Schneider 150mm xl vs. apo-sironar w 150mm

[frotog]

I have both these lenses for shooting 5x7 negs and I'm noticing that the schneider 150mm xl shows considerable fall-off towards the edges while the rodenstock does not, or at least not as much. I acquired the schneider when it was first released, egged on by all the hype surrounding the release of these apochromatic xl lenses. Now, as I print the entirety of a portfolio that I began with the rodenstock, I wish I never had. Fall-off in color is no fun because not only do you have to battle the exposure difference but there's also the color shifts that accompany the exposure difference. Trying to balance out skies and flat, evenly lit foregrounds is prohibitively time consuming and rarely yields satisfactory results. The color negs shot with the rodenstock exhibit less fall-off and print under the enlarger much better. With some of the schneider shots I'll have to resort to scanning, photoshop and light jet to even them out.

I'm assuming that the significant fall-off of the schneider xl is an unavoidable trade-off in a design that was optimized for extreme coverage. It seems like the only way around this is by using the $550 center filter. And then I'd need to spend another 300-400 on a custom 115 mm lee filter holder for my 4x4 polarizer. Apparently these holders are usually on backorder for up to a year.

So I think I'm going to sell the schneider and dust off the rodenstock. The added coverage and sharpness of the schneider does not warrant the cost of this extra gear and the loss of 1-1/2 stops from the c.f. Besides, looking at the 16x20's, the differences in sharpness and local contrast are a tight comparison. Of course they might be more apparent at bigger enlargements.

I've poked around on line and in the various forums and yet could not find any mention of the rodenstock w requiring a center filter. Are there any landscape or architectural photographers out there who use the 150 w with a c.f.? Did rodenstock recommend using a c.f. with this lens?

[John NYC]

I have the 150mm SS XL and use it on 8x10. There is definitely fall-off on that format, especially noticeable in color (b&w kinda looks nice that way) at the corners. At any rate, I bought the center filter for it and it performs perfectly with that, with edge-to-edge evenness.

Given the huge image circle of the 150mm SS XL (386mm versus 252mm for the Rodenstock) lens, I am really, really surprised you see fall-off on 5x7, which only needs about 215mm of coverage.

[Gem Singer]

I think you are comparing apples to oranges here.

The 150 SSXL is an aspherical wide angle design that will cover 8x10. Needs a center filter.

The Apo-Sironar 150W is a "normal" lens that is designed to have a large image circle, but will not cover 8x10 and does not need a center filter.

[engl]

I'm assuming that the significant fall-off of the schneider xl is an unavoidable trade-off in a design that was optimized for extreme coverage. It seems like the only way around this is by using the $550 center filter.

This is my understanding as well, and it really just means that the two lenses are two different tools for two different jobs. Extreme and expensive tools often perform poorly in many aspects that were not primary design considerations.

I have not used one of the XL lenses, but I have a Biogon-type 75/5.6. This design has lower falloff, cos^3 compared to cos^4 with the XL lenses, and I really would not want to deal with more falloff than I have. I couldn't, and would not want to, use a CF.

[Noah A]

I used a 150 SSXL on 8x10 and, with the center filter, it worked quite well. Having said that, unless you need the extra movements with your 5x7, I think it makes sense to use the lens you like best, regardless of which one is a newer design or more popular.

It's true that the lenses are different, but it's a valid comparison since both (apparently) work for your shooting needs.

More recently I tried a 110xl and 80xl for 4x5. Neither one really did much for me. The 110 was super-sharp, but despite the fact that many say it's the best lens ever, I found it had an ever-so-slight falloff that caused color shifts at the edges. Like you I only really noticed this after I started printing some work. The 80 exhibited the same thing, but to a much greater extent. The 80 was a bit too wide for me anyway.

I've switched to 90/4.5 and 115/6.8 Grandagons. The 90 Grandagon has less falloff than the 110XL (or at least less color shifting at the edges). Both Grandagons are very sharp and the images look great even printed at 40x50 and larger.

It's not really a fair comparison since I never tried a CF for the Schneiders. However I was able to sell the XLs and buy like-new Grandagons with some cash left over. And I saved $$$ on the center filter.

So I'd suggest that if you get the CF your 150 will perform well and it is a first-rate lens when used as intended. However, if you prefer the look of your Sironar-W, it seems like a smart choice to go with the smaller, cheaper lens.

