150 SSXL for 4x5?

[Jack Flesher]

I know it may sound nutty, but I'm considering abandoning 8x10 and sticking to 4x5 and am reluctant to part with this lens because I like it a lot, so I'm looking for some rational justifications to keep it... I know I can "try it for myself" and probably will, but I am curious to hear comments from anybody that uses it on the smaller formats regularly. (FWIW, I have a 150 APO Symmar for 4x5.)

Cheers,

[Christopher Perez]

The 150SSXL is a HUGE optic. If you don't mind the weight, it's a good conversation starter.

Before you head down that route, try shooting the SSXL wide open and compare it against your SPO (I suspect you meant APO) Symmar at similar apertures. You'll know quickly for yourself if it's worth the size/weight or not.

[Scott Rosenberg]

Jack,

I had a 150-XL for 8x10, too. Yes, it’s an amazingly sharp lens. However, when I compared it to my 150 Sironar-S, I could see no difference whatsoever. I’m sure your 150 SPO Symmar is every bit as good as my Sironar. Why not take a few similar shots with each? I think you’ll end up selling the XL if you do go to 4x5 only… I know I don't miss mine at all.

[Gary Smith]

Jack,

If you do decide to sell it, please let me know! I am very interested.

Regards,

Gary

[Jack Flesher]

Jack,
I know I don't miss mine at all.

Thanks Scott, that is the kind of feedback I am looking for.

Chris, you are correct -- that darn "S" key is too close to the "A" key for my thick stubby digits!

Gary, will advise if I do, but you are second in line I'm afraid.

[Ralph Barker]

Just to confuse things, I'd say the 150 SSXL is:

1. an excellent reason to stick with 8x10, and,

2. a good reason to upgrade the 4x5 such that you'd have extensive enough movements to take advantage of the lens. ;)

[Jack Flesher]

:D :D :D Good one Ralph!

So do you know of ANY 4x5 camera that will accomodate the full IC of the 150 SSXL with DIRECT movements? I suspect I'd need one that allowed about 140mm of total rise...

[naturephoto1]

Jack,

Do you really think that you need an IC for 135mm of vertical displacement and 131mm of horizontal displacement in landscape orientation for 4 X 5? ;) :eek: I followed your suggestion regarding the Apo Symmar 120mm L lens for sufficient IC for landscape work in 4 X 5. Sounds a bit like overkill for IC, size, and weight. And I would suspect your Apo Symmar 150mm will equal the performance of the 150mm XL.

Rich

[Ralph Barker]

. . . So do you know of ANY 4x5 camera that will accomodate the full IC of the 150 SSXL with DIRECT movements? . . .

Have you considered a 16x20 with a 4x5 reducing back? :eek:

[Eric Leppanen]

Jack,

I'm with Scott: I tested my SS150XL against my 150 Sironar-S on 4x5 and did not see any significant differences.

My Ebony 45SU supports up to 70mm of "direct" front rise, which far exceeds the rated image circle of my Sironar-S. I keep thinking I might need the extra coverage of the SSXL for architecture, but so far it hasn't happened yet...

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Hi Jack,

If you have a 4X5 that is sturdy enough to hold the big lens steady, there's no reason why you shouldn't keep it just because you like the lens. I have a 300 Apo-Sironar-S that I originally purchased for use on 8X10, but I mostly use it with my 4X5. I will never even come close to needing that much image circle (448 mm) for 4X5, but the lens is so sharp and great that I will never part with it.

If you really need the money, sure, then sell it and get a smaller 150. However, there's no reason to get rid of it just because you don't exploit the full capacities of the lens. Who knows- perhaps a year or two down the road you'll deecide to get back into 8X10!

[Jack Flesher]

Have you considered a 16x20 with a 4x5 reducing back? :eek:

Ralph, you are totally on a roll tonight and have me on the floor laughing my butt off!!!!

:D :D :D,

[Jack Flesher]

Hi Jack,
If you really need the money, sure, then sell it and get a smaller 150. However, there's no reason to get rid of it just because you don't exploit the full capacities of the lens. Who knows- perhaps a year or two down the road you'll deecide to get back into 8X10!

Great advice Brian -- problem is I have another (outstanding) 150 in the APO (SPO!) Symmar. I just like this one a lot too...

[Jack Flesher]

Jack,

I'm with Scott: I tested my SS150XL against my 150 Sironar-S on 4x5 and did not see any significant differences.

My Ebony 45SU supports up to 70mm of "direct" front rise, which far exceeds the rated image circle of my Sironar-S. I keep thinking I might need the extra coverage of the SSXL for architecture, but so far it hasn't happened yet...

Another good point and I appreciate the second vote of "no significant difference". I can't remember running out of IC with my 150 APO Symmar, so it is unlikely I will ever need the extra IC of the SSXL -- but it really isn't just about IC, it's partly about the "stigma" surrounding this particular hunk of glass...

[Doug Dolde]

I'd love to have one for 4x5. Primarily due to the big image circle that would let me do (back) shift stitching easily.

[james zhou]

Jack,

Have you thought about the 150mm HM Symmar? Have one and it covers about 290mm image circle (about 30mm more than the specs). This should give you over 10 cm of shift. I also have the 150mm XL for my 8x10. In the past when I was putting together lenses, I compared the 150 APO Sironar (I still have it, too good to let go) with the 150mm HM, and also compared the 210 APO Sironar W with the 210mm HM, the Schneider consistently have larger IC than Rodenstock. At the end I got rid of the 210 Sironar W and kept the 210mm HM, although much bigger but it gives me 5-6 cm of shift as compared to 2.5 cm for the 210 W lens.

