Rodenstock Grandagon 115 vs Schneider Super Symmar 110 XL

[tom43]

Hi,

I’m searching for a wide angle lens for 5x7 and landscape photography. My focus is on image quality. Aspects like size and costs are of lower relevance. Has anyone experience with both lenses (Rodenstock´s latest version Grandagon-N 115mm MC Green Stripe; Schneider Super Symmar 110 XL)? Any pros or cons regarding image quality? Thanks.

[Mark J]

I haven't got hands-on experience of these, but I can provide the technical datasheets for each if it helps.
On MTF and brightness fall-off, it's hard to choose ( ps. I design lenses myself ) , but I would give the Grandagon the edge at f/22 outside of the 5x7" format ( for movements )

246055
246056

[Vaughan]

I’m searching for a wide angle lens for 5x7 and landscape photography.

Most modern 90mm lenses cover 5x7 and give a very wide angle of view (about 20mm FFE). Because they are a common wide lens for 4x5 they are abundant and cheap. Given the choice, a lens with a larger image circle will be better for movements on 5x7: something like a Nikkor SW 90mm f8 or f5.6 (unlike other lenses the same image circle for both), Fujinon SWD 90mm f5.6, or their Schneider or Rodenstock equivalents. The slower lenses will allow about 5mm of movement, the faster will allow about 15mm movement, and the Schneider SA XL has about 25mm movement.

If 90mm is a bit too wide then 105mm and 120/121/125mm lenses are abundant. If budget is limited the original writing-on-the-front Fujinon W 135mm f5.6 covers 5x7 with about 10mm of movement, the 150mm f5.6 with about 20mm. Yes there are lenses with bigger circles but not for the price of these two.

Regarding image quality, there will be little difference between any of the major brands for contemporary lenses.

[Huub]

I only have hands on experience with the 110 mm SS XL, which is a very good lens, capable of much more then me as a mediocre photographer.

I doubt very much you will see much difference between the two, even in critical situations. Image quality in largeformat is not only a question of the quality of the lens, but also depends on stability of your camera, tripod en head, wind when taking pictures outside, film flatness, a good lens shade, alignment of the focussing screen, et cetera. And even when all these factors are optimised, it will need looking closely at huge prints to notice much of a difference.

[rfesk]

I only have hands on experience with the 110 mm SS XL, which is a very good lens, capable of much more then me as a mediocre photographer.

I doubt very much you will see much difference between the two, even in critical situations. Image quality in large format is not only a question of the quality of the lens, but also depends on stability of your camera, tripod en head, wind when taking pictures outside, film flatness, a good lens shade, alignment of the focusing screen, et cetera. And even when all these factors are optimized, it will need looking closely at huge prints to notice much of a difference.

Well said. That last paragraph could be applied to the vast majority of modern lenses for large format.

[John Layton]

I own both a 110XL and a 120 Super Angulon - and while I can see that the 110 is indeed superb in many respects...I'm still glad that I have not followed through with my original plan to sell the 120. While the 120 is basically twice as large and heavy as the 110, while also being a full stop "dimmer" in its max. aperture - there is something about its rendering geometry and balanced performance which keeps me from letting it go.

There are two images (posted below), side by side on my living room wall which, despite their large size (30x40 inches from 5x7 negatives), still invite very close inspection, upon which they never fail to impress and delight me with their wonderful amount of detail, and also upon which I am reminded, once again...how thankful I've been to have not let go of that 120!

246076 246077

[Mal Paso]

I have a Caltar II N 115mm that flew under the radar missing the Grandagon name and green stripe. Great lens! Huge image circle on 4x5.

The Symmar is half a stop faster, both are sharper than film, I wouldn't pay the premium for the Symmar.

[Gudmundur Ingolfsson]

I have had the 115mm Grandagon since 20 years. It is a great lens and covers 8x10 for interiors but vignetts at infinity. The 120 Nikkor is also great and covers a bit more. I have avoided Super Angulon after a bad exoerience with an expensive one. The Super Angulon XL is a newer and better design and so is the Super Symmar.

[Mark J]

I wouldn't go quite so far as saying that . the Super-Symmar XL is not exceptional in its MTF curves, especially beyond 5x7" ( see above ) but it does achieve comparable performance to the 115 while being significantly smaller and lighter. The one that stands out for me is the Super Symmar HM ( done by the same designer before she got married , I think ! ) however at a lower field angle. The design brief for the SSym XL was different though.
It was good to see the pictures and comment from John Layton who seems to be the only one so far who has used both types of design.

