90mm Angulon vs. 90mm Super Angulon vs. caltar 90mm

[C. D. Keth]

I'm in the market soon for a nice 90mm. It's a length missing from m arsenal.

I've been looking at some and what exactly is the difference between angulons and super angulons? I like the angulon from the perspective of weight and speed, but is there a big down side?

How are the 90mm caltars? They look remarkably similar to a super angulon. Coincidence or no?

[Dan Fromm]

1) that's nice

2) old questions, search.

3) designed and made in Rochester, NY. search.

[Jack Flesher]

The main difference is a 90 Super Angulon has a larger image circle than the 90 Angulon (a Dagor design). Of course the 90 Angulon is tiny compared to the SA.

PS: I do have a very nice copy of the 90 Angulon I offered in the B&S here a few weeks ago. I just listed it on ebay this morning if you want to look. It is against the rules for me to post the link, but I think it's okay for me to post an item number: 200079032406

Cheers,

[C. D. Keth]

Dan, next time you don't have anything onstructive to say, please say nothing. That was a very rude post.

Jack: Thanks for the info. I think I'll keep looking, probably for a SA.

[Frank Petronio]

The 90 Angulon probably needs to be stopped down to f/16-22 to be optimally sharp with even coverage. Used wide open it is not as great a lens as modern designs because it won't be critically sharp and the edges will really not be sharp at all. But I test one I had and when used properly it is just as sharp as a modern lens.

The larger modern Super Angulons (and Rodenstock Grandagons, etc.) are sharp and useful over their entire aperture range, while also being sharpest somewhere in the "middle".

The Caltar or Calumet rebranded lenses were made by American and later German manufacturers, first Schneider and now Rodenstock. If you look at the charts for image circle and filter size you can figure out which OEM counterpart they correspond with.

Jack's Angulon is a nice one for a realistic price. In addition to the Linhof branding, the thing to look for is the serial number. The Angulons were made up until the early 1970s in the 8-9 million serial number range. By that time the quality control was really high, and I would pay a premium for a late Angulon on a later Compur shutter. But even the older Linhof-selected Angulons in the 2-3 million range are excellent lenses, I think Linhof really did establish better quality control with them. Just avoid the >2 million Angulons unless you are looking for an "effect".

The little red triangle on the rim means it is single coated (good).

[Alan Davenport]

The Caltar W-II 90mm f/8 is a Super Angulon. You get the same lens for much less money. Mine is even multicoated.

[Michael Graves]

While I realize you didn't ask about this lens, I'd suggest you look into a 90mm Fujinon. I have had both the Angulon (too much falloff in the corners and too little coverage) and the Super Angulon. The latter was a fairly nice lens, but still exhibited falloff. After I stumbled across the Fujinon, I dumped the Super Angulon and never looked back.

[Rick Moore]

I highly recommend you consider the Nikkor 90/8. Mine is one of my favorite 4x5 lenses. I have never actually measured the image circle, but it's supposed to cover a little more than the other 90/8 lenses, matching the coverage of the much heavier 90/4.5 or 5.6 models.

[Ole Tjugen]

I happen to own both an Angulon 90/6.8 and a Super Angulon 90/8...

For a while I had two Angulons of differing "vintage", one from 1939 and one from 1951. I also have an old 13x18cm (5x7") plate camera which is nice for testing coverage. So I made a comparison shot of the two Angulons, and put the results HERE (http://www.bruraholo.no/Cameras/Angulon/).

Brief conclusion: There is a slight difference in the design between the two. The later one holds sharpness better at the edge of the image circle, but drops off more rapidly. Both are very sharp in the center, even at f:8. Letting the sun shine on the front element is stupid, regardless of coating (that's what gave the horrendous flare - I recreated my setup the next day at the same time and immidiately spotted my mistake). Falloff is less than I expected - remember that this is shot on 5x7", not 4x5"!

So now I mostly use the Angulon on 4x5" unless I need more than a hint of movements, and the Super-angulon if I need movements or if I'm using 5x7" film.

[Jan Pedersen]

Chris, if interested i have a SA 90/8 in a synchro compur just back from Carol that i want to sell.
PM me if interested.

[walter23]

How are the 90mm caltars? They look remarkably similar to a super angulon. Coincidence or no?


I think the older caltar 90's are super angulons. The newer Caltar-II N 90mm f/4.5 and f/6.8 are the same as the Rodenstock Grandagon N's of the same specs. I have the 90 f/6.8 Caltar-II N (Rodenstock Grandagon N) and it's a very nice lens, I'd highly recommend it. The movement range is very generous; you can get a lot of shift. I can't remember the specs exactly (they're on the front page of LFinfo somewhere), but I think the image circle is around 210mm. Enough to almost shift the horizon to the ground on 4x5 in portrait orientation - ie, perfectly fine for shooting architecture from ground level.

