Attention! 550 Fine Art XXL Owners

[Richard K.]

It has come to my attention that there is a defect in this otherwise OK lens that will cause you to become sterile (artistically, anway) UNLESS you immediately send it to a worthy but needy person that lives close to the Humber River in Etobicoke, Canada! :D
I know it sounds weird but I don't just make these things up!....OK, OK then how about lending it to me for a few weeks? ...Fat chance of that, huh?

Alrightie then...what I'd really like to know, for those of you using this on 12x20 or smaller format, why this and not a 24" RDA or Fuji 600? Have you compared them? What is the difference and can it be seen in a contact print? Curious minds would like to know!!

[Erik Larsen]

HI Richard,
I've not used the fuji or the 550, but have used the 24 RDA on 11x14 in b/w and it is scary (don't look too close or you'll get cut) sharp. How it compares contrast wise I don't know. If the other two lenses are better than the RDA than they must be exceptional lenses. I have no reason to want better and it might just be a case of the old adage - ignorance is bliss. I find it exceptional and try to find excuses to use it:)
regards
Erik

[Michael Kadillak]

Alrightie then...what I'd really like to know, for those of you using this on 12x20 or smaller format, why this and not a 24" RDA or Fuji 600? Have you compared them? What is the difference and can it be seen in a contact print? Curious minds would like to know!!

I know several people that use the 550 XXL and have been told that there is little ascertainable difference on 12x20 or smaller between it and a RDA or a Fuji. Surely not what the price tag suggests.

Beyond this format is where the 550 XXL fills its niche.

Save your money for sheet film and go make some photographs.

[Richard K.]

I know several people that use the 550 XXL and have been told that there is little ascertainable difference on 12x20 or smaller between it and a RDA or a Fuji. Surely not what the price tag suggests.

Beyond this format is where the 550 XXL fills its niche.

Save your money for sheet film and go make some photographs.

Now that's what I wanted to hear! $5000+ goes a long way towards film, gas and beer!:D

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I have been very happy with my 21 1/4" Ilex Process Paragon lens on my 11x14. Yes it is scary sharp too. Great lens that is not to big. Paid less than $200 for it in the box! It was virtually unused.

Jim

[Kirk Fry]

I bet you can see the difference in the corners at a 20X enlargement on a print with a loupe. K

[Richard K.]

I bet you can see the difference in the corners at a 20X enlargement on a print with a loupe. K

LOL but maybe a bit too close for comfort...I'm not like that any more!:rolleyes:

[vinny]

I haven't used the 550xxl but I owned a 24" artar and the 600mm fujinon. Both nice lenses. The artar is very heavy compared to the fujinon unless you find an aluminum barreled version. The largest format I've used them on was 8x10. Both make sharp negs. I'd try to borrow both from someone if you can for a test. I'd put my money on the fujinon.

[Drew Wiley]

I know that 600C Fujinons are being routinely used on 20X24 Polaroid studio cameras, without significant movements of course. My own experience is only on 8x10 and
highly satisfactory.

[Don7x17]

I bet you can see the difference in the corners at a 20X enlargement on a print with a loupe. K

Most of us ULF (>8x10) image makers don't enlarge. Instead, msot of us contact print using alt processes. Some alt processes with rough paper like Pt/Pd are very forgiving. Others, like POP and (not an alt-process) contact printing AZO,etc are less forgiving of lenses.

However, I do know of one other 12x20 driver that does enlarge, often to "room sized" proportions. Clyde Butcher down in Florida uses both XXL lenses to make TMX 100 12x20, and the negatives are enlarged using a rebuilt process camera (the old room sized cameras were used in the electronics industry, and also by pressmen. Although he does not often answer his email, give him a call and chat with him about his experiences against previous lenses.

[Don7x17]

It has come to my attention that there is a defect in this otherwise OK lens that will cause you to become sterile (artistically, anway) UNLESS you immediately send it to a worthy but needy person that lives close to the Humber River in Etobicoke, Canada! :D
I know it sounds weird but I don't just make these things up!....OK, OK then how about lending it to me for a few weeks? ...Fat chance of that, huh?

