CF necessary on the 47XL ?

[paul owen]

I'm in the process of purchasing the Schneider 47XL and would like to hear from anyone using this lens, especially the use of the Schneider centre filter. I onl y use black and white and shoot landscape/architecture and plan to use the lens for panoramics (5x4 film masked in camera to 6x12)as well as occasional full fra me 5x4. I appreciate that for 6x12 I should be okay without the centre filter, b ut what about with 5x4 sheets? ANY advice or info on this lens and the combined CF would be greatly appreciated. Also, I routinely use an orange filter. I have standardised the filter size to 77mm and use step up rings on my lenses. To use an orange filter with the CF on the 47XL, what thread size is the CF? Quite a fe w questions but any help appreciated! Regards Paul

[Walter Glover]

Paul,

The 47mm XL is a superb asset, in my commercial work for interior designers, etc. on 6x12 and 6x9 it is just about my standard lens. For roll-film I seldom use the CF and my clients and I find the result quite acceptable.

Shoot full frame 4x5, however, and the CF is a must. With a factor of 4x, or 2 stops, the addition of extra filters is not without its drawbacks. The filter mount at the front of the CF is 86mm and even this will vignette with any shift/rise applied.

For exteriors shooting you will find that the extreme wide-angle reaches high into the heavenly vault and tends to produce darker tones un aided by contrast filters.

I hope this is of assistance to you.

Walter Glover

[Trevor Crone]

Hi Paul, I use the 47XL with both 6x12 roll back and 5x4. Like you I only use b/ w material. This being the case I do not find the need for a CF because I like t he darking towards the corners and if it becomes too obtrusive I simply 'hold ba ck' during printing.

If you attach a filter (67mm thread) any movements when using 5x4 will almost ce rtainly have cut off.

Good choice of lens. Regards,

[dangal]

Paul, I have been using this lens with my cambo wide for 3 years now and I wouldn't dream of using it without the CF. In fact, I don't even bother removing it off the lens. This is ideal in a sense that you don't have to clean the front element of the lens, just the front side of the filter. Also, it is a good protection. These two points are just the extra advantages of using CF. Obviously its main purpose is the evening of the exposure which it does the job perfectly. I am not a kind of photographer who uses add-on stuff, so I was reluctantly to use a CF initially but I find-out soon enough that I can't really do without one. I use both B&W and trannies. I know some people when shooting B&W bravely using this lens without CF but I am not one of those. I tend to develop many of my B&W films positively but that is not the reason why I use the CF.

This lens is unbelieveabably wide! I tend to simply estimate what's included in the picture, meaning I don't really frame the picture using my right angle cambo viewer because the edges are almost completely black. So I simply imagine what's included. Initially you might find this hard but you will get used to it. Because this is my only camera and lens I suppose it is easy for me. One more thing, you can do some movement with this lens but bear in mind that it will exagerate the wide angle effect the more you move the lens.

Renee

[Gudmundur Ingolfsson]

Paul, you should realy consider the Cambo Wide for that lens. On the Cambo you can do the only movement you need, that is shift. You can not use it without the CF when using 4x5"and the best is to leave it on all the time and to focus with the scale. I had intended to use it to make 6x12 cm panoramic landscapes but it is much too wide for my taste, but for thight interiors it is great it turns a crummy single room into a suite, so now it is the secret weapon when photographing hotels.

[paul owen]

Thanks (as usual) for the replies! The general feeling seems to be: a great lens but needs the CF for 5x4! Exactly what I wanted to know! Kind regards Paul

[Andre Noble]

Paul, you were very recently considering the 65/75mm lenses to go with your regular wide angle. Whatever happened with that idea? Did you figure the 47XL would be more versatile if shot in the panoramic format for medium format instead of getting something wide for the 4x5?

Just wondering.

[Lukasz Zandecki]

Hi,

I'm using SA 58 XL with a CF (from Schneider), this set is very similar to SA 47 XL + CF. It's fine but you have to be very careful when taking a picture with sun or any lamps included. CF can create some unexpectable flare. Sometimes it's occures even if there is no any source of light in your picture. It is enough that there is a shiny surface (very common in modern architecture). Often it's make me very angry. It's hard to see if there is going to be a flare, because wide angels create dark image on a GG and after puting CF on a lens you almost don't see anything. But with soft light it's fantasic.

greetings

Lukasz

[Rapahel Zeiher]

Hi, I'm using the 47 XL with a Schneider CF (67mm to 86mm). I like this lens, I use (or try to use) it for landscape, it's not an easy job to achieve a good result (with a Linhof Technika!), even on 6x12. Be very carreful with reflections. Flare can be a problem. Dark and small image on the GG (with Booscreen and fresnel). The CF filter from Schneider (filter IIIC) is 67-86. I had the same problem with my 77mm filter collection.

Another 47xl user at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/4x5.htm, Mr. Alain Briot at http://www.beautiful-landscape.com/

Regards from France

[paul owen]

Thanks to all for the sound advice!! I noticed the flare problem with the non-XL version of the 47mm on my Silvestri - I am careful now!! Andre, I got the 65mm Schneider and I'm very please with it. The 47XL will be purely for panoramics. Regards Paul

[Myco Megasoid]

I'm considering this 47XL on a Cambo Wide DS. Is it possible to somehow use the CF behind the lens in this body, or a standard bag bellows view camera body? I suppose that if the rear lens element diameter were much smaller than the front, that the filter might not work, but I don't have them to examine. As long as the center spot gradient accomplished its job, as determined by real world testing, that's all that should count.

I use many other filters behind the lens to avoid flare problems.

Myco http://www.megasoidstudios.com

[Bob Salomon]

"Is it possible to somehow use the CF behind the lens in this body, or a standard bag bellows view camera body?"

No. Placing a filter in back of a lens makes it become part of the optical system of the lens. It will cause a focus shift = to 1/3rd the thickness of the filter, it will degrade th image if there are any marks, scuffs, cleaning marks, finger prints, dust, dirt, etc. Filters belong in front of the lens unless the lens was designed for specific filters to be placed inside or behind the lens.

flare is easily controlled by compendiums, gobos, coatings, etc and CF especially bre for the front.

[Myco Megasoid]

Wow, thanks Bob! As Johnny Carson used to say in metered verse, "I did not know that." I suppose that since I've only used gel filters behind lenses, I haven't seen such optical effects. I'm now curious and will experiment with some thicker glass filters behind lenses, just to learn.

In my use of 65mm lenses on 4x5, I've exploited the luminance falloff to the corners and sides. And then, there's Photoshop, since everything is scanned and improved there anyway. So I may just end up doing that with the even more extreme falloff inherent in a 47mmXL, as long as there is sufficient shadow detail in the falloff areas--or, could shoot a 1 and 2 stop series of overexposed chromes and merge them with gradient masks in Photoshop--but only if I had a flare situation with a CF in front of the lens.

I've found that for lenses as wide as a 65mm on 4x5 and wider, that compendium shades and the like won't work without vignetting--I usually try to make a flag to gobo the flare source if possible.

Myco http://www.megasoidstudios.com