Alternatives to 110mm xl?

[Former Member 8144]

Hi,

For shooting 5x4 I like the 110mm focal length...but the cost is a bit much right now.
(I had it in the past and really liked it but alas...it is no longer with me)
I also like its small size, weight and fast aperture, and large image circle.

How do the alternatives fair such as the grandagon 115mm, fuji 105mm, schneider 120mm, etc.

Its not for architectural work with massive movements but enough rise/fall and shift is needed for composition when you can't move any more!

I know any of them will involve a compromise in terms of either weight, image circle, viewing brightness, etc over the 110 but...

Thanks,

Marc

[Bob McCarthy]

I don't think the Nikon 120 SW is in any way an optical compromise. A touch more weight, and I believe a larger image circle.

bob

[Ron Marshall]

Another vote for the Nikon SW 120. It is heavier and darker than the 110 but a fine lens. Mine is used mostly on the 5x7.

Have a look at KEH, they have the Grandagon 115 and several 120s for prices $350 and up.

[Sal Santamaura]

Another vote for the Nikon SW 120...And you can purchase one brand spanking new for a good price:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36877-GREY/Nikon_1346_Wide_Angle_120mm_f_8.html#

[Drew Wiley]

I picked up a 125 Fuji W as a lightweight alternative to my true wide-angle architectual lenses. More even field of illumination so need need for a center filter,
bright viewing, and tack sharp. Modest movements on 4x5 so suitable for garden-variety architecture, but not for the extreme stuff (where I've used a 120SA or Nikkor 90SW). It's a tradeoff between portability and a big image circle, but one possiblity if
you don't want to spend the big bucks of a 110XL or risk picking up on of the early
lemon ones. For interiors I personally don't like the f/8 wide angles (hard to focus,
especially with a CF in place).

[aduncanson]

I am considering the same question except for 5x7. The Fuji 105mm SW, 115 Grandagon, 120-121mm Super Angulons and even the highly esteemed 120 Nikon, seem like bargains compared to the 110 SSXL. More compact alternatives include wide angle designs from Goerz, Meyer & Wollensak & Voigtlander - most of which just don't seem like bargains at their typical asking prices. The most readily available true bargain in the neighborhood is the 120/6.8 Schneider Angulon. I am satisfied with mine (so far) and it will also save you weight over the 110 SSXL.

[Per Madsen]

I can also recommend the Schneider Apo-symmar-L 120 mm, which is small, very sharp and a fairly recent design (2002).

[Rodney Polden]

The 120mm Nikkor-SW leads the pack IMHO in every way but the aperture, where it is only half to one stop less bright than the others. I find an f8 is a very usable lens in most circumstances - think how many people swear by the 90mm f8 Nikkor, and all the others who use f9 G-Clarons, Artars etc. Careful focussing of wide-angles really requires a good loupe, 6x or better still 8x. When there is enough magnification, the detail pops in and out of focus pretty clearly.

Coverage? The 120 Nikkor will work fine on 8x10 (I.C. of ~315mm, from memory), so on 4x5 you've got loads of elbow room. It's an excellent wide on 5x7 too, if you ever need that option.

Hunt around and you can find a 120 Nikkor-SW for less than half the price of a used 110, I'm guessing.

[Warren Clark]

Hi marc,
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Schneider 120/5.6 SS HM-
hi quality optics and one of my most used lenses. I also use the
Fuji 120/8 SW on 5x7 and is excellent as well.

Warren Clark
Ft. Collins,Colo.

[Warren Clark]

Hello again,
Correction on my post -- The Fuji is 105/8

Warren Clark

[Andrew ren]

i use a fuji 105/8 sw, the older version, single-coated and marked on inner ring. on my 5x7.

very happy with the result.

Andrew

[archivue]

a second hand 110...

http://www.teamworkphoto.com/

[Steve Hamley]

I have to second the idea of a used 110mm Schneider SS XL.

I investigated lighter alternatives to the 110 for hiking use, and concluded there really aren't any - but some are close. Nothing is as sharp, has as much coverage, or is as flare resistant which was important to me as I do near-far sunrise and sunset shots with it.

For a while I used a 120mm Apo Symmar, and liked it very much, but not a lot of coverage to spare if you needed it, which I usually don't. Then came the time I needed the lens for a shot from a footbridge on a trail, and the 120mm was just too long and I had to borrow a friend's 110mm since I couldn't back up. The alternative was to use the 80mm and crop more than I'd like. So the 110mm went back in the 'everyday" pack.

I'm testing a 4-3/8" (111mm) f/8 WA Gold Dagor in a Compur #1, and it looks promising. Its flare resistant (but not quite as good as the Schneider), and quite a bit lighter. It has plenty of coverage for 4x5. But it costs a good fraction of a used 110mm because of the cult status and relative rarity, so from a financial standpoint, it really isn't a viable alternative.