Jim

[james zhou]

Doug,

I am interested in stiching with 4x5 film as well. Have you done any? I am interested in hearing about this.

Jim

[Doug Dolde]

Shift stitching with 4x5 works well IF you have a camera with significant back shift. My Arca Swiss does and I just shoot two frames one shifted all the way left and one all the way right. There's enough overlap to make it work.

Here's one done with a 210mm APO Symmar. Not really a big enough image circle but you can dodge the L & R sides with Photokit

http://www.painted-with-light.com/OR4M.html

[Jack Flesher]

I'd love to have one for 4x5. Primarily due to the big image circle that would let me do (back) shift stitching easily.

Doug: This is an interesting reason to keep it -- I've really not seriously considered stitching LF frames as they are so detailed to begin with, but you make a great point... Additionally this could lend some logic toward selling the 8x10 as it is certainly more convenient to grab two 4x5 shots in rapid sucession if/when needed, than it is dragging around that 8x10 and holders! Of course this would only generate a detailed 4x9 or so and not a full 8x10, but still...

James: I already have the 150 SSXL, so probably would not buy an HM as a replacement, but rather am looking for excuses like the one Doug just gave to keep it ;)

[Ralph Barker]

Think of the stitching possibilities with an offset 4x5 reduction back on that 8x10, Jack. :D

[roteague]

am reluctant to part with this lens because I like it a lot, so I'm looking for some rational justifications to keep it...

The fact that you like the lens should be justification enough.

[Struan Gray]

You are really asking if there is a use for small sections of the widest extremes of the image circle.

I like a head-on look, and often get it with longer lenses. But that doesn't work when looking at the ground close to me or directly under my feet. In that case it can be useful to have lots of shift capability to frame the shot.

I also sometimes tilt the back forwards to reduce the 3D look of photographs of the ground some few meters in front of the camera. With enough image circle you can get your focus back with even more forward front tilt.

A more common anti-version of this is using a lot of backwards back tilt to make a view from a normal lens look like a wide angle. You can also play games with perception by photographing building facades at oblique angles: movements make the dimensions of, say, the windows correct, but you see the window frames from one side only.

If you play these tricks often enough, it's worth carrying the lens from a utilitarian standpoint. If you don't, you will be forced to appeal to love. It's your back.

Incidentally, some earlier monorails had the abilty to add extenders to the standard uprights so that you could apply enormous direct rise. I have some red bars for my Norma that will let me get a total of 15" or so with the rail level.

I have never used them. :-)

[Diane Maher]

I'd love to have one for 4x5. Primarily due to the big image circle that would let me do (back) shift stitching easily.

What is back shift stitching?

[Ron Marshall]

What is back shift stitching?

Taking multiple images on film or digital, shifting the back between exposures, then stitching the images on a computer to form a single larger image.

[Remigius]

:D :D :D Good one Ralph!

So do you know of ANY 4x5 camera that will accomodate the full IC of the 150 SSXL with DIRECT movements? I suspect I'd need one that allowed about 140mm of total rise...
I got a Sinar F1 and recently upgraded to the 150 SSXL (from a 150 Symmar-S MC). Although there's not a significant difference in sharpness that I could easily recognize, there is a huge difference in coverage that lead me to go for the SSXL when I got some transparencies back from the lab on which I clearly trespassed the image circle (I was using DIRECT movements). For me it's not so relevant to use the full image circle of the SSXL, but to have enough coverage not to trespass it. I also use a 5x7 back from time to time, so the additional coverage is very useful for me. Other than that, the lens is just a high quality artefact, which in itself would be a reason to keep it. If I want to travel light, I can still take the Symmar-S with me.

[evan clarke]

:D :D :D Good one Ralph!

So do you know of ANY 4x5 camera that will accomodate the full IC of the 150 SSXL with DIRECT movements? I suspect I'd need one that allowed about 140mm of total rise...

I use it on my 4x5 Arca 141 and cannot exceed the coverage of the lens. My 150mm Sironar S vignettes on me and I can't see it in the ground glass but is really sharp. I just hate the bulk of the SS...EC

[Jack Flesher]

For me it's not so relevant to use the full image circle of the SSXL, but to have enough coverage not to trespass it.

Excellent point, thanks. I don't recall ever actually trespassing my 150 APO's IC though, which is probably a good indication I don't really need to keep the SSXL...

Jack

[Carsten Wolff]

....or a 5x7...???? :)

[JW Dewdney]

Hey - cool. Keep in on a 4x5 - you can do 'shift diptychs'...! It would make a cool contact print! Kind of like 'analog stitching'...!

[Armin Seeholzer]

Jack there are many more reasons to keep it!
First it is sexy!
2. If you need a weapon you just have one at hand!
3.You never have to look if the corners are getting dark!
4.In windy condition its a stabilyzer on the camera!
5. You never have to much glass!
6. You always need a spare!

Hope its enough, Armin Seeholzer

[Doug Dolde]

Think about it Jack...you are fortunate to have one.

[Eric James]

I can see the jump from 4x5 to 5x7, but aside from the amazing contact prints afforded by the 8X10, why do you folks lug that stuff around? Look at our friend Capocheny - his 2006 photo exchange offering is from an 8x10 negative, and yet he printed it just shy of that. Although his print is astounding! I have to think that he could have accomplished the same with 4x5. No offense of course Henry (or to any of you 8X10 and larger folks), it a beautiful photgraph with amazing tonality. I've just been thinking about the 4x5 vs 8x10 question lately.

Now 5X7 - there's a film size and aspect ratio!

Okay, I'll go back to my corner and try to keep quiet:)