffwelker/), on Flickr

Salmo22

14-Sep-2022, 12:08

I am wondering too why you need so much coverage... A tiny Fujinon 5.6/125 has plenty enough for anything but the most extreme movements.

With all due respect, I never said I "needed" all the coverage that I get from the Nikkor SW 120/8. And yes, there are less robust lenses that would give sufficient coverage for my 4x5. But in my initial post I primarily asked about the "qualities" of the 110 SSXL, not how big it's image circle was. If I can't find a lens with qualities similar to my Nikkor SW 120/8, then I'll keep lugging my pot-bellied lens around and order a Copper Fit Pro Back Belt Compression Brace from Brett Favre ;)

Bernice Loui

14-Sep-2022, 12:11

Image circle needed to "cover" 4x5 about 154mm

Image circle of the 125mm f5.6 fujinon about 200mm@ f22, seems like a whole Lot until...

Image circle margin about 46mm or up/down_left/right 23mm or some degrees of swing/tilt (have used >40mm rise/fall/shift on the Linhof TK23s.. this is a 6x9 roll film view camera and much more on the 5x7 Sinar Norma), which is not that much margin for camera movement. If the 125mm lens is used direct/straight on, no issues, with modest camera movements, no issues. Once the 125mm is pressed for image circle via shift/rise-fall/front tilt/front swing.. that is when that 200mm image circle might not do at all.

~Note the image circle is spec'ed t f22, at larger taking lens aperatures, the image circle of optical performance drops off and will not be 200mm any more.

BTW, this is why large aperture view camera lenses like Xenotar, Planar and similar were never popular back in the days when 4x5 view cameras were used LOTs for image making, those large aperture lenses simply did not have much of an image circle greatly restricting camera movements which was one of the prime reasons for using a view camera. Differnt today as most ventruing into this LF view camera stuff carry over their digital/35mm/120 roll film values_ways_habits of using large lens apertures to achieve selective focus.. Back in those differnt times, it was much about most everything in the image in percieved focus.

It all depends on what is needed, or why there is no simple answer or solution to the harsh realities of lenses as they are ALL a specific set of trade offs with none being the magical-miracle lens.

Bernice

I am wondering too why you need so much coverage... A tiny Fujinon 5.6/125 has plenty enough for anything but the most extreme movements.

xkaes

14-Sep-2022, 12:14

I'm sure the your 125/5.6 works very well for you. But it is the quality with which the Nikkor SW 120/8 renders images that has bewitched me.

More power to you. Just trying to lighten your load. And I bet you couldn't tell the difference between a print from your Nikon 120mm f8 and a Fujinon 125mm f5.6.

P.S. There are straight Saguaros -- right there in your photo.

Bernice Loui

14-Sep-2022, 12:16

Keep in mind the great modern lens equalizer is f22...

Bernice

xkaes

14-Sep-2022, 12:21

Image circle needed to "cover" 4x5 about 154mm

Image circle of the 125mm f5.6 fujinon about 200mm@ f22, seems like a whole Lot until...

Image circle margin about 46mm or up/down_left/right 23mm or some degrees of swing/tilt (have used >40mm rise/fall/shift on the Linhof TK23s.. this is a 6x9 roll film view camera and much more on the 5x7 Sinar Norma), which is not that much margin for camera movement. If the 125mm lens is used direct/straight on, no issues, with modest camera movements, no issues. Once the 125mm is pressed for image circle via shift/rise-fall/front tilt/front swing.. that is when that 200mm image circle might not do at all.

~Note the image circle is spec'ed t f22, at larger taking lens aperatures, the image circle of optical performance drops off and will not be 200mm any more.

BTW, this is why large aperture view camera lenses like Xenotar, Planar and similar were never popular back in the days when 4x5 view cameras were used LOTs for image making, those large aperture lenses simply did not have much of an image circle greatly restricting camera movements which was one of the prime reasons for using a view camera. Differnt today as most ventruing into this LF view camera stuff carry over their digital/35mm/120 roll film values_ways_habits of using large lens apertures to achieve selective focus.. Back in those differnt times, it was much about most everything in the image in percieved focus.

It all depends on what is needed, or why there is no simple answer or solution to the harsh realities of lenses as they are ALL a specific set of trade offs with none being the magical-miracle lens.

