Schneider-Kreuznach Angulon and Super Angulon.

[Marco Gilardetti]

Gentle fellows,

I remember reading some time ago that the Super Angulon has been a significant improvement by Schneider over the "older" Angulon, which if I remember correctly had problems with vignetting and sharpness at corners. Did anyone perhaps had both the lenses and can comment on this? Also, how do the two compare at very low apertures?

Talking of Super Angulons, I have recently read on one of the featured articles of LargeFormatPhotography that the Super Angulon 65mm f:8 when shut down may cover a 4x5'' format just right if no movements are applied. Did anyone perhaps tried and can comment on this? I'm asking because I own one SA unit for a Linhof 2x3'', but could still not try it on a 4x5'' because of the differences on the standarts' mount.

Thanks for your attention.

[Ole Tjugen]

The Super Angulon is a completely different design from the Angulon, and the two were produced in parallel for a long period.

There were also several redesigns of the Angulon, so that what is true of the pre-WWII Angulons isn't necessarily true for the 1950's version, or the 1970's version - and vice versa.

The SA has less illumination fall-off towards the edge of the designed image field, and the sharpness is also more even at larger apertures. But the difference in illumination is cos^4 versus cos^3 - in fact it can be difficult to see which of the two a specific image was taken with.

I haven't tried a 65mm f:6.8 Angulon on 4x5", but I HAVE tried 90mm f:6.8 Angulons (of two different ages) on 5x7" - which is somewhat similar in terms of stretching the image circle beyond all reason. My conclusion on that experiment is that the older the lens, the less objectionable the edge fuzz, but the sharpness half way to the edge is worse.

http://www.bruraholo.no/Cameras/Angulon/index.html

[rdenney]

The Angulon is a classic Dagor (double anastigmat) derivative, with four elements in two opposing groups. It probably has more in common with a plasmat than with a Super Angulon, but it was first made when the tessar designs were the standard normal lenses and the Symmar was a specialty lens. The 65/6.8 Angulon has an angle of view of 81 degrees and an image circle of 105mm. It will barely cover 6x9. The Angulon is not necessarily as sharp to the limits of coverage as the Super Angulon.

The Super Angulon is a biogon derivative, also approximately symmetrical.

According to Kingslake, the symmetry eliminates certain aberrations such as coma and also eliminates geometric distortion. But the more significant advance of the Super Angulon (which it might have inherited from the Biogon design) was how it maintained the shape of the aperture when viewed at oblique angles. If you look through a Super Angulon set for f/22 or so, the aperture will appear as round at the edges of the coverage as it does in the middle, as long as it's fully within the coverage and not occluded by the lens barrel. Projecting that aperture as round is what minimizes falloff in the corners.

The 6-element Super Angulons, which were the f/8 versions, have an angle of view of 100 degrees (at f/16). The 8-element Super Angulons, which opened to f/5.6, have an angle of view of 105 degrees at f/16. Both perform superbly, and are sharp to the limits of coverage in my experience.

Schneider claims that the 65/8 has an image circle of 155mm at f/16, which will just cover 4x5 with no room for movements.

The 65mm Super Angulons are listed as 6x9 lenses in Schneider's literature, even the 65/5.6 which has an image circle of 170mm and provides some room for movements on 4x5. Schneider is known for being conservative in its published specifications.

Rick "who has f/8 SA's in 65 and 121mm, and f/5.6 SA's in 47, 65, and 90mm" Denney

[Steve Smith]

Schneider claims that the 65/8 has an image circle of 155mm at f/16, which will just cover 4x5 with no room for movements.

I have mine on my DIY 6x12 camera and the coverage is fine. I tried it on my Speed Graphic and it appeared to cover the full frame although I didn't expose any film with it.

This is despite their technical data saying it is for the 6x9cm format.


The 65mm Super Angulons are listed as 6x9 lenses in Schneider's literature

Yes. I must start reading the whole of a post before replying!

http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/super-angulon/data/8-65mm.html


Steve.

[E. von Hoegh]

The Angulon is a classic Dagor (double anastigmat) derivative, with four elements in two opposing groups. It probably has more in common with a plasmat than with a Super Angulon, but it was first made when the tessar designs were the standard normal lenses and the Symmar was a specialty lens.

The Angulon is a 6/2 lens, of what is known as the "reverse Dagor design". Since this design was covered under the original U.S. patent, I guess it could be called a Dagor, even though Goerz never used this construction commercially. At the time the Angulon was introduced, in the 1930's, the Symmar was a direct Dagor (orthodox design) clone.

[rdenney]

The Angulon is a 6/2 lens, of what is known as the "reverse Dagor design". Since this design was covered under the original U.S. patent, I guess it could be called a Dagor, even though Goerz never used this construction commercially. At the time the Angulon was introduced, in the 1930's, the Symmar was a direct Dagor (orthodox design) clone.

