Schneider 47mm SA XL - Soft on the edges?

[Piers283]

I have a Schneider Super Angulon XL 47mm f5.6 with the matching centre filter which I have been struggling with. If Ken Rockwell's review is anything to go buy this should be sharp all-over.

I am finding that the lens is sharp in the centre of the image, but towards the edges it quickly becomes very soft. I have now shot quite a few images with this lens initially blaming user error, but I suspect this is either a flaw or defect with the lens.

Has any one got any experience which confirms my thoughts or any ideas on what may be the cause?

See the pictures below, the middle is tack-sharp, the edges are very soft. Shot at f/22 with a Linhof Technikarden triple checking alignment and focus.

258660
Whole Scene
258661
Middle Extract
258662
Edge Extract

[xkaes]

Are you sure the lens is centered on this film and that the front and rear standards are parallel?

Where in the scene did you focus, and what is the distance between that point and the camera and the "fuzzy" part and the camera? f22 only gives so much DOF.

[diversey]

Below is my 47 XL photo.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnOm2aiO94f5CTrCL6lPuc6oVmat6xY0VAG09LK3Lpc_Hkl0x9imJiLdM_V6zYgfnfreI-kvJyv8sG6Ky57PC3k-lUJJejTjekTh07TiuQ9SDP-V5aLSw1BDFjkgTyMk93vz-WNEqFyHY/s1012/Pond+XL+lens+web.tif

Schneider 47mm XL

CF +Red Filters

Ilford HP5+ 400

[phdgent]

If you shoot with other lenses on that camera, do you see similar problems?
If so check the calibration of the Ground Glass, as then the focussing might be wrong and could be the reason of the issues you see now with that wide angle lens, very wide for that format which is at the edge of it's possibilities on 4"x5".

I have the second generation 47mm MC (52mm filter size), the one just before the XL, and it is a superb lens...

BTW, do you have the right Center-Filter, as there are many types, see some tech info about these I attach:

[dave_whatever]

Super wides like this are apparently very sensitive to cell spacing, so if, say, your rear cell isn't screwed in all the way, or the lens has at some point lost a shim or been reshuttered without making sure the cell spacing is absolutely spot on then you can see issues like you're experiencing. The same goes if the cells have ever been disassembled then not reassembled with sufficient care.

I once bought a Mamiya 7 43mm off eBay and it was a bit like this, very sharp dead centre but the edges were poor regardless of focussing or stopping down. I got it repaired by the Mamiya distributor in the UK and it turned out the internal cell spacing was off, which they fixed and it was superb thereafter. Shame about the abysmal build quality of the camera body, but that's another story.

[Piers283]

If you shoot with other lenses on that camera, do you see similar problems?
If so check the calibration of the Ground Glass, as then the focussing might be wrong and could be the reason of the issues you see now with that wide angle lens, very wide for that format which is at the edge of it's possibilities on 4"x5".

I have the second generation 47mm MC (52mm filter size), the one just before the XL, and it is a superb lens...

BTW, do you have the right Center-Filter, as there are many types, see some tech info about these I attach:

Thanks, I use 15+ other lenses across two cameras and this is the only lens with the issue so I am now suspecting its a lens issue. I have the right centre filter for sure - I have the IIIc.

[Piers283]

Super wides like this are apparently very sensitive to cell spacing, so if, say, your rear cell isn't screwed in all the way, or the lens has at some point lost a shim or been reshuttered without making sure the cell spacing is absolutely spot on then you can see issues like you're experiencing. The same goes if the cells have ever been disassembled then not reassembled with sufficient care.

I once bought a Mamiya 7 43mm off eBay and it was a bit like this, very sharp dead centre but the edges were poor regardless of focussing or stopping down. I got it repaired by the Mamiya distributor in the UK and it turned out the internal cell spacing was off, which they fixed and it was superb thereafter. Shame about the abysmal build quality of the camera body, but that's another story.

Thanks Dave, I believe the cells are screwed all the way in, do you know anyone in the UK who might be able to take a look at the spacing? I imagine the optical equipment is fairly specialised!