Alrightie then...what I'd really like to know, for those of you using this on 12x20 or smaller format, why this and not a 24" RDA or Fuji 600? Have you compared them? What is the difference and can it be seen in a contact print? Curious minds would like to know!!

Richard

I use both the 600C and 550XXL.
The 550XXL has a listed f22 image circle of 900 while the 600C has iamge circle of 620 at f22 (both infinity focus).

http://www.schneider-kreuznach.com/pdf/foto/fine_art_lens.pdf
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/c.htm

Why do I keep both?

I prefer the slightly crisper(contrastier, some perceived sharpness but haven't done l/mm test) of 550 12x20 negatives. However, I prefer carrying the 600 over the 550 when I am away from the vehicle. Frankly the 550 is huge even for a 6'6" person like myself to be schlepping. Second issue is that the filters are also huge and far more expensive for the 5509XXL, which compounds the load....carrying a group of 135mm glass filters is also a pain(I standardized years ago on 135 due to other large lenses and have SKGrimes cut stepup rings like 122->135. The 600C has a filter size of only 67mm - little jewels in comparison to the demitasse plate-sized 135mm glass filters.

Base weight for 550XXL lists at 2460 grams (5.4 pounds) vs 600C 575 grams( 1.3 pounds). 550XXL is massive in size- it literally feels like a small boulder in large hands whereas the 600C is merely a fist-sized rock.

Why did I sell the 24RDA? Nice lens, much heavier than 600 at time, and 600 negatives were better. Sold when I picked up the 600C back in about 1997. ( YMMV depending upon which versions of 24RDA lenses you got. My 24RDA wasn't new, but wasn't a beater either. It gave images that were just as nice as the 600C, I just prefered the 600C )

based upon the image circles, you'd expect the 550XXL to produce a better negative at the same relative location as the edge of the smaller image circle of the 600C.... Next time I'm out I'll put them each on the arca 8x10 FC and compare the two lenses (why waste a couple of 12x20 sheets?) at the comparable edge of the 600C for both lenses), as well as edge of 550xxl.

(I had Keith build my 12x20 in 1995 with a front standard set for arca 171x171 boards. All my lenses are setup for both cameras without switching).

Which brings us to one last issue with the 550xxl -- can the front standard of your camera take a lens board large enough to handle the 125mm diameter of the rear element? as well as the crushing weight of this lens on an extended track?

All this being said, I think you'd be happy with the 600c and investing the difference in film. At $360-450 a box of 25 sheets, the difference won't go as far as it used to.

Don

(Richard - PM if you want to discuss details by phone, etc)

[Richard K.]

Richard

I use both the 600C and 550XXL.
....................
based upon the image circles, you'd expect the 550XXL to produce a better negative at the same relative location as the edge of the smaller image circle of the 600C....

Don, thank you so much for your detailed reply. I'm posting in the forum for now since I think others may be interested in this! (I may PM you later) I guess my specific question is:

"For 12x20 or 14x17 or 8x20, will one see more contrast/detail/less darkening in the edges/corners of a silver contact PRINT with the XXL compared to the Fuji 600?"

I'm pretty sure that looking at the neg with a loupe will show huge differences but if you're not enlarging (like Clyde Butcher), who cares, as long as the contact prints look similarly sharp. Since you actually DO own both lenses, I'm very interested in your appraisal!

I've had a few experiences where I've seen Pt prints taken with lenses that supposedly cover, but that in fact illuminate only. When the photograph was reshot with a lens (same focal length) that truly covered, it was obvious that it was sharper to the corners, with better contrast and to my eye, much more satisfying. And yes it was a BIGGER lens! For me, the extra size and weight was worth it. For others, softness in the corners is acceptable for Pt prints. I guess it's a matter of preference, and a personal benefit-cost analysis. BUT if there IS no difference to be seen...well, that's where you come in Don! Tell us.

I agree with your caution re weight etc.!

Thanks, Don.

[Richard K.]

BTW Don; you seem to have your PM amd e-mail blocked?:confused:

[Don7x17]

BTW Don; you seem to have your PM amd e-mail blocked?:confused:

Oops on the PM/email. I had it blocked several months ago unblocked now.

