
Originally Posted by
Corran
I've used the old f/6.8 Angulon, Super Angulon f/8 (several of them, from various time periods), Nikkor f/8, and the 90 XL (90mm is my favorite focal length on 4x5...).
On extreme examination of hi-rez scans, I just maybe saw a bit of a difference between the XL and the more common lenses. Mostly, it was because I shot it a few times at f/16 instead of f/32, looking for the difference. At f/22 or smaller I imagine that would evaporate. The Angulon of course isn't nearly as good as all of the others but I shoot it at f/32 more or less always, which makes it about as good as anything else at that aperture.
So, I hike with the Nikkor usually or the Angulon when I want ultra-light. The XL is a pain to use with filters so I don't use it except for handheld stuff on my Linhof, since it has the widest aperture and because I have a cam that works for it (not technically made for it but so close as to work just fine).
Interesting - thanks Bryan.
Unless you need it for architecture or shooting as an extreme WA on 4x10, the XL is probably not a worthwhile investment, or maybe if you want that extra bit of sharpness at a more middling aperture and don't need the DOF.
Bookmarks