Schneider 90 XL: User Assessments Appreciated

[Andre Noble]

In a recent thread I asked for input on selecting a few lenses for architecture. Many professionals and near professionals took the time to contribute. I came to a conclusion to get only one lens for the foreseeable future - another 90mm to replace the Nikkor SW 90 f8 that I decidied to sell. The Nikkor 90 f8 was RAZOR sharp and in some ways hope to get another, (but brighter) lens that's just as sharp - although I know this may not be possible seeing for myself just HOW SHARP the Nikkor 90 f8 is.

Initially I decided to go with a bright Rodenstock 90 f4.5. But upon extensive research on this site and Photonet, I decided to seriously look into a Schneider 90 XL instead because of hints that the 90 XL outperforms the Rodenstock Grandagon 90 f4.5 and that the schneider too is a very sharp lens in comparison to the Nikkor. (It is a nice bonus that the 90 XL will cover 5x7 a tad better as well.)

I am familiar with it's drawbacks, including it's huge size and potentially more fragile physical constitution, etc.

Nevertheless, I would like to hear from experienced users of the Schneider 90 XL just how you would rate it's optical performance in terms of it's resolution capability (sharpness) and performance across the entire image circle in terms of sharpness and light fall off , particularly in relation to your other LF lenses such as the renowned Nikkor 90 SW f8 or the Schneider 110 XL.

Thanks in advance for any (hopefully experienced) input.

[George Stewart]

I use the 90XL with the 4x10 format. I shoot only Tmax 100 with this setup. Sometimes I see falloff, sometimes not. I haven't used the dedicated center filter with it, and don't really see a need when shooting B&W film. Resolution has always been very good. I have no complaints and would recommend it.

[Brian Ellis]

When did Schneider start making a 90 XL? I know of the 80XL and the 110XL but I didn't realize they made a 90XL.

[Andre Noble]

Brian, it came out before those.

[Hany Aziz]

The 90 XL is a Super Angulon design and is considerably bulkier than the Super Symmar design of the 80, 110 and 150 lenses. Its coverage is exelllent if you don't mind the size of the lens.

Sincerely,

Hany.

[David R Munson]

I had one of these for a while and it was fantastic. No regrets and absolutely no issues with image quality. A pleasure to shoot with, my only practical complaint was the need for a special filter holder from Lee to use filters with it, and that was only a complaint because I had to special-order it. Yeah, it's big, but it's very, very nice.

[Daniel Geiger]

I've only had two 90s: the Schneider superangulon f/8 and the XL. upgraded to get better image circle for more movements on 4x5, and it sure delivers. As I shoot chromes, I also got the center filter for it, and it is dead on with the gradation, with a loss of 3 f-stops. As any lens, it does get softer towards the edge, but not objectionably, and it will allow more movement before the effects become apparent.

Yep, it's big, its heavy, it uses a special Lee adapter, but the results are nice. Also in terms of movements, if the XL can't do it, no other lens will either. Gives you peace of mind.

[Hany Aziz]

When did Schneider start making a 90 XL? I know of the 80XL and the 110XL but I didn't realize they made a 90XL.
--Brian Ellis 2006-04-29 23:27 PDT

I meant my response only as a reply to Brian Ellis' question. I did not mean to imply any critique of the lens, which BTW I have never used. I do have a 110 XL and a 90 f6.8 Caltar (relabelled Grandagon).

Sincerely,

Hany.

[tim atherton]

It's a Super-Angulon XL 5.6/90mm not the Super Symmar XL - which is what the 80mm and110mm lenses are

[tim atherton]

http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/large_format_lenses/super-angulon/

[Lazybones]

...the need for a special filter holder from Lee to use filters with it, and that was only a complaint because I had to special-order it.

I am using the Toyo compendium hood with my 45AII. Will this not work with the 90mm SAXL? Which Lee filter holder? Does this mean I cannot use, say, a Kaesemann polarizer in front of the center filter? Any information would be appreciated.

[DrPablo]

To address the original question, I can't say I've used other lenses in that focal length for comparison. But on 4x5 it offers an amazing amount of movement, and it's razor sharp from corner to corner however much movement has been used. It's really an outstanding lens.

The downside is its size. It's huge, and it takes a very large filter size (I believe 105mm). So I've used the Lee system with a 4x4 glass Tiffen linear polarizer.