Yes, I was wrong--the two sides of an Angulon are anastigmat triplets. I had that Wollensak W.A. Raptar in my head.

But I did use the word "derivative". They also enlarged the outer elements to improve coverage.

There are really only a few classic lens designs that everyone else learned from, it seems to me, until computer-driven designs mixed things up. Some were protected for a while, but not forever, of course. The Tessar patent was quite general and thus covered a lot of potential designs. But still it ran out and many, many lenses were tessar designs and derivatives even wen called something different, and after any licensing was required. The Dagor patent was narrower, and could be circumvented by turning around the order of the elements in each front and rear group. Thus, "reverse" dagor, but it still is a member of the dagor family. At least that's what Kingslake has to say about it.

Rick "suspecting an Angulon would not have existed had not the Dagor come first" Denney

[E. von Hoegh]

Yes, I was wrong--the two sides of an Angulon are anastigmat triplets. I had that Wollensak W.A. Raptar in my head.

But I did use the word "derivative". They also enlarged the outer elements to improve coverage.

There are really only a few classic lens designs that everyone else learned from, it seems to me, until computer-driven designs mixed things up. Some were protected for a while, but not forever, of course. The Tessar patent was quite general and thus covered a lot of potential designs. But still it ran out and many, many lenses were tessar designs and derivatives even wen called something different, and after any licensing was required. The Dagor patent was narrower, and could be circumvented by turning around the order of the elements in each front and rear group. Thus, "reverse" dagor, but it still is a member of the dagor family. At least that's what Kingslake has to say about it.

Rick "suspecting an Angulon would not have existed had not the Dagor come first" Denney

No, the "reverse Dagor" construction was covered in the U.S. patent (as I mentioned above). I'll try to find a link to post.

Edit:http://ip.com/patent/US528155

[rdenney]

No, the "reverse Dagor" construction was covered in the U.S. patent (as I mentioned above). I'll try to find a link to post.

Edit:http://ip.com/patent/US528155

Interesting link--thanks for posting it. How long would a U.S. patent issued in 1894 last? It should have been 17 years during that period, meaning this patent protection would have expired in 1911. The Angulon was introduced in 1930. No need for circumvention.

Rick "who knows better than to post lens history stuff from memory, without Kingslake handy" Denney

[E. von Hoegh]

Also, reverse does not refer to the order of elemeats. The classic Dagor is +,-,+, while the reverse form is -,+,-. Not the order, but the powers of the elements.

[rdenney]

Also, reverse does not refer to the order of elemeats. The classic Dagor is +,-,+, while the reverse form is -,+,-. Not the order, but the powers of the elements.

Boy, are you picky. :)

Rick "to the OP: Stick with the Super Angulon" Denney

[E. von Hoegh]

Boy, are you picky. :)

Rick "to the OP: Stick with the Super Angulon" Denney

And my username is....... (Hint: look on the patent)

Sorry to be so picky, but I see too much bad info taken as gospel just because it's on the internet.

[BrianShaw]

Wow, Emil... I never would have thought you'd be still with us!

[rdenney]

And my username is....... (Hint: look on the patent)

Yes, I noticed that. You must be very old!

Rick "who should have stuck with his original 'derivative' description, which was accurate except for mis-remembering the number of elements" Denney

[Marco Gilardetti]

Thanks to everybody for the detailed and interesting replies.

Thanks especially to Ole: the photographs you have uploaded speak for themselves. A very interesting comparative test indeed.

[Ole Tjugen]

Another thing I really ought to have mentioned on the web page: The Angulons aren't really THAT prone to flare. But I set up everything on my veranda when the sun was behind clouds, then noticed the rveranda rail was in the bottom of the picture and moved the camera a couple of inches forward. Next I went in to load film in the old wooden plate holders (I don't like to have them pre-loaded, I don't quite trust them to be light tight for more than a few minutes at best).

By the time I took the shots the sun had come out, and moved enough so that together with my moving the camera it was shining directly on the front of the lenses.

When I figured out what had happened I decided not to reshoot, as the test was only for sharpness and not contrast or flare.

[Marco Gilardetti]

Thank you Ole, I figured not all pictures would come out that way.

I am having problems with myself to detect which image I dislike less at full aperture. The older lens show a terrible loss of sharpness at corners, but the image looks pleasantly soft with a nice "vintage" appearance. The newer lens is definitely sharper; however the image, although technically "better", has an overall muddy appearance which is perhaps even worse (for my taste, of course).

This apart, how would you recommend this lens, generally speaking? Please consider that I almost ever photograph with diaphragm half-colsed to fully-closed, and that the lens would be used as a moderate wideangle on 4x5'' and occasionally as a normal lens with the 6x9 cm rollfilm adapter attached. Would you recommend it for this usage? Is the Super Angulon still much superior at half to fully closed diaphragm?