Bernice

You are absolutely right -- for exmple, wilderness, landscape photography has different concerns than architectural, city-scape, interior photos. I use much more tilt/swing than rise/fall -- and I don't usually need much of either. Add in the extra weight of a behemoth lens with coverage for an 8x10 camera and weighting 4-5 times as much, makes the decision a lot easier.

The OP was in regards to backpacking. The first thing that brings to mind for me is weight. Why drag a two pound lens along when a 7 ounce lens will meet the need?

Bernice Loui

14-Sep-2022, 12:35

IMO, most outdoor field camera images do not require great demands on camera movement. This is IMO, one of the reasons why light weight field folders are not precision/precise camera movement centric as this is not a really pressing need with a field folder camera.. similar applies to lenses used with these light weight field folders.. Lower demands for camera movement, lower demands for lens image circle..

Those new to this LF view camera stuff might not have mastered the skill set needed to extract the full capabilities of view camera movements with a given lens, thus pressing lens/camer/camera support in ways a highly skilled view camera user might with ease and full intent of achieveing their image goals.

Add to this, once the lens/camera/camera support is pressed into camera movement centric image needs like architecture, studio table top, macro, and LOTs more.. that is when much greater demands on lens/camera/camera support can become definitive and a harsh reality.

Example of why what outfit works excellent for one given image making needs could be inadequate in too many ways for another image making need.

Bernice

You are absolutely right -- for exmple, wilderness, landscape photography has different concerns than architectural, city-scape, interior photos. I use much more tilt/swing than rise/fall -- and I don't usually need much of either. Add in the extra weight of a behemoth lens with coverage for an 8x10 camera and weighting 4-5 times much, makes the decision a lot easier.

The OP was in regards to backpacking. The first thing that brings to mind for me is weight. Why drag a two pound lens along when a 7 uonce lens will meet the need?

Salmo22

14-Sep-2022, 13:32

It occurs to me that since I credit Messrs. Gittings with my Nikkor SW 120/8 addition, I should send him the bill for my next back surgery ;)

My 4x5 weapon of choice is an Arca-Swiss F -metric field with the Orbix option. While not oozing with tradition and walnut, it has stiff metal in it's backbone and supports my 120/8 Nikkor without much complaint. Would that my lower back was as sturdy. Many scenes I photograph don't require that I employ generous swings or tilts. But sometimes...

That being said, I'd rather have more image circle than suffer limitation.

Jeff

IMO, most outdoor field camera images do not require great demands on camera movement. This is IMO, one of the reasons why light weight field folders are not precision/precise camera movement centric as this is not a really pressing need with a field folder camera.. similar applies to lenses used with these light weight field folders.. Lower demands for camera movement, lower demands for lens image circle..

Those new to this LF view camera stuff might not have mastered the skill set needed to extract the full capabilities of view camera movements with a given lens, thus pressing lens/camer/camera support in ways a highly skilled view camera user might with ease and full intent of achieveing their image goals.

Add to this, once the lens/camera/camera support is pressed into camera movement centric image needs like architecture, studio table top, macro, and LOTs more.. that is when much greater demands on lens/camera/camera support can become definitive and a harsh reality.

Example of why what outfit works excellent for one given image making needs could be inadequate in too many ways for another image making need.

Bernice

xkaes

14-Sep-2022, 14:49

..since I credit Messrs. Gittings with my Nikkor SW 120/8 addition, I should send him the bill for my next back surgery ;)

That being said, I'd rather have more image circle than suffer limitation.

Jeff

I guess "suffering limitations" does not include back surgery, but if you are lugging an Arca-Swiss F up the Tanque Verde Ridge trail, a few extra pounds of glass won't make any difference at all.

See you there -- with my much lighter and faster 125mm F5.6 Fujinon on a much lighter Toko Nikki II.

Bring plenty of water!!!

rawitz

15-Sep-2022, 01:48

What the lens data sheets don't tell me are things like sharpness, contrast, rendering, etc... What are the qualities of the 110/5.6?

Here the MTF specs of the SSymmarXL 110

230872

The MTF is similiar to the SuperAngulon MC 8/120 MTF. And the SA lens is comparable to the Nikkor SW 8/120 in optical performance. Nikon didn´t publish any MTF specs.

regards
Rainer

Salmo22

15-Sep-2022, 08:44

Your comment has me thinking further about your 125/5.6 Fujinon recommendation. Which version do you have? The "NW" or "CM-W"? Confusing to me is that apparently the "NW" is only labeled on the barrell as "W". I'm guessing you don't have the "NSW". That version appears to be as portly as my Nikkor SW 120/8, if not more so.