The other minor inconvenience with it is that on a recessed lensboard it's kind of hard to get your fingertips behind the huge front lens element to adjust the settings.

[Robert Hall]

I use it on 4x5, 5x7, and 4x10. It's very sharp and has very good contrast. I see a little light fall off on the 4x10.

As far as how bright it is, I think it's an bright as any of them on the ground glass.

I get's packed around everywhere and I've had if for 6 years now. I like it very much.

[Ralph Barker]

Andre - I, too, have been quite pleased with mine. Sorry I can't post a specific example with the lens, however.

The filter size is a mere 95mm (same as the 150mm SSXL), by the way, not 105mm.

Laxybones - the 90mm SA-XL just fits through the 102mm opening of the Toyo compendium shade I have for my 45AX.

[Lazybones]

Laxybones - the 90mm SA-XL just fits through the 102mm opening of the Toyo compendium shade I have for my 45AX.

Thanks. What if you use the Center Filter? Isn't that CF a big mamma jamma on the outer ring? Too big to fit though the shade?

[neil poulsen]

When did Schneider start making a 90 XL? I know of the 80XL and the 110XL but I didn't realize they made a 90XL.

Correct me if wrong, but I want to say right around 2000 to 2001 timeframe. I took an architectural workshop in June of 2001, and we discussed the lens. But the instructor hadn't yet purchased it. (He didn't think the extra coverage was needed; he got everything he needed from the f5.6 version.) The XL was introduced not too much time prior to that workshop.

[Arne Croell]

Correct me if wrong, but I want to say right around 2000 to 2001 timeframe. I took an architectural workshop in June of 2001, and we discussed the lens. But the instructor hadn't yet purchased it. (He didn't think the extra coverage was needed; he got everything he needed from the f5.6 version.) The XL was introduced not too much time prior to that workshop.

Neil, it came out much earlier, early to mid 1990's. The 90mm XLwas one of the first SA XL's, together with the 58mm. A short check on the old rec.photo.equipment large-format usenet group showed the first mentioning in 1994, so that might be the year.

[neil poulsen]

Neil, it came out much earlier, early to mid 1990's. The 90mm XLwas one of the first SA XL's, together with the 58mm. A short check on the old rec.photo.equipment large-format usenet group showed the first mentioning in 1994, so that might be the year.

Hmmm. Thanks for clearing this up. Must have lost a neuron there, somewhere.

[Ted Harris]

One more point, I think you will find that there is no discernible difference in poerformance in terms of sharpness and resolution between any of the modern 90mm offerings from any of the big four. There are differences in maximum aperture and coverage but for most purposes other differences will not be evident.

[Doug Dolde]

Has anyone compared it directly to the 110mm SS XL in terms of movements, fall-off, angle of view ? I can get the numbers but am more interested in subjective observations.

[Ted Harris]

Doug, I'll give you a quick subjective comparison of the 90mm 6.8 Grandagon to the 110 SSXL. I used the 90 Grandagon extensively before I got the 110 SSXL some 6 years ago. I don't notice the difference in coverage, but then I am not shooting them side-by-side as I sold the 90. I found the 90 Grandagon (subective again) to be as sharp as the 110 SSXL. I never ran ourt of movements with the 90 and certainly don't with the 110 on 4x5. I like the 110 better but again subjective.

[Don Hutton]

I've used both the 90XL and the 110XL for some time - they are both superbly sharp right across the image circle. I find the angle of view of the 90 feels "way" wider than the 110mm. The image circle of both is simply enormous on 4x5. On my Ebony 45SU, it is almost impossible to contort the camera enough to get to the edge of the image circle... Personally, I generally use the CF for both lenses. To my eye, the fall-off over the given field on a 4x5 frame seems to be about the same, which implies that the fall-off on the 90 should in fact be less than the 110 (I don't know if this is true: it's a general observation I made when I was deliberating using the CF's on these lenses). The 90 has an annoyingly large front filter thread - 95mm - even worse is the accessory thread on the front of the CF which is 112mm - which means that filtration on top of the CF is a big issue.... OTOH, the 110 has a 67mm filter thread; the front of the IIIB CF has a 86mm accessory thread: I use a special Lee push-on holder for 100mm barrelled lenses combined with a "donut" spacer ring on this CF, which is a very convenient solution.