I paid about $400 for mine on ebay, I've seen them go for between $300 and $500 depending on the mood of the zeitgeist.

[stompyq]

I have a SA 90mm f/8. The images are sharp but focusung is difficult due to the small apeture. i haven't run accross the light falloff problems that michael mentions in my chromes. Mine is a relativly new SA (the gentlemen i bought it from said he bought it new a few years ago) so i don't know if the older SA's suffer more from falloff. If you want we could meet up and you could take a look at it.

[Ted Harris]

I assume you've done the research in older threads here and on APUG but the 90 Angulon's were rather variable in the quality and the newer lenses are more consistent.

[Dan Fromm]

Dan, next time you don't have anything onstructive to say, please say nothing. That was a very rude post.
.Chris, I gave you the reply I thought you deserved. Your questions have been asked many times and the answers are all over the web, including on this site.

You owe it to other people to try to find answers to your questions before asking them to type the same old stuff yet again.

By my standards your questions as posted, i.e., with no indication that you'd looked for answers to them and found none, are extremely rude. They bring to mind evil thoughts about laziness and lack of consideration for others.

Sorry, but that's how I see 'em. If you don't like being told this, well, sorry too.

[Dan Fromm]

I think the older caltar 90's are super angulons. Close, but if you're thinking of the Ilex Caltars they were designed in Rochester by Manuel Kiner and were made in Rochester too. But I do wonder how Ilex managed to avoid infringing the original SA patents, the Ilexes certainly are very much like SAs.

Cheers,

Dan

[roteague]

How about an 80 XL Schneider?

[naturephoto1]

Hi Robert,

As wonderful as the Schneider 80mm Super Symmar XL may be, I would presume it is well beyond the budget.

Rich

[Ole Tjugen]

The Super Symmar XL also has just about as much fall-off as the old 90/6.8 Angulon. Considering the price difference, I'll stick to my to old 90's - the 6.8 and the 8.

[Jack Flesher]

The Super Symmar XL also has just about as much fall-off as the old 90/6.8 Angulon. Considering the price difference, I'll stick to my to old 90's - the 6.8 and the 8.

What Ole said... I've owned and used them all, and money aside, I'd personally take either 90 over the 80SSXL...

[Jim Noel]

If my memory is correct, the Super Angulons have a 2 degree larger circle of sharp focus.

Also, the Angulons are convertible with the rear element focusing at just less than twice the focal length of the pair. This helps lighten the load in the field.

[neil poulsen]

[QUOTE=Christopher D. Keth;217231]I'm in the market soon for a nice 90mm. It's a length missing from m arsenal.

I've been looking at some and what exactly is the difference between angulons and super angulons? I like the angulon from the perspective of weight and speed, but is there a big down side?

How are the 90mm caltars? They look remarkably similar to a super angulon. Coincidence or no?[/QUOTE

There are a wide variety of Caltars. I think the first ones were made by Ilex. (Not positive on this.) Later, Calumet used Schneider lenses and ended up with Rodenstocks. For example, the Caltar S-II is a Symmar-S. The Sironar-S lenses were never available under the Caltar name.

If you know what you're purchasing, you can save money purchasing Caltar and still get the same lense you might have considered under the Schneider or Rodenstock names.

[Dan Fromm]

http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogSubCategoryDisplay.aspx?CID=201

http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/foto/an_su_classic/an_su_classic.htm

http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/archiv.htm and look around

[Alan Davenport]

Ole -- is the Angulon as sharp in the corners (when stopped down) as the SA?

[erie patsellis]

The Caltar W-II 90 f8 that I recently bought is quite nice, sharp edge to edge with a plenty large IC, I'm quite happy for not much $$$ (in reality the Caltar W-II is a SA in Calumet clothing, fyi....)


erie

[Ole Tjugen]

Ole -- is the Angulon as sharp in the corners (when stopped down) as the SA?

Yes, but the corners are closer in. :D
(sorry - just couldn't resist it. :p)

More seriously, I use my 90/8 SA more often as a "superwide" on 5x7" film. Even then the corners are sufficiently sharp (IMO). The 90/6.8, as can be seen from my informal unscientific test, goes to mush long before it reaches the corners of a 5x7". BUT: If you ask about the corners of a 4x5" film, straight on with no movements, a late 90/6.8 is as sharp as a 90/8. A pre-WWII 90/6.8 is less sharp in the corners, but has a slower "degradation" which for a given definition of "sharp" allows it to be usable with slightly more movements.