[Steve Goldstein]

Following up on what @xkaes said, different parts of the image have widely different distances from the camera, with the center window being furthest and the right edge much, much closer. If you focused on the window in the middle extract image there may simply not have been enough depth of field to get the edge sharp.

Before you start chasing all kinds of theories you might try a coupe of test images of flatter subjects.

[dave_whatever]

Thanks Dave, I believe the cells are screwed all the way in, do you know anyone in the UK who might be able to take a look at the spacing? I imagine the optical equipment is fairly specialised!

Not really, other than the usual repairers. I would echo what Steve says though, first thing is probably check focus. You'd think that on a 47mm lens at f/22 you'd just get everything in focus, but it's possible that, say, if focus was out (ground glass wrong way round, or not locked the camera down etc) then it might look OK dead centre (the far distance in your shot) due to DoF but be off at the closer distances.

[MartyNL]

I also feel that this is not the best image or scene to judge the lens by.

[MartyNL]

Regarding the locks on the TK, they do need replacing depending on wear.
And I know from experience that Linhof spring backs are so strong that it could be the case that the back is pulled out of alignment while loading the dds.

[Piers283]

Thanks all for the replies.

I have another image shot with this lens a few weeks ago to put any doubts at bay.

In this scene there two trees are the same distance from the camera.

Shot at f22 with a Linhof Technikarden (which I use with many other lenses and have had no issues, the ground glass is the right way around, the standards are aligned an I am using excellent condition Toyo film holders. All other photos shot this day with different lenses were perfect).

The image is once again sharp in the centre, but on the edges (all over the frame) it becomes soft. Two extracts provided, one from each side of the frame on the 4" wide section of the negative. The blur at the top and bottom of the negative is so severe you don't need the enhancement to see...

258679
258678
258677

I am gravitating towards some sort of cell spacing issue as Dave mentioned. If anyone has any ideas on the right place to send this to get checked please let me know.

[diversey]

Is your lens front cell loose or can be screwed off? Mine is not loose and cannot be screwed off from shutter. I remember Schneider has said lens owners should not attempt to screw off or loose lens front cell. If it is loose, owners should send lens back for realignment.

[teathomas]

You don’t even need to take a photo. Just find a large flat brick or block wall and fill the frame with it, then look at the ground glass with a loupe

[RJ-]

Hi Piers,

I hesitate to think it's the Schneider Super Angulon XL 47/5.6 lens cell spacing issue. Ive used their lenses including this for decades and never experienced the kind of untoward Ken issues with the lens.

On the other hand, you are going to run in to the plane parallelism problem of all non-technical 5x4 cameras using such an extreme wide-angle lens. I use a miitary machine billeted Silvestri Hermes with rigid rear standard and corner to corner sharpness isn't an issue (coverage or near lack of it is!). Your camera design will not be as precise unfortunately: set up for the 47mm XL focal length on 5x4" is arduous on a field camera like a Wista or even a perpendicular designed rear standard like a Walker Titan XL: just the front standard requires so much diligence to achieve a true zero. I gave up using this lens on a field or camera design like yours and opted to helicoid mount it: it focusses like a dream (the ground glass isn't even required anymore with the focussing scale on the 5x4" Silvestri.

Yet none of that explains your peculiar pattern of defocussed peripheral field and sharp centre.

Before you decide to go down a servicing route - I wonder if you could try an experiment and focus using a 6x loupe on the corners of your 5x4" imaging area and not the centre.

The way you 'loupe' focus is critical. Pick at least 3 peripheral focus areas and average the difference. Your camera gears and screws will have worn over years and even sub-millimetre wear will affect the imaging. If you are having to re-adjust focus each time, then your lens is likely awry.

If you really wish to check your lens over, True Lens in London will do it and it may cost you more or less the same as a new 47/5.6XL. They are more renown for cine modification of standard 35mm lenses and collimate a diverse range of optics (they have the optical benches). https://www.truelens.co.uk/lens-servicing-repair

Here is an example of zone focussing on the 47mm XL hand held. It's usually operator error - not the lens for such a specialist optic.