[Peter De Smidt]

The 110 SS XL is my all-time favorite landscape lens.

[aphcl84]

I've had experience with both and my impression is this, both lenses will be sharper than the film you put behind them, the Grandagon tested a bit sharper at longer focus distances and had a larger image circle with less vignetting but was larger and heavier. The Super Symmar was smaller, lighter, higher contrast and resolved better at close focus distances, but had higher vignetting and distortion. I've since sold the Super Symmar XL and haven't missed it.

[tom43]

Many thanks for all the helpful comments. I have the chance to buy an unused Grandagon or for ca. 3x times the price a used Schneider Super Symmar. In this case and with your recommendations much speaks for the Rodenstock…

[Drew Wiley]

MTF doesn't tell the whole story. You've also got a certain amount of falloff to contend with. And weight can indeed become a factor in real-world sharpness, namely, if it overloads the front standard of a lightweight field camera and tempts vibrations. Gosh, I've hauled a damned 120 SA for days on end over high off-trail mountain cols. That would have been futile if i had a lightweight wooden folder instead of a solid Sinar monorail. Being crammed in between sheer peaks sometimes mandated a serious surplus of rise, and that particular lens certainly delivered that! Bulky thing, especially with the center filter attached. I have a big 4 foot Cibachrome print on the wall beside me right now, taken with that lens; and being a Fuichrome original of a dramatic high-contrast subject, the CF was truly necessary.

[Mark J]

Yes, but hopefully the full datasheet has all the info you need to make the decision, for instance fall-off, filter size weight etc should all be there.
My biggest problem with my Gandolfi 5x7" is the rear barrel diameter on these wides. Even with some special machining on the wooden riser part, I can only get 70mm through. Too many of the nice 105/115/120 options need 75mm.
I have looked at the 110 'XL', and despite some reservations about the full-field performance, would buy one, if they weren't so damned expensive.

[Dan Fromm]

Yes, but hopefully the full datasheet has all the info you need to make the decision, for instance fall-off, filter size weight etc should all be there.
My biggest problem with my Gandolfi 5x7" is the rear barrel diameter on these wides. Even with some special machining on the wooden riser part, I can only get 70mm through. Too many of the nice 105/115/120 options need 75mm.
I have looked at the 110 'XL', and despite some reservations about the full-field performance, would buy one, if they weren't so damned expensive.

Not to be a complete idiot, but is it possible to mount a lens with a fat rear cell on y'r 5x7 Gandolfi by removing the rear cell from the shutter, attaching board with shutter to the front standard and then screwing the rear cell in from behind? I have to do this with some of the lenses I use on my little Graphics. Their rear cells won't clear the standard's throat.

[Mark J]

Oh yes, and Xkaes pointed this out eslewhere, but honestly, in my shooting experience in the UK, it's really a luxury if you have time to do this along with everything else needed on a view camera, when the rain is heading towards you, or the sun is threatening to disappear for good behind a bank of cloud. I have been in the US a fair bit, and it's a really a treat in comparison !

[Greg]

by removing the rear cell from the shutter, attaching board with shutter to the front standard and then screwing the rear cell in from behind

I had done this for many years with my 90mm SA XL without any problems. I have read that the fine threads on the rear cell were not designed to be unthreaded and threaded on a frequent basis like filters or a Pentax or Leica screw mount. Years ago a camera repair person advised me to put the finest amount of oil on the threads every so often but just not on a constant basis. Doing this I never had a problem with cross threading.

[Torontoamateur]

May I dare to ask another question? How do there compare to the Nikon SW 120MM?

[Greg]

May I dare to ask another question? How do there compare to the Nikon SW 120MM?

Never owned a Schneider Super Symmar 110 XL. Had owned a 115mm Rodenstock Grandagon at one time in the past. Sold it and a few years later acquired a 120mm Nikon SW for my 8x10 so never was able to make a side by side comparison of both lenses. Preferred the 120mm Nikon SW but that's a totally subjective opinion on my part.
I think the 115mm Rodenstock Grandagon was also sold under another brand name... Caltar maybe? The other brand name went for a lot less on the used photo market if I remember correctly. Maybe someone can confirm this?