Even if I fill my pack with helium, you will likely not find me on the Tanque Verde Ridge trail ;)

I guess "suffering limitations" does not include back surgery, but if you are lugging an Arca-Swiss F up the Tanque Verde Ridge trail, a few extra pounds of glass won't make any difference at all.

See you there -- with my much lighter and faster 125mm F5.6 Fujinon on a much lighter Toko Nikki II.

Bring plenty of water!!!

Bernice Loui

15-Sep-2022, 10:29

MTF curves.. Meh..

Note these published MTF curves are calculated, not measured and they do not note their produciton varations per individual production lens. MTF curves like this at best gives some sense of the therotical design goals of a specific lens. Beyond the math/design/theory of lens design, there is a very visual-artistic aspect to lens design... that is direcrly connected to giving any lens it's personality... a reflection of the individual lens designer..

Bernice

Here the MTF specs of the SSymmarXL 110

230872

The MTF is similiar to the SuperAngulon MC 8/120 MTF. And the SA lens is comparable to the Nikkor SW 8/120 in optical performance. Nikon didn´t publish any MTF specs.

regards
Rainer

Bernice Loui

15-Sep-2022, 10:49

Fujinon's last modern plasmat offering was their CM-W series offered as an answer to APO symmar, APO sironar ....
Fujinon's 125mm f5.6 CM-W would be their last offering before they got out of producing view camera lenses,, just like Nikkor, Schneider, Rodenstock..
Be aware, Fujinon tends to spec their image circle to the therotical limits more than Schneider or Rodenstock which tends to publish image circle numbers with more margin releative to their design/therotical parameters.. Quirk about Fujinon's CM-W, they have a typical 67mm filter size or a whopper filter for a 125mm focal lenght and such..
https://www.ebay.com/itm/374237528083?chn=ps&_trkparms=ispr%3D1&amdata=enc%3A1C3dNBFfhRWKjZkaAaVPnww9&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&itemid=374237528083&targetid=1587268788857&device=c&mktype=&googleloc=9031909&poi=&campaignid=15275224983&mkgroupid=131097072938&rlsatarget=pla-1587268788857&abcId=9300697&merchantid=6296724&gclid=Cj0KCQjwmouZBhDSARIsALYcouqSxaJ7QFvxn9B45EkYBjigjtAh-3a_uSII7CO9FjLyJWEujOftQUUaAn4VEALw_wcB

If the 125mm Fujinon's are considered, this goes back to considering Schneider's 120mm APO symmar & (L), 120mm Super Symmar HM.. These lenses are much in the same "boat"..

Image quality wise, they are FAR more simiar than differnt at f22..

Used the 150mm Super Symmar HM back in the day, considered owning one as it was sharp_contrasty_snappy.. That ended when Schneider announced the Super Symmar XL series... ended up with the 150mm SSXL instead of the 150mm Super Symmar HM..

IMO, stay with the 120mm f8 sw Nikkor and reduce the weight else where... and this will eliminate the need to go lens shopping...

As for portly lenses, use a 180mm f4.8 Sonnar on the Linhof TK23s this is a whoppingly portly 180mm lens for 6x9 about equal in weight/height to the 115mm Grandagon. This is tolerated due to it's performance at f4.8 and it's in-to out of focus rendition is really good.. Compared to the 203mm Kodak Ektar which is absolutely diminutive in comparasion to the 180mm sonnar. Their optical performance much equalizes at f11 and smaller apertures..

Again, there are no ideal or magical-miracle lenses, just a fixed set of trade-offs.

Bernice

Your comment has me thinking further about your 125/5.6 Fujinon recommendation. Which version do you have? The "NW" or "CM-W"? Confusing to me is that apparently the "NW" is only labeled on the barrell as "W". I'm guessing you don't have the "NSW". That version appears to be as portly as my Nikkor SW 120/8, if not more so.

Even if I fill my pack with helium, you will likely not find me on the Tanque Verde Ridge trail ;)

Sal Santamaura

15-Sep-2022, 11:57

...Fujinon tends to spec their image circle to the therotical limits more than Schneider or Rodenstock which tends to publish image circle numbers with more margin releative to their design/therotical parameters...