258695

[phdgent]

Dear RJ, fine to (finally) encounter an other SILVESTRI shooter over here!

Testing the S-A 47 XL on a 'brick wall' is perhaps an interesting idea, on the condition that the camera-lens-back combo is perfectly set up parallel to the wall, otherwise the focussing distance of both the sides of the frame will be different and the test useless.
To do this, perhaps some basic trigonometry could be useful, but a little common sense (and a mirror) will do too (I use Hasselblad's parallel mirror set to do so).

PS: a few weeks ago I finally 'found' a superb Apo-Symmar 100mm, and the required rings, for my SLV.
I only shoot 6x7 and 6x9 (WISTA film holders) with the SLV and have a 'common' S-A 47mm (with the center-filter).

[John Layton]

Many modern lenses incorporate a circular shim, typically quite thin...located on the rear surface inside diameter of the front lens cell. If such a shim is lost, it is quite possible that a defocussed area of the image will result - much as in your example here.

Unfortunately, if one is unaware of the possible presence of this shim, it is very easy to lose it if and when the front cell is unscrewed for whatever reason (cleaning, changing shutters, etc.). The reason for this is that the original owner of a lens often remains unaware/uninformed that such a shim may indeed exist - so they do not look for it as they remove the front cell and...bye-bye shim!

And even more unfortunately, if a lens is purchased second-hand, it is often impossible to know if such a shim was actually present in the first place unless the original owner verified, pre-purchase, the presence of absence of a shim prior to making a sale, or even knew if they'd either lost an existing shim - or did not!

Moral of the story - whenever a new lens is purchased, always verify the existence of a shim and keep track of it if the front cell is removed, and by all means, pass this info along to a future owner when you sell it!

A possible solution for you would be to go ahead and test your lens by unscrewing the rear cell (no need to unscrew the front for this test), a very short distance and make an image to compare results to your original images. Even better would be to insert something thin (like paper strips) into the circular space of the contact surface between the rear cell and the shutter - to both ensure evenness of contact and to get some sense of just what thickness might be needed to "correct" your optic.

At any rate...if such a test does indeed result in some improvement - then you are likely on to something, and if so, I would then recommend that you send your lens away to be "properly" adjusted with a new shim - with the further thought that at least you will have provided the repair service that you've done your "test" and so know that such a shim is likely needed. Make sense?

[Joshua Dunn]

Piers,

I have this lens and while I have not used it in a while (I moved to larger formats than this lens covers) I used to use it several times a year. I never experienced this problem. I noticed that regardless of the orientation of your film back, the portion that is out of focus is in the same area. I read in your post that you are not having the same issue with other lenses. You stated you "triple checked" alignment and focus, I am assuming that means not only checking that the both standards are not only in a zeroed position, but that they are square to each other.

Is the lens new to you? Many of the Schneider lenses came with a screw on the back of the shutter that protruded from the shutter so you could use it as a "key" so help prevent the lens from rotating on the lens board. If your lens board does not have a a cut out for the screw, the lens will not mount flush against the board. You would have to remove it in order to properly mount the shutter flat to the board. That could cause what you are experiencing.

-Joshua

[John Layton]

Piers...Joshua's hint to check for a protruding pin is very simple to do and I'll second his recommendation. But if no such pin exists...then by all means read my post just before his about shims. I took so long writing my post that Joshua's appeared before mine - and I want to make sure you see it especially if Joshua's suggestion does not apply.

Later Edit - PS...the obvious flaw in my original post is my suggestion that you might do the "test" without having first unscrewed the front cell to check for the presence of a shim in the first place. But first, do seek to verify that doing so (unscrewing the front cell) might possibly compromise the optic as another post suggested. Personally, although I don't own the lens in question - I've always felt confident in unscrewing front cells of modern lenses, that so long as they are re-screwed with even pressure to ensure firm, even contact, that the factory machined mating surfaces alway re-seat perfectly and have never compromised performance in any way. In other words...if it were me, I'd go ahead and unscrew the front cell to check for a shim - but you may feel differently about this.

Then again, unscrewing the rear cell slightly and making an image is a very straightforward procedure and poses minimal risk - so maybe start there.

