Printable View
Hi, Any users of the above 2 lenses. For the above 2 lenses, coverage is roughly the same, but what about resolution and contrast etc. I have the option to buyl either at a very similar price. It will be used on a 'pancake' technical camera with the appropriate focusing mount.
With the FL's and coverage being so close - my guess is that the 58mm would be better by default...otherwise, why go through the bother and expense of creating this lens?
Falloff / distortion / MTF data for both:
Attachment 199383
Attachment 199382
The 65mm used to be the widest (modern) lens you could get for 4x5. People would adapt a 58mm Rodenstock (from the 2x3 Graflex XL) to 4x5 and it worked, more or less. The 58mm in question came along in the mid-90s(?) and was designed for 4x5. When you get that wide a few mm in focal length can make a surprising difference... especially if you're shooting in a very small space.
Aren't the Schneider XL model lenses newer Mark? I don't know the history of the 65mm SA. I think the 65mm SA has a bit more coverage than the 58XL.
I like my 58XL a lot, and it's probably my 2nd or 3rd most-used lens.
I've owned both a SA 65 and 58mm XL. The 58 was defintely my preference. The coverage is 170mm and 166mm respectively. I would suggest getting a centre filter too, particularly if you get the 58 XL.
All the best
Thanks for all your responses.