PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on older 90mm 6.8 Angulons



Greg Y
10-Oct-2012, 10:52
I noticed one of our friends, Italian Mountain photographer Alberto Bregani had a 6x12 'Holgamod' done with a 6.8 90 Angulon. Does any one have comments about the coverage, performance, characteristics of the older smaller Angulon 90s? It would be cool to cover 6x12cm to 5x7" My normal wide angle on my Deardorff 5x7 is a 4 3/8" Dagor. Done the the 90 Superangulon XL route on 5x7 & 4x10....
Thanks
Greg

Jon Shiu
10-Oct-2012, 11:16
Very sharp lens when stopped down to f22, but mine just covers 4x5 with the last few mm in the corners a bit soft.

Jon

Mark J
10-Oct-2012, 11:18
Here's a very useful link with hands-on results :
http://www.kenrockwell.com/schneider/90angulon.htm
Note that the 90 Angulon was never designed to cover 5x7" , though , only 4x5" when stopped down .

Kevin Crisp
10-Oct-2012, 11:22
On later ones with high serial numbers you might squeeze out 1/2" rise on 4x5. 5x7 will be fuzzy in the corners, though the gg will be illuminated.

E. von Hoegh
10-Oct-2012, 11:26
I noticed one of our friends, Italian Mountain photographer Alberto Bregani had a 6x12 'Holgamod' done with a 6.8 90 Angulon. Does any one have comments about the coverage, performance, characteristics of the older smaller Angulon 90s? It would be cool to cover 6x12cm to 5x7" My normal wide angle on my Deardorff 5x7 is a 4 3/8" Dagor. Done the the 90 Superangulon XL route on 5x7 & 4x10....
Thanks
Greg

The Angulon is a "reverse" Dagor, and behaves about like a standard Dagor, that is it's coverage gets better as you stop down and it illuminates more than it covers sharply. Ole Tjugens posted a 5x7 IIRC done with an older Angulon that had good corners, I'll try to find it.

domaz
10-Oct-2012, 11:38
Something to think about: The weight difference between a Super Angulon 90mm f/8 in a Compur 00 (the smallest and lightest shutter available) and an Angulon is pretty small, and a SA 90mm f/8 can cover 5x7 in a lot better fashion.

Bob Salomon
10-Oct-2012, 12:33
"Compur 00 (the smallest and lightest shutter available)"

Was, this shutter has not been made in decades. Neither have Compur or Prontor shutters, but in their case they haven't been made for a couple of decades. 00 for many decades.

Jody_S
10-Oct-2012, 12:51
I had one briefly, I couldn't focus it without tying my front & rear standards together with elastics (B&J). I already had a 90/8 (can focus just fine on the same camera), so I sold it, but in fact my 90/6.8 was a sharper lens. This is usually what is reported in lens tests, the 90/6.8 out-resolves the 90/8 in lp/mm by a significant margin. However, it requires less back-focus and has much less coverage as others have mentioned.

Michael E
10-Oct-2012, 13:39
It's not only about weight. I can carry a lot more Angulons than Super-Angulons in my tiny bag (4x5" Tachihara). I like my 90mm Angulon, but I use rise a lot. The 90mm Angulon loses resolution and light so fast, it's not funny. 6x12cm is fine, 5x7" doesn't work at all.

Drew Wiley
10-Oct-2012, 13:44
A lot of 90 Angulons were made over a considerable time span, and allegedly the quality
could vary quite a bit.

Charlie Strack
10-Oct-2012, 15:40
A friend gave me a 6.8 90mm angulon, and I've never felt the need to replace it. I think it is mid-50's vintage. It's a lot less lens to carry than the Super Angulon is. I doubt, though, that it would handle a 5x7--a 120, though, would probably be fine. I don't have one of those.

Charlie

Frank Petronio
10-Oct-2012, 17:36
Get a Linhof select one with a serial number over 6m, put it in a shallow recessed board and go shoot at f/16-22.

Jim Graves
10-Oct-2012, 22:16
In Schneider's 1934 catalog ... not long after the Angulons were introduced ... they list the 90mm f/6.8 Angulon as having a 105 degree angle of view and as covering 3.25" x 4.25" at f/6.8, 4" x 5" at f/11, and 4.75" x 6.5" at f/22.

But by 1939 they were listing the 90mm as a 2.5" x 3.5" lens with maximum coverage of 3.9375" x 5.875" with a "cirlcle of sharp definition" of 7.0625".

In the same 1939 catalog, they list the 120mm Angulon as being suitable for 3.5" x 4.5" up to 5" x 7" with a "circle of sharp definition" of 9.4375".

That being said ... I have used the 90mm Angulon on 4x5 without any problems ... I stop it down to at least f/16 or above ... and there is VERY little room for movements. I have some very nice 11" x 14" enlargements from it but the ONLY reasons I carry it instead of my 90mm Super Angulon is weight and size while backpacking.

Greg Y
11-Oct-2012, 06:21
Thanks Everyone. I'm looking at using it as Alberto has on a Holgamod 612, so small size is of importance. I sometimes use a 4x5 reducing back on my Deardorff, so I suspect i'll go with the smallest option. & Yes it will be backpacked around a lot.

Ole Tjugen
11-Oct-2012, 10:23
A pre-WWII Angulon 90mm would almost cover 5x7" by the then current definition of "cover": For contact prints.

1950's and later Angulons have a larger sharp image circle at larger apertures, but a more abrupt transition to unsharp corners make them less sharp in the corners of 5x7" despite the larger sharp image circle by current definitions of sharpness.

IanG
11-Oct-2012, 10:40
Some time ago Dean Jones (Razzledog) found that there was a variance in the spacing of the earlier (50's and later) 90mm f6.8 Angulons this was caused by the Compur shutters. He claimed in a thread on this Forum that rectifying the spacing problem improved the sharpness of previously poor versions.

I've used 3 of these lenses the first just wasn't sharp even at f22 so I sold it, later I borrowed another which was the same but I've since bought one which is sharp. Only later I came across Frank's comments about higher serial numbers being better, also Linhof Select, my good one is both of these.

Ian

Ole Tjugen
12-Oct-2012, 08:53
Found it at last: http://www.bruraholo.no/Cameras/Angulon/

Central sharpness is pretty good on both the 1939 and the 1951 models, I'd say. If your Angulon delivers unsharp negatives, there's something wrong with it.

Greg Y
12-Oct-2012, 10:54
Ole, Thank you for the info, especially your comments re: coverage. I'll be scouring the 'bay for an older tiny angulon. Missed one yesterday by a few minutes.

Dan Fromm
12-Oct-2012, 12:33
Greg, are you clear that redesigns, if any, of the Angulon didn't change coverage? What changed claimed coverage was changing ideas about how much resolution, sorry, contrast given resolution, in the corners is needed.

My favorite example of this is Berthiot's Perigraphe Ser. VIa. f/14, made in a variety of focal lengths. Claimed coverage at small stops: 115 degrees in 1912, 106 degrees in the mid-'30s, 100 degrees around 1950. Same design as far as I know, same small stop, increasingly stringent interpretations of "good enough."

Greg Y
17-Oct-2012, 10:58
Thank You Dan & Ole.... & John NYC.... angulon on the way!