[Mal Paso]

Never owned a Schneider Super Symmar 110 XL. Had owned a 115mm Rodenstock Grandagon at one time in the past. Sold it and a few years later acquired a 120mm Nikon SW for my 8x10 so never was able to make a side by side comparison of both lenses. Preferred the 120mm Nikon SW but that's a totally subjective opinion on my part.
I think the 115mm Rodenstock Grandagon was also sold under another brand name... Caltar maybe? The other brand name went for a lot less on the used photo market if I remember correctly. Maybe someone can confirm this?

Yep! That's how I got mine. Caltar II-N 115mm f6.8. I bought a kit to get the lens. Also got the 210mm Caltar/Rodenstock Sironar in the same deal, both very sharp!

[Joseph Kashi]

Hi,

I’m searching for a wide angle lens for 5x7 and landscape photography. My focus is on image quality. Aspects like size and costs are of lower relevance. Has anyone experience with both lenses (Rodenstock´s latest version Grandagon-N 115mm MC Green Stripe; Schneider Super Symmar 110 XL)? Any pros or cons regarding image quality? Thanks.

The Fujinon 105/8 NSW might fit the optical requirements on 5x7 as it has an image circle of 250 mm and hence quite adequate coverage. Both of my copies are very sharp and contrasty on 5x7. These are the more recent multicoated EBC "outside-writing" variants. However, it's a large lens, as evidenced by the 77mm front filter. On the positive side, they're more affordable than some of the other models mentioned in this thread and seem to be as good optically.

For a really compact lens in this range, the 120mm Schneider Angulon from the 1950s to about 1970, can be optically decent and very small, but tests that I've seen suggest that Schneider's quality control was a bit erratic in those days.

[Vaughan]

The SW 105mm is one of the few lenses where the image circle specs are the same for both old and new versions. For most other lenses the old versions have more coverage, often significantly more.

[r.e.]

If you're going to use a centre filter, you might as well be aware of the fact that the Schneider front thread is 86mm and the Rodenstock's is 112mm.

[John Layton]

...and which Schneider would that (86mm front thread) be? My 120 SA's front thread is 82mm, and my 110 XL's front thread is 67mm.

[r.e.]

...and which Schneider would that (86mm front thread) be? My 120 SA's front thread is 82mm, and my 110 XL's front thread is 67mm.

Daan Fromm's chart at Galerie Photo and the Walker Camera site say that the Schneider centre filter front thread is 86mm. If they're wrong, you could help by setting them straight, maybe even in a less snippy tone:

https://galerie-photo.com/center-filters-for-large-format-lenses.html
http://walkercameras.com/lenses/s_center_IIIb.html

[Mal Paso]

If you're going to use a centre filter, you might as well be aware of the fact that the Schneider front thread is 86mm and the Rodenstock's is 112mm.

The 115mm f6.8 Rodenstock Grandagon has a 82mm filter thread. There is an Apo Grandagon mentioned that might be the 112mm. Both were discontinued before my catalogue was printed but a 112mm center filter is mentioned along with 82mm.

According to Large Format Lenses, 2nd edition, the Caltar II-N lenses are the Apo Sironar and the Grandagon N.

[r.e.]

The 115mm f6.8 has a 82mm filter thread.

You should also set Dan Fromm straight. He thinks that the rear thread is 82mm and the front thread is 112mm. That's why centre filters are described with two numbers, in this case 82/112.

A link to Dan's article and charts is directly above your post. His article is seen, at least around here, as the most authoritative statement on the internet of centre filter specs across major lens manufacturers.

[Mal Paso]

You should also set Dan Fromm straight. He thinks that the rear thread is 82mm and the front thread is 112mm. That's why centre filters are described with two numbers, in this case 82/112.

A link to Dan's article and charts is directly above your post. His article is seen, at least around here, as the most authoritative statement on the internet of centre filter specs across manufacturers.

I think the 2 numbers were Grandagon/Apo Grandagon. The front threads of my lens are 82mm.

I never used center filters, none of the art directors complained, it had a look. Cuts down on burning in the edges. Plus that's a lot of light to lose shooting large format interiors.

[r.e.]

I think the 2 numbers were Grandagon/Apo Grandagon. The front threads of my lens are 82mm.

So you think that the two numbers refer to different versions of the lens. You certainly get points for inventiveness. Don't you think it's curious that centre filters have two numbers as a matter of course? Do they all refer to two versions of a lens? Why do none of them have three numbers? Why would apochromatic correction, by itself, have a large effect on filter size?