[rdenney]

When you do that brick-wall test, check if the pair of corners at the top (or on the left) focus on the other side of the focus plane compared to the opposite corners.

Several options will emerge:

1. The center focuses well, but the top (or left) corners focus by racking the lens a bit in one direction. The opposite corners can be brought to focus by racking the lens in the opposite direction from center focus. If this happens, the problem is alignment between the front and rear standards (or with the way the lens is mounted on the board).

2. The center focuses well, and all four corners can be brought into focus by racking the lens in (or out). If this happens, the problem is field curvature. I don't really know what causes field curvature in a Super Angulon design, but others might.

3. The center focuses well, but the corners can't be brought into focus at all. This would suggest to me a problem within the lens, or with the spacing of the cells in the shutter.

4. Everything focuses well on the ground glass, but the film shows the softness in the corners. That would suggest a problem with film flatness, though I've never seen this much of an effect from that source, especially at f/22.

Maybe this will help you narrow down the possibilities.

Rick "you'll need a tilting loupe to check the corners of the ground glass with a lens that short" Denney

[RJ-]

Dear RJ, fine to (finally) encounter an other SILVESTRI shooter over here!

Testing the S-A 47 XL on a 'brick wall' is perhaps an interesting idea, on the condition that the camera-lens-back combo is perfectly set up parallel to the wall, otherwise the focussing distance of both the sides of the frame will be different and the test useless.
To do this, perhaps some basic trigonometry could be useful, but a little common sense (and a mirror) will do too (I use Hasselblad's parallel mirror set to do so).

PS: a few weeks ago I finally 'found' a superb Apo-Symmar 100mm, and the required rings, for my SLV.
I only shoot 6x7 and 6x9 (WISTA film holders) with the SLV and have a 'common' S-A 47mm (with the center-filter).

Hi Phdgent - wow you're the first Silvestri user I've encountered this year! (Tops = 2 per year :) )

Silvestri's elegant philosophy of return to a rigid lens axis parallel rear and front standards is so minimalistic and perfect for the 47mm focal length! For Pier's challenge, I've never felt confident even with zero detents that the camera' tolerances are as fine as required by such an extreme short focal length like the 47mm XL. Back then, it was the widest commercial available ultra-wide angle lens. The 45mm Apo-Rodagon and smaller Apo-Digitars never succeeded in covering the 166mm image circle requirement for 5x4" at infinity.

The 100mm Apo-Symmar which you've scored has eluded me forever lol. I've settled on 75mm on 5x4" with the Silvestri back or the 6x12cm roll film back (Horseman) ~ that's a real addition to expanding your use for the 100mm lens too.

[Piers283]

When you do that brick-wall test, check if the pair of corners at the top (or on the left) focus on the other side of the focus plane compared to the opposite corners.

Several options will emerge:

1. The center focuses well, but the top (or left) corners focus by racking the lens a bit in one direction. The opposite corners can be brought to focus by racking the lens in the opposite direction from center focus. If this happens, the problem is alignment between the front and rear standards (or with the way the lens is mounted on the board).

2. The center focuses well, and all four corners can be brought into focus by racking the lens in (or out). If this happens, the problem is field curvature. I don't really know what causes field curvature in a Super Angulon design, but others might.

3. The center focuses well, but the corners can't be brought into focus at all. This would suggest to me a problem within the lens, or with the spacing of the cells in the shutter.

4. Everything focuses well on the ground glass, but the film shows the softness in the corners. That would suggest a problem with film flatness, though I've never seen this much of an effect from that source, especially at f/22.

Maybe this will help you narrow down the possibilities.

Rick "you'll need a tilting loupe to check the corners of the ground glass with a lens that short" Denney


Hi Rdenny,

I spent some time at the weekend staring at a brick wall....

The answer is number 2. It seems I have some sort of field curvature.

When I focus in the centre I have soft corners. Racking the bellows forward the edges pop into focus and the centre is now out of focus.
I believe this is abnormal for this lens.

Not quite sure what the right approach is now, if any optical engineers out there know what might be the cause i am open to options.

