Is a Super Symmar 110 XL worth twice as much as a Grandagon-N 115?

[Acheron Photography]

I know the 110XL is wonderful: sharp, comparatively light, and with great coverage. But I have the chance to purchase a Grandagon-N 115mm in good shape for about half what a comparable 110XL would cost me, and I am tempted. Any thoughts you might have would be appreciated. I would be using it mostly for landscape and architectural photography on 5x4 and 5x7 Arca monorails: both lenses fit, and the lens boards can cope, so that is not a concern. I think I can live with the weight of the Rodenstock even if I'm not that happy about it.

[Gudmundur Ingolfsson]

I have never tried the 110 XL Schneider, but the 115 Grandagon-N has been a favorite lens since 1987. It is very sharp and has a great coverage. I have used it to shoot interiors on 8x10" and when I expose Velvia 4x5" with it the vignetting is not noticeable.

[Mike1234]

It's mostly just the bulk/weight. If cash is a significantly more imortant issue then buy the Grandagon-N. Keep in mind if you need a CF it will be much larger/pricier as will other filters.

[eric black]

I have owned both in my past and currently only have the SS 110XL as a 4x5 and 4x10 lens(with center filter). I sold the Rodenstock due to weight and size but also due to the better performance I noted with the Schneider lens when shooting landscapes facing into the sun. Im not sure what the differences are in the coatings, but I battled flare problems when using the Rodenstock that I dont seem to have with the Schneider.

[evan clarke]

I LOVE my 110 XL...Evan Clarke

[Steve Hamley]

I can vouch for the flare resistance of the Schneider. I've shot sunrises/sunsets with it regularly and it's a nice lens for that. I was surprised that it was considering how many glasses it has, but Schneider apparently did their homework.

Cheers, Steve

[Bob Salomon]

I have owned both in my past and currently only have the SS 110XL as a 4x5 and 4x10 lens(with center filter). I sold the Rodenstock due to weight and size but also due to the better performance I noted with the Schneider lens when shooting landscapes facing into the sun. Im not sure what the differences are in the coatings, but I battled flare problems when using the Rodenstock that I dont seem to have with the Schneider.

Grandagon or Grandagon-N? MC or non MC?

[Acheron Photography]

Grandagon or Grandagon-N? MC or non MC?

Thanks to all for their comments.

Bob - MC, Grandagon-N.

Kind regards

David.

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks to all for their comments.

Bob - MC, Grandagon-N.

Kind regards

David.

David,

Sorry for the confusion, I wanted to know which version Eric used. He just said a Grandagon and there is a big difference between a non MC version and a MC version in flare reduction, contrast, color saturation, etc.

[eric black]

It was an N-MC lens Bob but as it was sold almost 8 years ago I dont recall the serial number or anything that might shed some light on the age of the lens.

[Capocheny]

Another 110xl fan here... lightweight, sharp, and contrasty.

Great for landscape shooting.

Cheers

[Ed Kelsey]

Another good choice is the Nikkor SW 120mm.

[Ed Richards]

Someone else should have better info, but isn't another trade off that the 110XL has more fall off, due to the lens design? I forget the trig function, but it does not repeal the laws of optics so that smaller element is not going to gather the same amount of even light. The Nikon 120mm SW is another good choice, and a bit smaller than the 115.

[Mike1234]

Second post here... I bought a 110 SS XL but this is because I need to save weight/bulk. Also, I got a pretty good deal. However... weight/bulk are a bit more important to me than overall cost due to personal physical limitations. If cost was the "primary" factor I would have bought a Grandagon-N.

[resummerfield]

I've owned both the 110 SS XL and a late model (green stripe) 115 Grandagon-N. Both lenses are very sharp, light, and give excellent coverage. In over a year of using them side-by-side, I could see no difference in the results.

[Ian David]

Slightly tangential question...
Do those of you who use the Schneider 110 XL find that you generally use/need a centre filter with it? Or not?
Thanks for your thoughts.
Ian

[Steve Hamley]

Ian,

On what format? 4x5 no, 8x10 definitely yes.

Cheers, Steve

[Ian David]

Sorry Steve - yes I meant 4x5.
Thanks
Ian

[Armin Seeholzer]

I prefer also the Nikkon 120mm because it is really usebale on 8x10 it is very wide and the 110 XL does not really fully cover at infinity.
Booth are good glasses for sure, but on the 8x10 is the 120mm anyway the shortest lens I can use, I already need a recessed lensboard for it on my Burke & James.

My two cts. Armin

[Don Hutton]

I prefer also the Nikkon 120mm because it is really usebale on 8x10 it is very wide and the 110 XL does not really fully cover at infinity.
Booth are good glasses for sure, but on the 8x10 is the 120mm anyway the shortest lens I can use, I already need a recessed lensboard for it on my Burke & James.

My two cts. Armin

At f26, the 110XL covers perfectly at infinity - if it doesn't, you're not zeroed somewhere...

[Steve Hamley]

Or you're using too many/too small filters. It vignettes slightly with a polarizer on the center filter, and with a thick 77mm Heliopan on a step-up ring, you'll get round pictures.

Mine will cover sans filters or with the center filter.

Cheers, Steve

[Armin Seeholzer]

I even can shift my 120 Nikkor at f 32 up to 1 cm!
Maybe there are different models around on the 11XL some say It covers at infinity and others say not without a tiny bit dark corners!
So what should I believe now;--)))
But its anyway not an option for me the 120mm has a distance at infinity of 130,7mm to the groundglass which is just what I got with a recessed lens board!