Schneider 210mm Angulon Question.

[Keith Tapscott.]

I know that these lenses are quite old, but do they perform well and cover the 8x10 format? Also, what should I expect to pay for a good one?
I don`t yet own an 8x10 Camera, but this is a format that I am considering for landscape and outdoor subjects and I have yet to decide which Camera type to buy.

[Ole Tjugen]

1) Yes, they do cover 8x10" - with LOTS of movements. Unless you're as bad as I am, you will NEVER run out of coverage. Mine covers 24x36cm (9.5x12") very sharp, and 30x40cm (12x16") with "acceptable sharpness" all the way into the corners.

If you can find an affordable one, buy it. Mine is a 1938 model and uncoated, but it's still one of the most useful lenses I own for the 8x10" format.

[John Schneider]

They'll cover 11x14. My Linhof model is as sharp in the center as any modern glass, but a bit less sharp toward the edges. They were made over many years and with widely varying levels of QC. Price also varies widely, depending upon condition, shutter, and things like Linhof or Sinar branding. For a "good one" in Copal 3 probably $600+, less for an older one in a Compound.

[Keith Tapscott.]

Thanks Ole. John`s comment that it will cover 11x14 is reassuring. It should be good for B&W, but what about colour films?
There is an article in the `Amateur Photographer` magazine this week about photographer `Harry Cory-Wright, who uses a Gandolfi 8x10 wood and brass view Camera and a 240mm lens to photograph the British isles. Harry uses ISO 160 colour negative film, although I am not sure how the colour fidelity would be with an older non-coated lens such as the Angulon 210mm.
Harry`s comments on why he uses an 8x10 Camera for the print quality are interesting:

"You are not just looking at a small speck in the distance that is a boat or a tree. On 8x10 film, it is a real boat and a real tree with leaves and colours passing through it. You see the paint peeling on the side of the boat and the bark detail on every branch. For viewers, it`s like being there at the time of exposure".

I think he has summed up the charm of large-format very well.

[Ole Tjugen]

Once again, I present a picture shot on 13x18cm (a smidgeon more than 5x7") film with a 165mm Angulon.

http://www.bruraholo.no/images/Lodalen.html

The 210mm is at least as good on 8x10" as this one is at 5x7".

[Matt Miller]

I once owned a 210 angulon in a compound shutter. It was my favorite lens ever and I'm stupid for selling it. I used it on 8x10 and was always happy with it's character and performance. I bought and sold it for $500.

[Gene McCluney]

Just because a lens was made in the 1930's and is uncoated is no indication of how it will perform with color film. The "only" generalization that can be made is that the lens will be more prone to flare.

[Keith Tapscott.]

Just because a lens was made in the 1930's and is uncoated is no indication of how it will perform with colour film. The "only" generalization that can be made is that the lens will be more prone to flare.
Wouldn`t a colour photograph taken with a non-coated lens be less saturated and of slightly lower contrast than one taken with a multi-coated lens?:confused:
Some photographers might prefer the results from an older lens for aesthetic/pictorial reasons, which is why I am asking questions about the Angulon.

[Peter K]

Wouldn`t a colour photograph taken with a non-coated lens be less saturated and of slightly lower contrast than one taken with a multi-coated lens?:confused:
Some photographers might prefer the results from an older lens for aesthetic/pictorial reasons, which is why I am asking questions about the Angulon.
The Angulon has the lowest possible glass/air surfaces, four. So there is no real difference between a coated and uncoated lens. Multi-coating is important for complex lenses with many air/glass surfaces like zoom-lenses to avoid flare and ghost-images. Flare reduce also the saturation of colors. But the color-fidelity is a question of the lens-construction and NOT the coating.

Peter K

[Ole Tjugen]

Wouldn`t a colour photograph taken with a non-coated lens be less saturated and of slightly lower contrast than one taken with a multi-coated lens?:confused:

Well, yes. Slighly less contrasty and slightly less saturated than if the same shot had been taken with a coated lens of the same type - that's as far as I'm willing to generalise. Remember that an Angulon has only four glass/air surfaces - two less than Tessars, half as many as dialytes and double-gauss lenses - and is inherently less prone to flare than many other lenses. The wide field increases the likelyhood of including something bright in the field of view, or even being stupid enough to let the sun shine on the front element. But if you do that, you will get flare regardless of coating!

http://www.bruraholo.no/Cameras/Angulon/

But a 210mm Angulon doesn't necessarily have to be uncoated. They were made over very long time, and most of them were coated!

[Peter K]

But a 210mm Angulon doesn't necessarily have to be uncoated. They were made over very long time, and most of them were coated!
My Angulon 165mm, made 1950 (!), is coated. Early coated Angulons, and other Schneider-lenses, are marked with a red triangle.

Peter K

[Ole Tjugen]

Even my 1939 90mm Angulon is coated.
- but my 1938 210mm Angulon is uncoated.

[Keith Tapscott.]

But a 210mm Angulon doesn't necessarily have to be uncoated. They were made over very long time, and most of them were coated!