Cheers, Steve

[John T]

My compact alternative to my 110 xl is a 4-3/8" WA Dagor, but without the gold ring. Great lens but without the cult stigma and price tag. As Steve mentioned, flares a little more than the 110 so a good compendium helps a lot. However, if you use filters, you need to apply flat black paint on the writing around the front element. I noticed a little flare before I did this.

[Sideshow Bob]

you don't want to spend the big bucks of a 110XL or risk picking up on of the early
lemon ones. For interiors I personally don't like the f/8 wide angles (hard to focus,
especially with a CF in place).

I know that there was a problem with some of the 80XL's but I haven't heard there was a problem with the 110XL. Do you know the range of serial numbers that were bad or have other info?
Thanks,
Gale

[Songyun]

I know that there was a problem with some of the 80XL's but I haven't heard there was a problem with the 110XL. Do you know the range of serial numbers that were bad or have other info?
Thanks,
Gale

I know a 80ssxl start with 149 has this problem.

[Sideshow Bob]

I know a 80ssxl start with 149 has this problem.

I'm asking about problems with the 110XL.
Gale

[Former Member 8144]

Thanks guys for all these replies...great info.
I know of most of these lenses but nothing of some such as the dagor.

I'l be getting this lens in about a month or so and it will be part of a three set including a 210 or 240mm and a wider 75 or 90mm, all depending on what focal length my main lens ends up as (110/120/125, etc).

The fuji 125mm seem like a good overall compromise in terms of aperture, 5.6, coverage, 204mm and weight. That 204 image circle is really the minimum movements I want for my needs. How do they perform and are there any big differences between the older but mulicoated W's and the newer versions?

Nikkors look good by all accounts but perhaps more coverage than I need at the price of weight and slightly darker.

A 120 super symmar looks a good bet but these days may go for so close to the 110?

Would be interesting to hear more about the dagors in terms of how they perform..look, sharpness, etc.

I had to sell all my large format gear about a year ago and am really looking forward to putting a kit together again and starting work on my two new projects.

Cheers,

Marc

[Songyun]

I'm asking about problems with the 110XL.
Gale

I have never seen a bad sample in person, but I think someone one this forum mentioned once. btw, I have seen a lot bad samples of 80ssxl.

[David Karp]

Marc,

The older multicoated Fujinon NW 125mm with EBC coating has something like a 198mm image circle, so it is smaller than the new version. In other respects, it is a very nice lens.

[Steve Hamley]

Marc,

The Dagor's advantage is size. It's certainly a good lens, but I would expect the Schneider to maintain sharpness off center better, be better corrected, and more flare resistant (which it is). I haven't done any lp/mm comparison tests, but if you look at the attached jpegs you'll see the advantage of the Dagor in the Compur. They also came in Ilex shutters, but you'll lose the weight advantage with the Ilex.

Goerz very optimistically specified them at 100 degrees of coverage, and while the might illuminate 100 degrees, I think 90 degrees or so is a more reasonable figure. Still, 90 degrees would give you 222mm of coverage plus likely a bit more. Ninety five degrees would give 238mm of coverage. The 6-1/2" WA Dagor will cover 8x10 plus a little at f/45. Others say it will cover 10x12 fully stopped down, and that would indeed yield about 100 degrees.

You can find the Goerz literature here, scroll down to page 19.

http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/goerz_3.html

Cheers, Steve

[Frank Petronio]

For the money, a 90/4.5 Grandagon gives you an amazing and versatile lens for half the price of a 110XL. Enough so that I might rethink my lens combo and organize it around something like a 90-150-240 than a 80-110-210 for example.

Personally I rather have two big, bright, higher-end lenses than a rack of little, dim, mediocre ones. A 90-210 combo is pretty sweet actually.

[Oren Grad]

I have the 115/6.8 Grandagon. It's a fine lens, but I got it for larger formats - it's more than I'd normally want to carry for 4x5.

[Former Member 8144]

Comparing older lenses like the dagor mentioned to the more modern one such as the schneider, nikon, etc, shooting in colour, printing to 40x30 inches, shots of objects, buildings, people within a landscape a opposed to any close up work, what kind of differences am I going to see?
Is it just in sharpness, big colour differences, soft at the edges?

...and can someone block the spammer above?

Cheers,

Marc

[Carsten Wolff]

A while back I managed to score a coated 108mm/f6.5 Cooke Series VIIb WA Anastigmat. Is actually a better lens than the 110mm XL in many respects. Its two weaknesses are: Really rare and too small to find a (center) filter for. Mine is in a Copal 0 and so small that it is flush with the shutter (!). Image circle 260mm+, weight 140g in shutter. For the life of me I can't see any issues with it with regards to image quality, be it color of b/w and I've had it as my w/a standard for 6x17 and 5x7 for ages. If Cooke Optics ever decided to re-issue this lens, esp. at a decent price and perhaps even offer a CF for it, the SSXL line is in trouble. :)

[Sal Santamaura]

...and can someone block the spammer above?...Which post are you referring to? I don't see anything that looks like spam and no posts have been deleted in the thread yet.