If anyone has a line on some copal 0 shims I may try and play around with the lens spacing.

[xkaes]

No need to find a shim to test this idea. Simply unscrew the front group 90 degrees (1/2 turn) and see if that changes things. Then try another 1/2 turn, etc. You can rotate the front group at lease a half-dozen times without any risk. That's all a shim will do.

Mine does not have a shim between the front group and the #0 shutter, but that doesn't mean that yours shouldn't have one.

[rdenney]

Brass shim stock can be bought in thicknesses down to 0.001” and when less than about 0.008” can be cut with scissors. I would try the trick suggested by xkaes of unscrewing the front cell half or a quarter of a turn at a time to see if you can find a corrective position. Then calculate the thickness needed by the number of threads times the thread pitch. (I seem to recall the thread pitch is 0.50mm per thread, or 0.020”.) You can cut your own shims—fiddly but doable. They don’t have to be a complete circle—an opening makes it easier to cut the hole.

I wouldn’t have thought a missing shim would cause field curvature like that, but there seems to me no other explanation ant least until the experiment is tried.

Rick “has cut trickier shims than that” Denney

[teathomas]

The missing shim thing is just the first and easiest thing to try. It's also possible that one or both of the elements has been disassembled before and was put back together incorrectly.

[xkaes]

The missing shim thing is just the first and easiest thing to try. It's also possible that one or both of the elements has been disassembled before and was put back together incorrectly.

This crossed my mind as well, as well.

Was the lens bought new/unused?

[djdister]

It is probably not the case here, but a Fuji 180mm lens that I bought second hand exhibited some odd distortion and was difficult to focus. When I disassembled the lens, I found that an inner lens element had been put in backwards. It was noticeable because the internal element had a chamfered edge on one side and it did not fit in as it should in the lens assembly. After switching the internal lens element around, it fit perfectly and the lens was back to normal.

[phdgent]

Don't you need a collimator (and a micrometer on a bluestone table) for measuring the distance between the two lens's elements (and shutter/aperture) to be able to choosing the right shim for calibrating these?

If my memory is right, I remember an article in the German Grossbild magazine about this, long time ago, it was about inserting a (new-) leaf shutter in an existing lens system...

[rdenney]

Don't you need a collimator (and a micrometer on a bluestone table) for measuring the distance between the two lens's elements (and shutter/aperture) to be able to choosing the right shim for calibrating these?

If my memory is right, I remember an article in the German Grossbild magazine about this, long time ago, it was about inserting a (new-) leaf shutter in an existing lens system...

I doubt it. (Note that I do have metric micrometers and a lab-grade granite surface plate, and crave any excuse to need it, so I'm biased in favor of the suggestion.) You'd need that if you wanted to design an extension or shutter barrel for production, after aligning the cells on an optical bench, perhaps. Or--the example from the German magazine--you wanted to retrofit a leaf shutter in a non-standard application where custom bits will need to be machined.

But for this, you can assume that the shutter it's screwed into will be very close and (if anything) too short, so the method of just unscrewing the front cell a quarter turn at a time until the behavior improves is really quick and easy. I doubt it will take more than one full turn (0.50mm). That will tell you how thick a shim you need. I rather down that it will require more precision than what one could make up with one or two shims made from brass shim stock. If the result is sharp on the ground glass with, say, a 10x loupe, it's sharp. I'd be very surprised if shims finer than 0.05mm would be needed and 0.001" shims that are easily available are half that. A 0.05mm adjustment would require a 36-degree rotation of the cell on the threads.

Maybe the shim needs to be in front of or behind the aperture, but I seriously doubt it would matter in practice.

We often assume these things are done in a million-dollar lab with white-coated Ph.D. technicians. Probably not. Linhof rated lenses from its suppliers by putting them on a carefully calibrated camera/enlarger and projecting a negative with pinholes through the lens onto a screen. The pinhole shapes were measured with a ruler, and if small enough the lens passed and got the Linhof co-branding. I'll bet the factory worker at Schneider had a cabinet full of different thickness spacers, and performed something similar to Linhof's test by unscrewing the cell until the images were correct. Then he could select the correct spacer for that lens combination.