That`s good.

[Ole Tjugen]

It doesn't always make that much difference!

This picture was shot with the uncoated 210mm Angulon, using absolutely maximum front rise as well as front and rear tilt to get even more rise, on 8x10". You can see that I managed to exceed the sharp coverage of even this lens, but keep in mind that everything in the picture is above the camera position. I tried "forcing" an image circle well in excess of 500mm, more like 650mm! The bellows is intruding in the bottom, too...

http://www.bruraholo.no/images/Senja_2007/Scan-070713-0003.jpg

[Mark Sawyer]

Is the Angulon design the same as the Dagor or the wide-angle Dagor? I've heard them called Dagor- and reverse-Dagor designs...

Keith ~ If you're going to be doing landscapes, you probably won't need a whole lot in the way of movements. The 210 Angulon might be expensive overkill. A 215mm f/4.8 Ilex Acuton (aka Caltar-S) is a lovely coated plasmat that covers 8x10 sharply to the corners with a little bit of movement, and converts to a 360mm, (even has a factory scale for the conversion on the shutter). They're often in the $150-$200 range for a nice one. There are quite a few other lenses that would work well on 8x10 in that focal range too...

[Peter K]

Is the Angulon design the same as the Dagor or the wide-angle Dagor? I've heard them called Dagor- and reverse-Dagor designs...
The Dagor is a double-anastigmat, rear- and front-part have the same focal-lenght. This is also true for the reversed Dagor. The Angulon remenbers the reversed Dagor, but the front- and rear-part have different focal-lenghts: 2 : 1,5 : 1 (front : rear : total). Also the outer surfaces are larger to avoid the vignetting problem of the reversed Dagor.

BTW, with 382mm image-circle the Angulon 210mm at f/16 can be shiftet 60 resp. 49 mm.

But there is a much better lens with 500 mm image-circle: the Super-Angulon 210!

Peter K

[Keith Tapscott.]

I bought a `new` Nikon 240mm f/5.6 Nikkor-W today. Mr Cad in Croyden, UK still have some of the final batches of the Nikon lenses in stock. I also bought a Sinar Norma 8x10 which also has a 4x5 reducing back and two 8x10 DDS`s. So I should receive my first 8x10 Camera by Tuesday.

[Peter K]

I bought a `new` Nikon 240mm f/5.6 Nikkor-W today. Mr Cad in Croyden, UK still have some of the final batches of the Nikon lenses in stock. I also bought a Sinar Norma 8x10 which also has a 4x5 reducing back and two 8x10 DDS`s. So I should receive my first 8x10 Camera by Tuesday.
Congratulations Keith :)

The Nikkor-W is a fine lens, and multi coated too ;) with an image-circle of 336m at f/22 it fills 8x10 but only not much more. So a nice Angulon 210mm, or Super-Angulon, could be your next lens in the short direction.

Much success with your LF-camera!

Peter K

[Keith Tapscott.]

Congratulations Keith :)

The Nikkor-W is a fine lens, and multi coated too ;) with an image-circle of 336m at f/22 it fills 8x10 but only not much more. So a nice Angulon 210mm, or Super-Angulon, could be your next lens in the short direction.

Much success with your LF-camera!

Peter KThanks Peter and also thanks to everyone who has replied to this thread.:)

[Ole Tjugen]

The Dagor is a double-anastigmat, rear- and front-part have the same focal-lenght. This is also true for the reversed Dagor. The Angulon remenbers the reversed Dagor, but the front- and rear-part have different focal-lenghts: 2 : 1,5 : 1 (front : rear : total). Also the outer surfaces are larger to avoid the vignetting problem of the reversed Dagor.

A "Double Anastigmat" is a lens consisting of two cells, each of which is an anastigmat in its own right. The cells do not need to have the same focal length.

A "Dagor" is a lens where each cell has three cemented elements in the order +-+. "Reversed Dagor" is used to designate a lens where the elements are in the -+- order. One example of this is the Zeiss Doppel-Amatar, another is the Angulon. The Angulon, as Peter writes, has an enlarged front element to avoid vignetting.



BTW, with 382mm image-circle the Angulon 210mm at f/16 can be shiftet 60 resp. 49 mm.

Schneiders stated image circles are very conservative, as my example above shows. That was shot with almost 250mm vertical shift - way more than 49mm! Admittedly it goes soft in the top, but 200mm vertical shift in portrait orientation should still give enough sharpness for contact prints.

Also: The construction of the Angulons was changed several times, and earlier examples have a less abrupt drop in sharpness when the stated image circle is exceeded. Many will find these quite acceptable for much larger image circles than Schneider states for the newer lenses. The original specification for the very first 210mm Angulons was 500mm image circle - but that is overly optimistic...

[panchro-press]

Are you guys talking about Angulons or Super Angulons...I'm confused.

[Ole Tjugen]

Most of the time, just plain Angulons. Super-Angulons have been mentioned three times, including your question.