I propose making 3 8x10 negatives - on TMY100 or TMY400. horizontal format on right hand side of circle
A) 600c at the edge
B) same location without shifting camera for 550lens, but with slight refocus(focal length differs)
C) Rotate on tripod to bring 550 edge to same image location as 600C. Might require a minute amount of refocus but depth of field should cover anyway.

yes, there will be a slight difference in the image size on the film -- ~600mm vs ~550mm lens.

Subject- across a wide river in a deep canyon out here in PNW to avoid random heat effects.
Subject will be an active industrial complex with many electrical wires and building edges. Any loss of sharpness and contrast should be apparent in both negative and a silver contact print.
Since same film batch and developed in Jobo for silver in Jobo 3005 tank - same contrast excepting for lenses, and of course any sun/cloud changes which can be avoided.
Exposure times between shutters aren't calibrated...shouldn't be an issue. We can measure curves of resulting film using densitometers.

Unfortunately, the weather forcast for this weekend is for rains. Not only not good for equipment but that adds a random atmospheric variable. We'll have to wait. Since Oregon-Washington have rain in Nov, a good weekend may be a bit away.

Both lenses purchased new and are carefully stored/transported in padded environment, so should not have problems (and both are Copal 3 which are hardy compared to a Copal 0).


Comments?

[Richard K.]

My comment is that I really want to see the results and I really appreciate you doing this. It is an excellent real-world test and should satisfy our curiosity about discernable or not corner performance differences between these two lenses! THANK YOU! for doing this.

[Tracy Storer]

Hell YES. Very much looking forward to the results, for myself as well as my big-camera-buying customers.

[Richard K.]

I propose making 3 8x10 negatives - on TMY100 or TMY400. horizontal format on right hand side of circle
A) 600c at the edge
B) same location without shifting camera for 550lens, but with slight refocus(focal length differs)
C) Rotate on tripod to bring 550 edge to same image location as 600C. Might require a minute amount of refocus but depth of field should cover anyway......
Subject will be an active industrial complex with many electrical wires and building edges. Any loss of sharpness and contrast should be apparent in both negative and a silver contact print..... Since Oregon-Washington have rain in Nov, a good weekend may be a bit away.

Bump. How's the weather looking, Don? :)

[Don7x17]

Bump. How's the weather looking, Don? :)

Solid rain through next week.
its the usual Pacific Northwest with a Pineapple express (wet flow from Hawaii) incoming. Heavy rains this weekend....

Give it time. It'll clear

[Kirk Fry]

I have looked at Clyde's prints up close in the corners. The 6 by 8 foot ones. They are truly astounding but in the corners the grain shows optical distortion you don't need a loupe to see from the distance of 12 inches or so (depending on you eye glasses of course). Could be in the negative or the enlarger. Clyde has an enlarger the size of a small house. They had pictures of it at the show. K

[Don7x17]

I have looked at Clyde's prints up close in the corners. The 6 by 8 foot ones. They are truly astounding but in the corners the grain shows optical distortion you don't need a loupe to see from the distance of 12 inches or so (depending on you eye glasses of course). Could be in the negative or the enlarger. Clyde has an enlarger the size of a small house. They had pictures of it at the show. K

Exactly why you'd want to see the negative. You'd know then whether it was lens or enlarger.

You say the grain is distorted? that'd be in the enlargement....

[Don7x17]

Took the Arca FC 8x10 out last Sunday with the lenses.
Looks like this won't be a path for success - unless I were to create a giant bag bellows capable of 600mm lenses.....I couldn't get to edge of the 600C(the smallest image circle) with movements on the 8x10 before the bellows pinched (even with indirect displacement as the front and rear shift isn't enough. Looks like I'm going to have to defrost some older film and use the 7x17 or 12x20 to get to the edges of coverage of these lenses

This will have to wait until the next **dry** weekend.

[Steve Hamley]

Thanks Don,

Send that wet weather down South, right now we'll take all of it.

Cheers,

Steve

[Richard K.]

Thanks Don. Let us know...:)