View Full Version : Used 75mm and 90mm or 80 XL

30-Jun-2007, 18:39
In shopping for my first wide angle I've noted that one can aquire a used 75mm/4.5 Rodenstock or Schneider 75mm SA depending on brand preference as well as a used 90mm Grandagon or SA in a 9+ condition for about the same price as a brand new 80 XL. When I was shooting my Canon DSLR I started with the 16-35/2.8 L lens and then one year decided to add the 24-70/2.8L to fill in between the 16-35 and 70-200 FL gap. Am I ever glad I did. The year I bought the 24-70, the 16-35 went for a crash in Acadia NP right on the Otter rocks-the front element was toast. If it were not for the 24-70, I would have been without WA capability for the remainder of the trip. So I guess my thinking now is, if I can get a 75/90 pair in 9+ condition for the same price as a new 80 XL, is this not a cheap insurance policy. I will be heading to Zion NP this fall, and already I'm imagining what a crisis if I only had the 80 XL and it went for a ride:eek: I'm wondering if others on this forum are taking this approach given the very reasonable prices for used optics in such excellent condition?

Gene McCluney
1-Jul-2007, 00:24
Sure, your idea is a good one for having a working back-up wide-angle lens. You don't say what format you are planning to shoot. It is possible the 80 XL will cover a larger format with movements, than the older traditional wide angles will. If that is the case, you have no choice. For 4x5 I have a 65mm, 75mm and 90mm and find there are situations where I need all three.

1-Jul-2007, 05:19
I'm currently shooting 4x5 and at some point will add a 6x9/6x12 roll film back

1-Jul-2007, 07:04
It's only insurance if you bring them both. Plus potentially an extra set of filters. One of the reasons for going with the 80mm is to avoid bringing both.

Alan Davenport
1-Jul-2007, 07:57
Not only is it cheap insurance, but there's really a lot of difference between 75mm and 90mm. I'm not sure an 80mm lens would be the equal of the pair.

1-Jul-2007, 08:05
Good point Nick. The 90mm would take me into another filter dimension. Currently using Singh Ray warm tone circular polarizer and color enhancer circular polarizer in a slim mount 77mm thread. It would cost me more than $500 to uprez these filters to a larger thread. I guess with my incident in Acadia I am a bit paranoid now. I suppose I could just have a replacement optic shipped out while on location and just wait for the insurance claim to come in....assuming a replacement 80mm was available.Weight wise, the 80XL is 0.6 lb, while the 75 is 0.97 lb and the 90mm is 1.54 lb. This is a factor of 4x in weight....

Brian Vuillemenot
1-Jul-2007, 17:21
If you shoot a lot of wide angle shots, go for the pair, as there's an appreciable difference in the feel and angle of view between them. The 80 SS-XL (as well as the other new Schneider SS's and SA's and Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S's) are just very hyped up, and not worth the huge differences in price. Of course, then you'll need something in the 55-58 and 105-110 mm range to finish your set of wide angle lenses... ;)

Carsten Wolff
2-Jul-2007, 20:21
I agree with Smart Ass.
Since I didn't feel like forking out 2 grand for a 80XL, I bought a 75/4.5 SW Nikkor, relatively cheap (longish story) to supplement my nice 90/6.8 Grandagon and haven't looked back. For longer hikes I've been substituting the Grandagon with an old 90/6.8 Angulon, which has been working well for me; however, my recent aquisition of a 4 3/8" WA Dagor is starting to replace the Angulon..... [both being small lenses, there's of course nothing in the way of having both in my pack....] So now I can change to 5x7 when needed (I've mostly gone to 4x5 (+6x17) for color transparencies and 5x7 for b/w). 4 3/8" is nice and wide in 5x7, like an 80mm in 4x5, really.
......wait a minute!!!!.....:)