Do you have a centre filter for your Grandagon? If so, take a good look at it. If not, you might find it helpful to do some reading about centre filters and how they work. Also, find out what the difference in price is between 82mm filters and 112mm filters, and find out which filter makers are still making 112mm. If you use a centre filter and want to use the Lee Filter system in addition, or indeed any square filter system, you'll also discover that you're in for 150mm filters, not 100mm. There's quite the difference in cost, not to mention bulk.

I wrote post #23 simply to say that Tom should be aware of the difference between the two lenses in centre filter requirements. If one wants the option of using a centre filter, they have an impact on lens cost and system bulk. Maybe not a decisive impact, but one should at least be aware of it. I didn't realise that I would have two people in succession tell me that I don't even have the specs right, and implicitly say that Dan Fromm and Mike Walker are talking through their hats :)

[r.e.]

May I dare to ask another question? How do there compare to the Nikon SW 120MM?

A participant in this forum just purchased that lens. He plans to use it for 8x10. Right now, he's looking for a bag bellows for it. When that's organised, I'm hoping that he'll post one or two images here.

[John Layton]

r.e.: Apologies for sounding "snippy," but supplying information in the manner of "you might as well be aware of the fact that...." in other words...stating something as fact while it is not a (verified) fact is, in my book, not helpful and yes (along with a tone which I find a bit condescending)...this does piss me off a little.

[dave_whatever]

You should also set Dan Fromm straight. He thinks that the rear thread is 82mm and the front thread is 112mm. That's why centre filters are described with two numbers, in this case 82/112.

A link to Dan's article and charts is directly above your post. His article is seen, at least around here, as the most authoritative statement on the internet of centre filter specs across major lens manufacturers.

Yep - on most if not all centre filters for LF use* the filter has a rear male thread corresponding to the filter thread of the lens (obviously) and then a front thread on the CF itself is much bigger, to accommodate the thickness of the filter glass without causing any mechanical vignetting, given these are designed for very wide lenses. That's where the 82mm / 112mm confusion is coming from. The CFs that fit on lenses with 82mm threads have a front thread on the filter itself of 112mm.

Similarly, the CF that I've used on 90mm 6x17, the same one you'd use on a 110mm SSXL, has a 67mm threads on the rear and 86mm threads on the front.

*An example of a CF with the same front and read thread sizes would be the 49mm one for the Hasselblad Xpan. Presumably because 49mm is already an oversized thread for the front element size in this case.

[r.e.]

r.e.: Apologies for sounding "snippy," but supplying information in the manner of "you might as well be aware of the fact that...." in other words...stating something as fact while it is not a (verified) fact is, in my book, not helpful and yes (along with a tone which I find a bit condescending)...this does piss me off a little.

I stated a fact. If you want to pretend otherwise, go ahead. I'm required to prove what the centre filter characteristics are for your own lens?

You also misconstrued my post, which was a single sentence long and as neutral as I could make it. I expressed myself as I did for the simple reason that I wanted to be equivocal about the significance of the distinction that I was drawing. I think that the Schneider, having regard to weight, bulk, aperture range and filter accessory cost, is on the face of it the more attractive lens. I have personal experience outfitting a camera that takes 112mm filters, including for square filters, and financially it is no joke. However, I wanted to take into account Tom's earlier statement that he may be able to purchase a Grandagon at a price that would make the lens itself significantly less expensive than the Schneider. I just wanted to bring this to his attention so he can look into it and come to whatever conclusion works for him financially. That was also why I said later (post 29) that the filter ramifications may not be "decisive".

It's amazing that somebody can make a simple one sentence, factually correct post and wind up on the receiving end of misinformed posts by two people in succession, in your case snotty to boot. And now you're trying to justify it :)

[Mal Paso]

Yep - on most if not all centre filters for LF use* the filter has a rear male thread corresponding to the filter thread of the lens (obviously) and then a front thread on the CF itself is much bigger, to accommodate the thickness of the filter glass without causing any mechanical vignetting, given these are designed for very wide lenses. That's where the 82mm / 112mm confusion is coming from. The CFs that fit on lenses with 82mm threads have a front thread on the filter itself of 112mm.

Similarly, the CF that I've used on 90mm 6x17, the same one you'd use on a 110mm SSXL, has a 67mm threads on the rear and 86mm threads on the front.

*An example of a CF with the same front and read thread sizes would be the 49mm one for the Hasselblad Xpan. Presumably because 49mm is already an oversized thread for the front element size in this case.

Thank You!

[John Layton]

r.e. If you were referring to the front thread diameters of the center filters themselves...then my bad - and sincere apologies!