[frotog]

To the naked eye, without photographing resolution charts, the Schneider might have the edge on the apo-sironar when it comes to sharpness. However,the sironar is just as contrasty but with a different feel - can't really describe it. But it seems as though, for 5x7, whatever the schneider has over the rodenstock in sharpness simply does not warrant the use of cf. I dread the thought of losing more speed in the field - shooting 400nc at half the box speed with a one stop polarizing filter and some cc or ct filters already has me down to asa 50... I'd feel like even more of an ass spending $800 to 1k for a cf and the 4x4 filter rig only to end up shooting at asa 18!

engl, very interesting about fall off specs. I'm ignorant as to the use of trigonometric functions as a way of measuring fall off - I'm assuming the specs are additive rather than exponential.

Noah... thanks for your words of advice. Interesting that you prefer the earlier design of the Grandagon. I'm assuming that you did not notice a substantial difference in sharpness between the xl lenses that you sold and your grandagons...

[Steve Hamley]

Frotog's comments are valid when shooting 8x10 or using a lot of rise, etc.

It's a great lens but the greater falloff is the price you pay for a smaller size and greater coverage. There are plenty of alternatives; Nikkor 120 SW, 165 WA Dagor (which will fit in a large shirt pocket), ...

Cheers, Steve

[John NYC]

Frotog's comments are valid when shooting 8x10 or using a lot of rise, etc.

It's a great lens but the greater falloff is the price you pay for a smaller size and greater coverage. There are plenty of alternatives; Nikkor 120 SW, 165 WA Dagor (which will fit in a large shirt pocket), ...

Cheers, Steve

But he is saying he feels he needs a center filter on the 150mm SS XL on 5x7, not 8x10.

[Noah A]

...
Noah... thanks for your words of advice. Interesting that you prefer the earlier design of the Grandagon. I'm assuming that you did not notice a substantial difference in sharpness between the xl lenses that you sold and your grandagons...

I never did side-by-side tests but the Grandagons are very sharp. I'd say that the 90/4.5 is as sharp or better than the 80XL. And the 115/6.8 is, contrary to what I've read online, in the same ballpark as the 110xl in terms of sharpness. I notice very, very little falloff with the 115/6.8 and only slight falloff with the 90/4.5. Neither of the Grandagons seem to have the edge color shifts that I experienced with the XL lenses.

Sharpness IS important to me since I print very large, but the overall look of the images a lens produces is more important. There is something I really like about the Rodenstock lenses. The contrast and color rendering are very pleasing in my opinion.

Again all of these lenses can produce great results when used properly. But I'd say that for critical work in color, the XL lenses can benefit from a CF even when used for formats that are smaller than their maximum coverage. I had assumed that since the 110xl had so much extra coverage that it wouldn't need the CF, but that was not my conclusion.

One might assume that you wouldn't need a CF for the 150XL on 5x7, but it seems you're noticing the same phenomenon that I experienced.

[frotog]

Yeah Noah, the fall-off is noticeable even stopped down between f22 and f32 but where it really rears its ugly head is at f16 and below. And this is with the standards zeroed out! My measurements (independent of my "feeling") show a good one to two stops less exposure in the corners of the frame. I understand that some people like this look but it's not really my cup of tea. My understanding is that the center filter begins to be effective at f11 - f16... yet another argument to get rid of this lens. Thanks for helping make up my mind.

I guess I learned the hard way what Schneider's priorities were in designing this lens - size and coverage at the expense of an even field.

[GPS]

...

I guess I learned the hard way what Schneider's priorities were in designing this lens - size and coverage at the expense of an even field.

What you have learnt is rather the fact that a lens with a wide coverage angle behaves optically differently than a lens of the same focal length but with much a smaller coverage angle.
And that is valid regardless of the fact that the lens is made by Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon or Fuji.

[frotog]

I did not mean to imply that these constraints in design are exclusively schneider's. Nonetheless, based on the few that weighed in on the topic, it sounds as though fall-off is a bit more pronounced on the xl series lenses than it is with other wide coverage lenses. Based on this and my experience, I have to conclude that minimizing fall-off took a back seat to coverage and size in the design of this series lens for this particular maker.

[Jeff Keller]

Also, Schneider recommends stopping down the lens for the center filter to function optimally. It does seem that an XL isn't the best choice for you.
Jeff Keller