Both my 135mm and 450mm CM Fujinon W lenses maintain uniform, extremely high sharpness and contrast all the way to the edges of their specified image circles. We won't discuss how Fuji achieved that.

...Quirk about Fujinon's CM-W, they have a typical 67mm filter size or a whopper filter for a 125mm focal lenght and such...

Unlike many other manufacturers' lenses of similar focal lengths, I find Fuji's use of 67mm filter threads on its 105mm through 250mm CM Fujinon W lenses to have been a great advantage. There's no vignetting with filters at the lenses' specified image circles. There's no interference with front elements. There's no need for step-up rings to bring varying front cell thread sizes together so only one filter set need be carried. A very positive characteristic.

Salmo22

15-Sep-2022, 12:34

Something I'm seriously considering Bernice. There are certainly opportunities for me to trim other "fat" from my 4x5 kit when I'm going for "a good stretch of the legs".

IMO, stay with the 120mm f8 SW Nikkor and reduce the weight elsewhere... and this will eliminate the need to go lens shopping...

Again, there are no ideal or magical-miracle lenses, just a fixed set of trade-offs.

Bernice

xkaes

15-Sep-2022, 15:10

Your comment has me thinking further about your 125/5.6 Fujinon recommendation. Which version do you have? The "NW" or "CM-W"? Confusing to me is that apparently the "NW" is only labeled on the barrell as "W". I'm guessing you don't have the "NSW". That version appears to be as portly as my Nikkor SW 120/8, if not more so.

Even if I fill my pack with helium, you will likely not find me on the Tanque Verde Ridge trail ;)

The Fujinon NSW 125mm f8 is WAY to much for me to haul up the trail -- I don't do donkeys/

I have a 125 NW (marked W on the barrel) with 200mm of IC. I usually haul along a 90mm f8 -- which is enough of a burden.

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm

xkaes

15-Sep-2022, 15:23

Yes, the Fujinon wide-angle CM-W lenses got it wrong. I have a 105mm CM-W. great lens, but the filter thread is on top of a "expanding tube". Call it a lens shade if you want, but if you use front-end lens attachments --AKA filters, etc. this limits what you can do.

Sal Santamaura

15-Sep-2022, 16:44

...Unlike many other manufacturers' lenses of similar focal lengths, I find Fuji's use of 67mm filter threads on its 105mm through 250mm CM Fujinon W lenses to have been a great advantage. There's no vignetting with filters at the lenses' specified image circles...

Yes, the Fujinon wide-angle CM-W lenses got it wrong. I have a 105mm CM-W. great lens, but the filter thread is on top of a "expanding tube". Call it a lens shade if you want, but if you use front-end lens attachments --AKA filters, etc. this limits what you can do.

That's exactly the opposite of my experience. In reality, the shorter the focal length of a CM Fujinon W lens, the greater its advantage (less problem with vignetting from filters) over other manufacturers' lenses of similar focal length.

Drew Wiley

16-Sep-2022, 12:52

I've found the Fuji 125/5.6 to be a very nice compact lens for backpacking, and it's plenty sharp enough for high quality roll film backs too. But the image circle is too small for many architectural applications. They came in three filter thread sizes; but I chose the one with 52mm threads since that is the filter size I standardize on for my long-haul 4x5 backpacking kit.
The "NW" designation which is found in the brochure is not on the lens itself, but just "W" plus EBC outside lettering. I never did figure out the logic or lack thereof of the big funnel front on the CMW's; a simple step-up ring would allow use of 67mm filters with less bulk, and with no risk of vignetting.

I remember hauling around a huge Super Angulon 120 plus 82mm filter set, plus CF, plus bag bellow, plus a full Sinar kit and a total of 85 lbs of mtn gear, hacking my way with an ice axe repeatedly up to above 13,000 ft. It was a great optic and truly belonged in my architectural kit; but them days is over, and I'm glad I discovered the tiny Fuji 125.

Sal Santamaura

16-Sep-2022, 13:57

...I never did figure out the logic or lack thereof of the big funnel front on the CMW's; a simple step-up ring would allow use of 67mm filters with less bulk, and with no risk of vignetting...