Rick "precision in pursuit of accuracy" Denney

[Corran]

My vote is a lens element reversed somewhere.

My 47XL definitely doesn't have field curvature. One time years ago, I was swapping lenses into new lens boards due to a camera change, including various wide and ultrawide lenses. Afterwards, I found one errant shim on the ground. Oops! But which lens??! Well, after careful testing, I determined that none of the lenses performed any differently than I could tell with the shim added. I don't think the lack of a shim would cause serious field curvature...but I could be wrong.

[rdenney]

My vote is a lens element reversed somewhere.

My 47XL definitely doesn't have field curvature. One time years ago, I was swapping lenses into new lens boards due to a camera change, including various wide and ultrawide lenses. Afterwards, I found one errant shim on the ground. Oops! But which lens??! Well, after careful testing, I determined that none of the lenses performed any differently than I could tell with the shim added. I don't think the lack of a shim would cause serious field curvature...but I could be wrong.

Yeah, no Super Angulon should have field curvature. That's the key innovation of the symmetrical (sort-of) opposing retrofocus designs--no geometric distortion and a flat field. The downside was the lens had to be close to the film, compared to non-opposing retrofocus lenses.

But it's been years since I read Kingslake, so I'm probably misremembering.

And I agree that a missing shim doesn't seem like it would cause such noticeable field curvature, though it's an easy possibility to eliminate and then you know. But turning around elements isn't easy--none of the XL's are old enough and cheap enough for hobbyists to take them apart, it seems to me, notwithstanding my own destructive tendencies.

But there are other bonehead possibilities, too. Such as: I wonder if there's a poorly performing 47/5.6 out there in the world from the same seller the OP bought from. (The OP didn't tell us where he got the lens or how long he's owned it.) Only some of the 5.6's were in 00 shutters--many were in 0 shutters and someone messing around and being careless with a pile of them might well have gotten the wrong rear cell on the wrong lens. The rear cells aren't labeled, after all. That seems to me like something I would do.

Rick "Occam's razor" Denney

[Myriophyllum]

...
But there are other bonehead possibilities, too. Such as: I wonder if there's a poorly performing 47/5.6 out there in the world from the same seller the OP bought from. (The OP didn't tell us where he got the lens or how long he's owned it.) Only some of the 5.6's were in 00 shutters--many were in 0 shutters and someone messing around and being careless with a pile of them might well have gotten the wrong rear cell on the wrong lens. The rear cells aren't labeled, after all. That seems to me like something I would do.

Rick "Occam's razor" Denney

Hi,

to check this the outer diameter of the rear cell would be helpful:
The Super-Angulon XL 5.6/47mm has 63.5mm (front cell 70mm),
while a Super-Angulon 5.6/47mm has only 43mm (front cell 54mm).
Source: Schneider leaflet from the 1990's

Jens

[Piers283]

Hi Phdgent - wow you're the first Silvestri user I've encountered this year! (Tops = 2 per year :) )

Silvestri's elegant philosophy of return to a rigid lens axis parallel rear and front standards is so minimalistic and perfect for the 47mm focal length! For Pier's challenge, I've never felt confident even with zero detents that the camera' tolerances are as fine as required by such an extreme short focal length like the 47mm XL. Back then, it was the widest commercial available ultra-wide angle lens. The 45mm Apo-Rodagon and smaller Apo-Digitars never succeeded in covering the 166mm image circle requirement for 5x4" at infinity.

The 100mm Apo-Symmar which you've scored has eluded me forever lol. I've settled on 75mm on 5x4" with the Silvestri back or the 6x12cm roll film back (Horseman) ~ that's a real addition to expanding your use for the 100mm lens too.

RJ I see you are in London.

