Super Wides, Nikkor 120, Fuji 120 or 125, Super Angulon 120 or 121?

[Jack Flesher]

I'm confused on the 120's. Which has the biggest *usable* IC? I know what the specs say, but I have heard that the Schneider 121 actually covers quite a bit more than spec and quite a bit more than its 120 replacement. I'm then curious about performance, because I've also heard the SA 121 isn't nearly as good a performer resolution-wise as the SA 120. Also, I'd be curious to know falloff characteristics for these.

Thanks,

[Nick_3536]

For which format?

Do you mean 8x10 with movements?

[Jack Flesher]

For which format?

Do you mean 8x10 with movements?

I don't care if they cover 8x10 fully or not -- If I used something that wide on my 8x10 I would likely crop it down to a panoramic format anyway -- so I just want to hear from others about usability/practical-maximum coverages.


Thanks,

[Nick_3536]

The Nikon covers a full 8x10. My only problem on the 8x10 is the camera doesn't like going that wide. Which means a recessed board. But that's a camera issue not a lens one.

[Dave_B]

Jack:
Ole measured the IC for the SA121 and found that it covered 8x10. Perhaps he can weigh in on the details. I just checked my SA121 and compared it to my Nikkor SW120 and also found that they will both cover 8x10. With the SA121 you won't get much movement but things look OK in the corners. The Nikkor will give you some movement (~25mm?). The big difference is that the Nikkor stays somewhat brighter to the edges than the SA121.
Cheers,
Dave B.

[Eric Woodbury]

I had a SA 121 and it did cover 8x10. I used it for 5x7 and it was as sharp as other modern lenses. Now I use the SSXL110. It covers 810 also, but again I use it for 5x7 and 4x5. It too is a fine lens and smaller than the 121.

[Ole Tjugen]

I haven't used the 121 SA on the full 8x10" yet, but I've used it on 18x24cm which it covers with a little movements. I just put it on my 8x10" camera and it covers with "precision alignment".

Light falloff is about the same for all the "wasp-waist" WA lenses - in other words the same as when I use the 90/8 SA on 5x7". :)

[Jack Flesher]

Thanks Guys, this is exactly the type of information I'm looking for.

Dave, it sounds like the Nikkor is maybe the one to consider since it is brighter -- I think it is also a little smaller and lighter in weight too, right?

[Mido Holder]

I have 121 S. Angulon and 120 Nikkor SW. They are both tack sharp. 121 S. A. is a little bit smaller and lighter. 121 usually come with Compur shutter, of which slow shutter speeds tend to go slower or don't go at all, if you don't use it often. As the sayng goes, "If you don't use it you loose it." applies. The newer S.A. and Nikkor 120 come with Copal shutter, to which that saying does not seem to apply. I think the coverage is rather academic for 4x5 and 5x7. even for 8x10. The both have little wiggle room for 8x10.

[Dave_B]

Jack:
With a Linhof board and lens caps, the Nikkor weighs 664 grams and with a Linhof board and lens caps, the SA weighs 570 grams (both my lenses are already mounted). A Linhof board weighs roughly 60 grams by itself. In terms of size, they are roughly the same diameter with the SA maybe a cm longer. Not much difference in terms of size and weight. I like the Nikkors in general and this lens (the 120SW) in particular. My definite impression is that the image stayed brighter to the edge than the SA. I recall reading somewhere that the Nikkor SW's play optical games with the entrance pupil such that the intensity falls off like the cosine to the third power as opposed to the more typical cosine to the fourth power for most lenses. Maybe someone here knows if that is really true. I don't remember where I read that. In any event, either lens will work well for you.
Cheers,
Dave B.

[Jack Flesher]

Hmmm... Making the choice tougher! The SA signature is probably closer to my other Schneiders, but the Nikkor being brighter is a consideration.

While my main use will be on 4x5 -- so I know the IC is academic -- I would like to OPTION of using it on my 8x10 if I needed to go really wide. Thus I'd like it to match the look of my other lenses (mostly Schneiders) yet be able to press it into play on the 8x10. Hence I'd like to select the one that will give me the best performance within those two parameters.

I'm leaning toward the 121 since it is likely going to be cheaper...

[Ole Tjugen]

I recall reading somewhere that the Nikkor SW's play optical games with the entrance pupil such that the intensity falls off like the cosine to the third power as opposed to the more typical cosine to the fourth power for most lenses.

Most modern WA lenses do that. That's the reason behind the "wasp waist" design - a huge negative front and rear element gives an improved light falloff through the "tilted aperture" effect. Grandagons, Super Angulons, nikkor SW's and others are all the same in that respect.

The main difference is between these lenses (which approach cos^3) and the smaller lighter ones, which are about cos^4 (example: Plain Angulon, and Protar V).

Intermediate is the "big front/small rear" lenses, like the Super Symmar XL.

If you look around this site a bit you'll find that I've posted an example shot with a 90/8 SA on 5x7" film, and a link to a page of 90/6.8 Angulon on the same film size. The difference is obvious.