PDA

View Full Version : Coverage of 165mm Super Angulon?



Gene McCluney
14-Apr-2007, 12:56
The 165mm Super Angulon...will it cover 8x10?

Ole Tjugen
14-Apr-2007, 13:03
Yes.

Gene McCluney
14-Apr-2007, 13:06
Yes.

Is there any wiggle-room for movements?

tim atherton
14-Apr-2007, 13:18
Is there any wiggle-room for movements?

stacks

http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/super-angulon/data/8-165mm.html

about 3" rise/fall I think

(you know it's not a small lens though, don't you?)

Gene McCluney
14-Apr-2007, 13:22
stacks

http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/super-angulon/data/8-165mm.html

about 3" rise/fall I think

(you know it's not a small lens though, don't you?)

Yes, I know it is a big lens. 8x10 is a big format. Not concerned about the size, my 8x10 has 7" square lensboards.

tim atherton
14-Apr-2007, 13:25
it's the 3 1/2lbs as well... I have one, but I only tend to take it out when I really know I will need it. Otherwise the 6.5" Dagor goes in the bag

Lachlan 717
26-Mar-2013, 22:26
Old thread, I know.

Anyway, I'm interested to know if these will cover ULF, namely 11x14 and 7x17".

Some conflicting information out there…

Thanks in advance!

Len Middleton
26-Mar-2013, 22:42
Lachlan,

You might find this current thread of interest as it deals with published image circle versus usable on ULF: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?101573-Curious-Minds-%96-Image-Circle-Circle-of-Illumination-ULF-and-Contact-Prints

Hope that helps,

Len

Lachlan 717
26-Mar-2013, 22:55
Thanks, Len.

Actually, reading that thread is what made me ask.

Its contention is fine: many lenses cover more than specified.

In addition, threads like this one (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?14330-7x17-lenses) give specifics.

The trouble comes when someone claims a given lens will cover format X and there is no information/linking to substantiate the claim.

This is the case with the 165mm SA. I have read a claim that it does cover 11x14, so was hoping for an anecdotal confirmation or dismissal.

Len Middleton
26-Mar-2013, 23:58
Lachlan,

I share some of the same concerns, in that there is a lot of claims being made, and as Dan noted in the other thread often by those selling lenses.

The Internet contains a great many opinions and some facts, understanding what is opinion and what is fact can difficult, beyond what those who make the lenses and are prepared to put their claims in writing on data / spec sheets.

The result is we either test or go on hearsay. I have little time or surplus money available to photograph as-is, without investing in testing as well. Like many others I expect I will follow hearsay, but pay close attention as to who is talking.

Good luck,

Len

E. von Hoegh
27-Mar-2013, 08:51
Len, http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/super-angulon/data/8-165mm.html

Oren Grad
27-Mar-2013, 11:20
Lachlan - I have a 165 SA that I intend to try on 11x14. I have put it on the camera and from the GG it looks as though it will just cover when stopped down, but I haven't exposed any film yet.

EDIT: An afterthought - I'm sure the falloff will be substantial, and I'm not sure how comfortable I'll be with that. I recently got a center filter for my 120 SA for use on 8x10, because the falloff bothered me enough when pushing that lens to the limit. Alas, the CF for the 165 is frightfully expensive, so with that lens I'll either live with the falloff or retreat to something a bit longer.

Lachlan 717
27-Mar-2013, 23:37
Lachlan - I have a 165 SA that I intend to try on 11x14. I have put it on the camera and from the GG it looks as though it will just cover when stopped down, but I haven't exposed any film yet.

EDIT: An afterthought - I'm sure the falloff will be substantial, and I'm not sure how comfortable I'll be with that. I recently got a center filter for my 120 SA for use on 8x10, because the falloff bothered me enough when pushing that lens to the limit. Alas, the CF for the 165 is frightfully expensive, so with that lens I'll either live with the falloff or retreat to something a bit longer.

Thanks, Oren. I'll defer to your findings!

(By the way, as you're currently on post #3,999, congratulations on the impending 4,000th post!!)

Len Middleton
28-Mar-2013, 00:41
Len, http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/super-angulon/data/8-165mm.html

EvH,

Actually it is Lachlan who would be looking for that information.

I have the non-SA version (165mm / f6.8) for my 8x10, but even if the 165 SA would cover 8x20 is much too wide for my vision on 8x20. The 355mm is close to the wide end of my vision there.

Thanks for your efforts to help,

Len

Oren Grad
29-Mar-2013, 16:49
(By the way, as you're currently on post #3,999, congratulations on the impending 4,000th post!!)

:eek:

Makes me feel as old and decrepit as some of my cameras!