I part exchanged my 100mm Apo-Symmar to Aperture UK a few months ago - its still available on their website! https://www.apertureuk.com/schneider-100mm-f56-apo-symmar-sn-14398673-a410230.html

[jnantz]

I've never used or seen a lens that wide but I've known people who have taken things apart and reassembled them incorrectly ( like me ) then used without realizing they were reassembled incorrectly. Piers283, it might be worth it to bring your lens to a "tech" to make sure lens groups &c weren't reversed or something else like that is amiss. you're on photo forums for a week or 2 you realize people love to do a nice "home-cla" to save themselves a few bucks ( it looks so easy on the you tube! ) and things get put together wrong or reassembled in the right ('00') but wrong ( cause they CLA'd a few lenses and forgot which one was which ) shutters ..
Schneider made some really nice glass, I hope you get yours back in tip top shape!

[Corran]

But there are other bonehead possibilities, too. Such as: I wonder if there's a poorly performing 47/5.6 out there in the world from the same seller the OP bought from. (The OP didn't tell us where he got the lens or how long he's owned it.) Only some of the 5.6's were in 00 shutters--many were in 0 shutters and someone messing around and being careless with a pile of them might well have gotten the wrong rear cell on the wrong lens. The rear cells aren't labeled, after all. That seems to me like something I would do.

Very true. Somewhere I have the datasheet with exacting physical measurements. Now that I think of it, I once had to refer to it as I got the rear elements of my 47XL and 58XL mixed up and didn't know which was which.

OP, if you post the exact dimensions of your lens, I could at least try to confirm the size of your lens element is correct.

[Oren Grad]

But there are other bonehead possibilities, too. Such as: I wonder if there's a poorly performing 47/5.6 out there in the world from the same seller the OP bought from. (The OP didn't tell us where he got the lens or how long he's owned it.) Only some of the 5.6's were in 00 shutters--many were in 0 shutters and someone messing around and being careless with a pile of them might well have gotten the wrong rear cell on the wrong lens. The rear cells aren't labeled, after all. That seems to me like something I would do.

Rick "Occam's razor" Denney


Hi,

to check this the outer diameter of the rear cell would be helpful:
The Super-Angulon XL 5.6/47mm has 63.5mm (front cell 70mm),
while a Super-Angulon 5.6/47mm has only 43mm (front cell 54mm).
Source: Schneider leaflet from the 1990's

Jens


Very true. Somewhere I have the datasheet with exacting physical measurements. Now that I think of it, I once had to refer to it as I got the rear elements of my 47XL and 58XL mixed up and didn't know which was which.

OP, if you post the exact dimensions of your lens, I could at least try to confirm the size of your lens element is correct.

+1. I've had the experience of receiving a LF lens with a mis-matched rear cell from a Japanese seller on eBay. Lesson: check that rear cell against the numbers that Jens has kindly provided.

[RJ-]

RJ I see you are in London.

I part exchanged my 100mm Apo-Symmar to Aperture UK a few months ago - its still available on their website! https://www.apertureuk.com/schneider-100mm-f56-apo-symmar-sn-14398673-a410230.html

Hi Piers ~ thanks for the heads up. Yes I'm in London when I'm not in Korea now! It's actually a rare Silvestri helicoid mounted version of the 100mm Apo-Symmar - Phdgent and I use the dedicated Silvestri technical camera which requires the helicoid mount.

Just a(nother) thought ~ Patrick's tech guy who comes in on Wednesday/Thursdays might be able to help you diagnose your lens. He doesn't charge the earth either. If you call him to discuss whether he can inspect it without servicing perhaps.

Kind regards
RJ

[Piers283]

Thanks for the replies all.

I bought the camera off of a gentleman about nine months ago who used it with a medium format digital back, which explains why he may not have noticed anything wrong towards the edge of the frame. The prints he had made with it looked great which isn't surprising since most of the centre of the image circle is very sharp.

I have measured the rear element and compared it to my 58mm SAXL - they are different and the 47mm is seems to have the right element going by Jens' measurements.

I have disassembled the front element - there are only two glass elements in there - it would be impossible for either to be reversed. The rear element group is sealed so I don't think there is an issue in there.

I have tried unscrewing the front element from the copal shutter, but this immediately made the situation worse - if anything the further I screwed the lens back in the better it got. It makes me think that there may be an issue with the shutter and lens spacing and that the elements should be closer together, but the elements are already screwed in all the way.

