PDA

View Full Version : Schneider Super Angulon 47mm f5.6 verses 47mm XL



mark e mark
25-Jun-2011, 06:33
Hi I am looking to buy a camera with a Schneider Super Angulon 47mm MC f5.6 lens attached (will be used with a 6x7 - 6x9 back). I know the 47mm XL has more coverage than the non XL. However, what is the flare resistance, resolution, distortion etc. like.

If the 47mm XL is noticeably better. Is it worth replacing a non XL with an XL if coverage is not an issue? Your comments please.

mark e mark
30-Jun-2011, 09:55
Is there no comparisons of these two lenses anywhere?

rdenney
30-Jun-2011, 12:27
Not sure why anyone would have both.

But this I know, the plain 47/5.6 SA is outstanding. I use mine with 6x12, and I don't see any issue with flare, even with single coatings. It is quite sharp.

For me, the only reason to switch would be to get enough coverage for 4x5, or for movements with 6x12.

Rick "or to get the bigger and more serviceable shutter" Denney

Frank Bunnik
30-Jun-2011, 22:44
Be sure to get the center filter if you get the non XL version. I used a Silvestri SLV with this lens but the light fall off was severe without the center filter, even on 6x9.

rdenney
1-Jul-2011, 08:57
Be sure to get the center filter if you get the non XL version. I used a Silvestri SLV with this lens but the light fall off was severe without the center filter, even on 6x9.

You'll need it even with the XL version. The biogon-based design of the Super Angulon (all versions) produces a pretty round aperture within its coverage area, but they are still semi-symmetrical and the light at the edges for a lens with such a wide field will be approaching at a shallow angle. Retrofocus designs minimize that effect, but none of the Super Angulons are particularly retrofocus in their design.

By the way, the really old center filter for the 65/8 Super Angulon will fit on the 49mm-filter version of the 47/5.6. It will cause slight vignetting, but that won't affect its use on 6x9. Those filters are often cheaper than the official filter for the 47/5.6, which has a stepped ring like most of the Schneider center filters.

Here's an example of the non-XL 47/5.6 used for 6x12 format. I corrected quite a bit of the vignetting in Photoshop, but it was impossible to correct it all. You can visualize the 6x9 center portion to see what's easy enough to do. The sun was directly behind me, and the extremely wide field means that the sun is broadly lighting only the things in the middle of the image. Also, this photo was made on Velvia, which is perhaps the most unforgiving film there is for dealing with the vignetting issue. And, of course, 6x12 is right at the extreme of the coverage of this lens. Thus, this represents the worst case. You might be able to correct the image well enough in Photoshop, even without a center filter, for 6x7 or 6x9, if you use a film with a wider latitude.

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/Niagra_cannon_scan19-20_lr.jpg

Rick "who had to lay on the ground to avoid being a subject of this photo" Denney

mark e mark
1-Jul-2011, 11:52
Thanks for the posts. Any info on differences in distortion or resolution?

Dan Fromm
1-Jul-2011, 13:06
Hi I am looking to buy a camera with a Schneider Super Angulon 47mm MC f5.6 lens attached (will be used with a 6x7 - 6x9 back). I know the 47mm XL has more coverage than the non XL. However, what is the flare resistance, resolution, distortion etc. like.

If the 47mm XL is noticeably better. Is it worth replacing a non XL with an XL if coverage is not an issue? Your comments please.Mark Perfectionist Mark, what camera?

I ask because the 47/5.6 SA covers 123 mm, the 47/5.6 SAXL covers 166 mm and is considerably more expensive. Can your camera use the additional coverage?

With respect to the need for a center filter, yeah, sure, if you use a 47/5.6 SAXL on 4x5. FWIW, I use a 47/5.6 SA on 2x3 cameras that allow little movement and haven't felt the need for a center filter with Ektachrome. Also have had flare problems.

rdenney
1-Jul-2011, 13:10
Thanks for the posts. Any info on differences in distortion or resolution?

I think you'll find both have negligible distortion. Being without geometric distortion is a major requirement for wide-field lenses on large-format cameras--they were intended for architectural applications. My 47/5.6 has no distortion I can detect, and I would expect the same of the XL.

Here is a snip from the above picture. It is at the original 4000dpi resolution from a Nikon 8000ED scanner, using a glass carrier, so that this image represents a piece of film about 3.9x2.4 millimeters. I used Photomerge to combine the two ends of the 6x12 transparency because the Nikon scanner will only scan up to 6x9, so there may have been a slight pixel manipulation in this detail. I'm seeing detail with pretty good MTF at a spatial frequency of 2-4 pixels--about 50 line pairs/mm. Note that this is the final product of the camera and the scanner, so it represents the sum of any errors in my workflow or equipment. With that sort of resolution (and it's probably better with a drum scan), I would expect an easy 8x enlargement and still maintain superb appearance of detail and sharpness. (An Epson scanner is not nearly as good). That would correspond to 32x40 inches from 4x5 without breaking a sweat, and 20x40 inches from 6x12.

This photograph was made using a Shen-Hao 6x12 holder.

The 43mm lens on a Mamiya 7 might be better, but that's about the only lens in that format and focal length I would expect such. The excellent 45mm lens on my Pentax 6x7 is no better than this one (or maybe they are both limited by the use of the same scanner).

The XL may be better, but the non-XL is damn good.

Rick "thinking the glass holder might have done a bit of damage to this scan" Denney

Don Dudenbostel
1-Jul-2011, 21:37
I have the XL and use it on 4x5 and digital MF. The center filter is a must on 4x5 and in my opinion desirable on smaller formats like 6x9 when moderate movement is used. I don't have any experience with the non XL but can say the XL is super sharp and very flare resistant.

If you keep your eyes open you will fine the XL for about 20-25% more than the non XL. To my knowledge the non XL version only came in a compur 00 shutter which isn't the most desirable option.

Dan Fromm
2-Jul-2011, 03:01
Don, see https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/super-angulon/data/5.6-47mm.html . Early ones in #00, later in #0.

You may have been thinking of the f/8 or of early f/5.6ers.

mark e mark
3-Jul-2011, 13:09
I should have got a Silvestri H25, but it came with 2 lens, one which I did not want, but they would no split the kit (it came with a 58mm XL). It is now sold. I am looking at a Corfield WA67 (with a fixed 47mm f5.6 SA.

Phil Hudson
3-Jul-2011, 23:21
Like this one?

http://www.apertureuk.com/Med-Photo/Corfield_WA67+Schneider_47mm/Corfield_WA67+Schneider_47mm.html

Dan Fromm
4-Jul-2011, 06:00
I should have got a Silvestri H25, but it came with 2 lens, one which I did not want, but they would no split the kit (it came with a 58mm XL). It is now sold. I am looking at a Corfield WA67 (with a fixed 47mm f5.6 SA.One can always buy the kit and then sell the unwanted bits. This makes sense when the kit's price is right.

mark e mark
24-Jul-2011, 06:06
Phil, That's the baby, I have just took the plunge and purchased it. Fingers crossed, I will be happy with the 'old' SA 47mm MC lens.