90mm Nikkor lens vs. 80mm S-Symmar XL

[Darryl Baird]

I'm trying to fill a gap in 4X5 lenses and started to think the 80mm Super Symmar XL was a fabulous choice. I've owned and used two 90mm Nikkors, 8 & 4.5. Both are fantastic in my view and experience.

QUESTION: Has anyone used both the Schneider AND (either of those) Nikon lenses who could put forth an opinion? The difference in price is significant. I like the idea of small, fast, and sharp that the 80mm offers, but is it really worth the extra cash?

thanks for your thoughts

DB

[turtle]

I'm trying to fill a gap in 4X5 lenses and started to think the 80mm Super Symmar XL was a fabulous choice. I've owned and used two 90mm Nikkors, 8 & 4.5. Both are fantastic in my view and experience.

QUESTION: Has anyone used both the Schneider AND (either of those) Nikon lenses who could put forth an opinion? The difference in price is significant. I like the idea of small, fast, and sharp that the 80mm offers, but is it really worth the extra cash?

thanks for your thoughts

DB

Nope. I have used and own the 90 f8 Nikkor and can tell you certain things with confidence:

The 80XL is less than 100 g lighter (about 85 I think). This is fairly trivial.
They both have the same filter size.
The XL is smaller by virtue of teh smaller rear assembly.
The 80 4.5 is of course faster and brighter
The image quality is effectively no different and not a consideration
The 90 Nikkors have a slightly bigger IC and so can be used on 5x7. The XL covers stright on with 0mm movement according to specs.

Personally, considering the cost issue, I would not bother unless I was interested in changing lens spacing ie 58, 80, 110 is a seriously appealing combo. Using the 90mm would normally means using a longer lens of either 120mm (limited movement unless you go for a huge f8) or 135, which has decent coverage compared to many 120mm plasmats (tho the 120L looks ok at 190mm).

As I say, the 80XL fits certtain lens spacings beatifully and can make more sense than a 90, but on performance alone, there is no wrong choice unless you struggled with the f8 aperture from an image brightness perspective. I see it more as a comparison between:

58,80,110 and 65,90,135.

My Nikkor 90mm F8 is razor sharp.

[Eric Leppanen]

If you shoot chrome film, then you may find that the SS80XL requires a center filter, which adds to the expense. The Nikon SW uses a different design that most folks find does not require a center filter.

If your vision and shooting style is biased toward the wide end, then an 80, 110 and normal lens combination (either 150 or 180) is hard to beat. If your vision is not that wide, or you are sensitive to cost, then a 90-135-180 lens set is a good way to go (90-120-150 or 180 is also possible, but the modern lightweight 120's tend to have limited coverage). Some folks even go 90-150-240 or similar.

The SSXL's primarily provide smaller size and weight for a given amount of coverage compared to previous designs (Nikon SW's, Super Angulons, etc.). Any optical superiority they provide is relatively minor (their flare characteristics may also be ever-so-slightly better). The trade-off of this smaller design is greater light falloff at the edge of the image circle, potentially requiring a center filter to correct. The SS110XL was a design tour-de-force that provided a tremendous amount of coverage in a small package. The SS80XL was less ambitious and provided a reasonable amount of coverage in a focal length which better complements the SS110XL. If you do not own a SS110XL then IMO the argument in favor of the SS80XL is weaker.

I personally like a 1.3x lens spacing and tend to use wide-angle lenses quite a bit, so I went with a 58-80-110-150 lens combination. But many folks prefer not to carry so many lenses.

As for maximum aperture, unless you frequently shoot in dark locations (bottoms of canyons, architectural interiors, etc.), I personally don't think that f/5.6 versus f/8 should be a major factor. The 90mm Grandagon-N f/6.8 splits the difference in this regard.

[evan clarke]

There may be a third option, how about the Rodenstock Grandagon 90mm F4.5????. I have the XL but I also have the 110 SS XL so the 80 fits my gap nicely (I use the 110 a lot and the 80 infrequently)...EC

[Darryl Baird]

Thanks.

My gap is between 58 and 135, but my concern is that I'm replacing two Fuji rangefinder cameras with 65mm (6x9) and 90mm (6x7) lenses respectively and I plan to shoot a lot of roll film on several ongoing projects. My Wista has a roll film back and I'll be able now go wider with both format sizes and gain tilt/shift/swing controls. I have the 90mm Nikkor on a 6x17, but I can't imagine switching the lens off the 6x17 to the Wista to shoot the same scene, so.... I scheme for the best bang for buck.

I was hoping somebody would say the 80 was the sharpest lens ever created in the universe and sway me... but logic prevails:)

looking to buy a Nikkor 90, either 4.5 or 8... (I notice several 4.5 lenses have sold for around 600 on ebay, which is quite the deal.)


Nope. I have used and own the 90 f8 Nikkor and can tell you certain things with confidence:

The 80XL is less than 100 g lighter (about 85 I think). This is fairly trivial.
They both have the same filter size.
The XL is smaller by virtue of the smaller rear assembly.
The 80 4.5 is of course faster and brighter
The image quality is effectively no different and not a consideration
The 90 Nikkors have a slightly bigger IC and so can be used on 5x7. The XL covers stright on with 0mm movement according to specs.

[turtle]

Darryl,

As long as you are happy with the gap of 58-90 I say go for it. I find the 65-90 gap quite big personally and would find 58-90 too much for me. Bear in mind you can sell one lens to get the spacing right if you are also not sure - but then again 58-90 miught be right for you. If you shoot wide (esp if you need wides for 120) and have the cash, you could go for 47-65-90-135....or 58-80-110/120. I agonise over these same issues but found when I settled on 65-90-135-203 I had no grumbles, altho somtimes I wanted a 75 with the coverage that comes with it compared to the 65.

Just to complicate matters, you could also consider a 75 instead of teh 90 as this cimpliments 58 very well and would likely get some use as a gentle wide on 120 rollfilm too. ;) Sorry!

[Brian Ellis]

I bought the 80mm XL as an alternative to carrying both a 75mm and a 90mm. I thought it was close enough to both in terms of focal length to serve as a substitute for carrying those two lenses. When viewed that way the cost of the 80mm XL is very reasonable and the weight and space saved is considerable. I never found a need for the center filter with the 80 though I mostly used b&w film. I can't compare it with the Nikons you mention because I never used them.

[Darryl Baird]

Since I was previously confined (by my Fuji rangefinder cameras) to shooting 65mm on 6x9 and 90mm on 6x7, I think with the 58mm and 90mm, that are now available to shoot either 6x7 or 6x9 fits my current needs best. 58 is wider on the6x9, but closer to my previous 65mm lens if I shoot 6x7. (bear with me this is confusing logic) and the 90mm will get an additional wider format with the ability to use it for 6x9. Since I have about four years of shooting already done in the previous formats, I think this is the best decision for the moment.

I appreciate the opportunity to think out loud with fellow shooters.