I will send the lens and shutter off for a CLA and remounting - hopefully they may find the issue. - Worst case I'll have a CLA'd copal 0 and a dud lens.

[phdgent]

Thanks for the replies all.

I bought the camera off of a gentleman about nine months ago who used it with a medium format digital back, which explains why he may not have noticed anything wrong towards the edge of the frame. The prints he had made with it looked great which isn't surprising since most of the centre of the image circle is very sharp.

I have measured the rear element and compared it to my 58mm SAXL - they are different and the 47mm is seems to have the right element going by Jens' measurements.

I have disassembled the front element - there are only two glass elements in there - it would be impossible for either to be reversed. The rear element group is sealed so I don't think there is an issue in there.

I have tried unscrewing the front element from the copal shutter, but this immediately made the situation worse - if anything the further I screwed the lens back in the better it got. It makes me think that there may be an issue with the shutter and lens spacing and that the elements should be closer together, but the elements are already screwed in all the way.

I will send the lens and shutter off for a CLA and remounting - hopefully they may find the issue. - Worst case I'll have a CLA'd copal 0 and a dud lens.

If I am not mistaking, and misinterpreting the image in the tech sheet, there are tree glass elements in the first part, but this is of lesser importance.

If there is a spacing issue due to the shutter, then this might be a whole different story!

Long time ago (the end '90s), I lent out my Linhof Technorama 617 to a fellow photographer who wanted to try it before buying one himself.

I used to keep this camera in a good shoulder bag laying with the lens upwards to protect it from sidewards bangs and other external influences.
And there is a strong clamp shaped 'thing' attached on the camera's bottom to protect the lens and to hold by this voluminous construction (see the picture).
But that idiot grabbed the camera by the lans, a Super-Angulon 90mm in a Copal shutter, which was mounted by its helicoid on the camera, instead of by that clamp.
As the Technorama is a rather heavy one, you can imagine what it did to the shutter, the whole camera was actually 'hanging' by the shutter's 'body' which was damaged beyond repair.

Be reassured that Linhof's intervention was expressed in lots of Deutsche Mark...

A schutter, and the mounted lens in it, isn't built to hold a camera, nor is it a 'handle', to orient and to operate the camera!

258909

[Piers283]

Hi All,

Wrapping up this thread for anyone else having this issue:

I sent the lens to Linhof Studio in Essex, UK for a service on the copal shutter as I had suspected this was the issue.

To summarise someone had their attempt at servicing the shutter before it got to me, and the results weren't pretty.

Their technician report is as following:

The shutter was not assembled correctly and lock ring for speeds was cross threaded - this was stopping the front element seating
correctly. Cable release socket mounted incorrectly and also cross threaded. Shutter incorrectly mounted to lens board. Aperture Lever malfunctioning.

I have now tested the lens and I am satisfied with the results. Excellent service from Linhof Studio as always.

[jnantz]

Hi All,

Wrapping up this thread for anyone else having this issue:

I sent the lens to Linhof Studio in Essex, UK for a service on the copal shutter as I had suspected this was the issue.

To summarise someone had their attempt at servicing the shutter before it got to me, and the results weren't pretty.

Their technician report is as following:

The shutter was not assembled correctly and lock ring for speeds was cross threaded - this was stopping the front element seating
correctly. Cable release socket mounted incorrectly and also cross threaded. Shutter incorrectly mounted to lens board. Aperture Lever malfunctioning.

I have now tested the lens and I am satisfied with the results. Excellent service from Linhof Studio as always.

im stoked you were able to get things checked out and fixed !
sometimes camera repair people (or people doing it on their own) are competent sometimes less so ...
many years ago Steve Grimes had a repair shop in a legendary camera store called EP Levines .. he eventually sold to someone else and changed his business name to SK Grimes ... when the repair shop wasn't his I had a tiny wollensak raptar shutter serviced by them and they did a bad job (and it took forever) so I never took back the basket case they gave me .. eventually I moved and had a local guy do a real CLA on it, and he took the beauty plate off and called me over and pointed out what had fouled up the shutter, turns out the last guy had trimmed his beard in my shutter. it's a shame dolts like that have access to people's gear!