...I find Fuji's use of 67mm filter threads on its 105mm through 250mm CM Fujinon W lenses to have been a great advantage...There's no need for step-up rings to bring varying front cell thread sizes together so only one filter set need be carried...

xkaes

16-Sep-2022, 17:38

I only use one filter size as well -- thanks to inexpensive step-up/down rings. I have LF lenses with filter threads from 40.5mm to 86mm. I don't know any photographer using any format that has all their lenses with the same filter size -- except for the few that have only one lens.

Salmo22

16-Sep-2022, 18:54

All my filters are 77mm. I have a variety of lenses and use step up rings just as you describe. From my viewpoint, it’s a cost effective way to ensure that I have the finest filters on all my lenses. And I only need to buy one of each in 77mm.

I only use one filter size as well -- thanks to inexpensive step-up/down rings. I have LF lenses with filter threads from 40.5mm to 86mm. I don't know any photographer using any format that has all their lenses with the same filter size -- except for the few that have only one lens.

Drew Wiley

17-Sep-2022, 10:43

There's just no way for me to own only a single sized set. I have lenses that require 82mm - am I supposed to use something that bulky on my Nikon or compact field 4x5 lenses, which accept 52mm or smaller? Then most of my 8x10 and P67 lenses need 67mm. Separate kits with their own filter sets ready to go work much better for me. Then I have all kinds of specialty filters in the lab for technical applications, including a number of now rare Wratten gels. Also quite a few left over color correction filters from studio and architectural shoot days. Quite a selection of step rings on hand too.

Rayt

17-Sep-2022, 11:20

I default to 77mm and 105mm. Some of these Schneider lenses require a step up ring anyway. I don’t know why Schneider make their wide angles so the filter can potentially mar the coating. At least I don’t want to take any chances.

xkaes

17-Sep-2022, 11:45

It is odd that some lens makers -- not just Schneider and Fujinon -- make wide angle lenses where filters can end up touching the front element. Fuji warns consumers about it --"On some lenses, some filters can...".

Seems bizarre.

Bernice Loui

17-Sep-2022, 12:01

My solution to this given the number and variety of lenses used is a 100x100mm or 4x4" filter holder on camera. This is far easier to deal with than thread in filters and allows using the same filters for small lenses like Kodak 203mm or 127mm Ektar which has a front diameter of about one inch to the 250mm f4.7 Fujinar which is 77mm to 38mm Super Angulon XL which is 72mm and very wide angle. This is primarly used on the Linhof TK23s.

Sinar system has far more lens variety, from the 203mm Ektar (~1" diameter) to the 480mm f4.5 Xenar which has a 122mm front diameter and there are wide angle lenses from 90mm f4.5 Grandagon to 165mm Super Angulon and the Schneider SSXLs...

These get a 105mm Sinar glass filter system or Series 9 or Sinar 125mm square or 100x100mm or 4x4" square filter system. Above can be used with combined filters and compendium lens shade.

Thread on filters work better on hand held cameras, digital or film. For a view camera, threaded on filters can be a hassle.

Bernice

Drew Wiley

17-Sep-2022, 13:38

Out in the elements, I can't imagine ever working with slide-in or gel filters again. Just too much that can go wrong or get dirty. Screw-in glass ones are more secure and resistant to damage.

Front contact with a bulging wide-angle element, and the need for an intermediate spacer ring? Well, not every manufacturer who should have warned of it actually did. When in doubt, check visually or with a straightedge.

Salmo22

17-Sep-2022, 15:28

The gap between my 58mm SAXL front element and a filter is uncomfortably thin. The 67/77 step up ring gives me reasonable separation.

I default to 77mm and 105mm. Some of these Schneider lenses require a step up ring anyway. I don’t know why Schneider make their wide angles so the filter can potentially mar the coating. At least I don’t want to take any chances.

Sal Santamaura

17-Sep-2022, 16:10

...Front contact with a bulging wide-angle element, and the need for an intermediate spacer ring? Well, not every manufacturer who should have warned of it actually did. When in doubt, check visually or with a straightedge.

A straightedge might mislead, since different filters place the glass at different depths within their rims. I've always cut a small square of Kodak Lens Tissue (or today's substitute) and laid it atop the front element while the lens is sitting face up on a horizontal surface. Then gently screw in the filter of interest until it shows resistance. Pick up the lens and tilt it 90 degrees to horizontal. If the tissue slides around, there's enough clearance. If it's trapped, resort to a spacer or step up ring.

None of the CM Fujinon W lenses I have ever came close to motivating performance of this test. :)