The "emergency triangle" icon under each poster's information is the way to report suspected spam, etc. to our volunteer moderators. They don't have time to read every post in every thread.

[Oren Grad]

Sal, there was a spam post which has since been deleted.

[Vick Vickery]

Marc, since you indicated that "cost is a bit much right now", I'd suggest you take a look at the old Kodak 100mm Wide Field Ektar. They are often seen on eBay and usually sell for way less than $200 even for a clean one. They will cover 5x7 and are quite small and light.

[Sal Santamaura]

Sal, there was a spam post which has since been deleted.Interesting; thanks Oren. There must have been a change, since previously all such deleted posts were shown as "deleted" and the thread carried a trash can symbol.

[Steve Hamley]

Probably the biggest difference in the WA Dagor and similar vintage designs will be a significantly increased sharpness at wide apertures of the 110mm SS XL. This may be significant since you mention compositions with "movey things" (people) where the faster shutter speeds of wide apertures may be an advantage.

It's important to remember that the WA Dagors were some of the best lenses in the world up until the sixties, and many professionals made livings with them and you can too.

But given your stated objectives, I'd be looking for a used 110mm given the price of good late WA Dagors.

Cheers, Steve

[John NYC]

A bit of a newbie question interjection from the peanut gallery... I've read here here that you don't need to use a center filter with the 110XL. If that is the case, is this lens really that much more expensive than some of the other lens choices mentioned if you also have to buy a CF for them? Center filters seem to be (new, at least) VERY expensive.

[John T]

If you are shooting b/w film, there is quite a bit of exposure latitude and you can dodge the print to even up the exposure. The center filter is convenient, but can be left off.

If you are shooting transparencies the film will definitely show the light fall off. Some people like the dark edges so a center filter is not necessary for them.

Remember, if you use the center filter, the 5.6 magically darkens, so some of the alternative lenses may not be that much darker at max aperture

[Donald Miller]

I shot the 120 apo symmar too until I switched to 5X7. I really liked that lens and would not have sold it had I not went to the larger format.

Donald Miller

[Steve Hamley]

John NYC,

Whether or not you need a center filter is almost always a matter of opinion. If you find your corners too dark, then you need one.

Some things to consider are format. If you're using the 110mm on 8x10, pushing it to the limit, then IMO you need a center filter. On 4x5, you don't. On 5x7, maybe depending on your taste and if you're using a lot of movements.

The Schneider Super Symmar XL series has more fall off than their competitors. The increased fall off was part of the design trade offs, so you might need a center filter more with this series than with others.

Cheers, Steve

[Vincent Malaud]

How would rate the 115/6.8 Grandagon to be used on a 4x5 for architectural shots compare to the SSXL 110?

[Vincent Malaud]

I mean obviously the 110XL must be better but is there a huge difference in terms of quality?

[Bob Salomon]

I mean obviously the 110XL must be better but is there a huge difference in terms of quality?

Why obviously?

[Vincent Malaud]

Why obviously?

More recent design, the lens praised by every one... but if you know better about the Rodenstock 115 grandagon please tell me because there is very little information on the net :confused:

[Bob Salomon]

More recent design, the lens praised by every one... but if you know better about the Rodenstock 115 grandagon please tell me because there is very little information on the net :confused:

Just contact Muenchen and ask for the performance curves and then compare them to the ones from Obercochen.

[Rust Never Sleeps]

The 120mm Nikkor-SW leads the pack IMHO in every way but the aperture, where it is only half to one stop less bright than the others. I find an f8 is a very usable lens in most circumstances - think how many people swear by the 90mm f8 Nikkor, and all the others who use f9 G-Clarons, Artars etc. Careful focussing of wide-angles really requires a good loupe, 6x or better still 8x. When there is enough magnification, the detail pops in and out of focus pretty clearly.

Coverage? The 120 Nikkor will work fine on 8x10 (I.C. of ~315mm, from memory), so on 4x5 you've got loads of elbow room. It's an excellent wide on 5x7 too, if you ever need that option.

Hunt around and you can find a 120 Nikkor-SW for less than half the price of a used 110, I'm guessing.


I agree with Rodney and the others that recommended the Nikon 120 SW but it is not just a little bigger than the 110 XL but a lot bigger. 77mm front and a huge rear element although it is the smallest of the 120 modern wide angle designs. The lens has such a big image circle that I don't find it a problem as far as image brightness for composing and focusing is concerned. If you want a big image circle without paying a premium for the 110 XL then the Nikon is your ticket if you don't mind the extra size and weight. I have one and will kill if it's taken from me :D

I love the 90mm focal length and find the 110mm too close so a 120mm is the best step up in focal length IMHO.