Schneider 90mm F5.6 Super Angulon XL covers whole plate?

[Greg]

Have been considering acquiring a Schneider 90mm F5.6 Super Angulon XL for my whole plate camera. Schneider specs its coverage to be 259mm at f/22 which is just a few mm's shy of the whole plate image coverage on the film. But if their coverage spec is on the conservative side, like with their G-Clarons, there just might be enough coverage for this optic to cover whole plate at infinity, all be it with the lens having to be aligned dead center on the film. Using apertures smaller than f/22 is no problem since I contact print my negatives and diffraction really doesn't present a problem for me.
thanks

[Chauncey Walden]

Maybe the 110mm Super Symmar XL would be a better choice.

[Oslolens]

This has been discussed before, and it seems to cover https://www.largeformatphotography.i...e-Plate-Format
The link to the group is not working, and wayback machine has not stored it


Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

[Greg]

This has been discussed before, and it seems to cover https://www.largeformatphotography.i...e-Plate-Format
The link to the group is not working, and wayback machine has not stored it


Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

Thanks, too bad the URL
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/who...n-90mm-xl-f5-6
is not working, and wayback machine has not stored it... sounds like it would have the answer I'm looking for.
Greg

[fuegocito]

I have tested a few different versions of 90mm lens on 8x10 to see about finding one with the nicest looking circular image (Fuji F/5.6, SA F/8, Nikkor SW F/8 and lastly a Fuji 105mm F/8). I vaguely remember the Nikkor with the largest advertised IC at 235mm missed the 810 by about 1.5" or so. Let me see if I can find my negs, but in theory with Xl's IC noted at 259mm it should cover WP.

[neil poulsen]

Why 90mm?

[Greg]

I have tested a few different versions of 90mm lens on 8x10 to see about finding one with the nicest looking circular image (Fuji F/5.6, SA F/8, Nikkor SW F/8 and lastly a Fuji 105mm F/8). I vaguely remember the Nikkor with the largest advertised IC at 235mm missed the 810 by about 1.5" or so. Let me see if I can find my negs, but in theory with Xl's IC noted at 259mm it should cover WP.

I actually have a 90mm f/4.5 Nikkor-SW that I use on my 4x5. With Nikon's spec of it covering 235mm at f/16 (105 degree angle of coverage), I never thought to try it out on my whole plate because 235mm didn't come close to covering the whole plate format. So mounted the 90mm f/4.5 Nikkor-SW on to my 8x10 camera to determine its coverage that was acceptable to me. Shot a scene that included mountains in the background and a porch rail in the foreground a few feet away from the camera. Figured that the hyperfocal distance for f/64 was about 12-16 feet away, so focused on an object about 12 feet away and shot at f/64. Developed the negative: everything on the negative was sharp. Measured coverage for me was 257mm. Not enough to cover a full whole plate negative... but the mats that I use for my whole plate images have an opening of 6x8 inches. Diagonal of a 6x8 inches is 254mm. So... will be using the 90mm f/4.5 Nikkor-SW on my whole plate taking into account its limitations. Now if I find out that the coverage of a Schneider 90mm F5.6 Super Angulon XL exceeds the coverage of my 90mm f/4.5 Nikkor-SW by 5-10mm, will sell the Nikkor and acquire an XL.

[james zhou]

THE 90MM XL will cover the whole plate format. I have shot a negative on 8x10 with it at infinity and f22, and the lens cast an image measuring 280mm across.

[Greg]

THE 90MM XL will cover the whole plate format. I have shot a negative on 8x10 with it at infinity and f22, and the lens cast an image measuring 280mm across.

James, thank you. That is exactly the information that I was looking for. Coincidently just today found one FS in mint condition at a price that I just couldn't pass up on. Should be in hand by January 4. I actually ended up paying a bit less for the lens than I did for my 90mm f/4.5 Nikkor-SW!!!

[fuegocito]

I actually have a 90mm f/4.5 Nikkor-SW that I use on my 4x5. With Nikon's spec of it covering 235mm at f/16 (105 degree angle of coverage), I never thought to try it out on my whole plate because 235mm didn't come close to covering the whole plate format. So mounted the 90mm f/4.5 Nikkor-SW on to my 8x10 camera to determine its coverage that was acceptable to me. Shot a scene that included mountains in the background and a porch rail in the foreground a few feet away from the camera. Figured that the hyperfocal distance for f/64 was about 12-16 feet away, so focused on an object about 12 feet away and shot at f/64. Developed the negative: everything on the negative was sharp. Measured coverage for me was 257mm. Not enough to cover a full whole plate negative... but the mats that I use for my whole plate images have an opening of 6x8 inches. Diagonal of a 6x8 inches is 254mm. So... will be using the 90mm f/4.5 Nikkor-SW on my whole plate taking into account its limitations. Now if I find out that the coverage of a Schneider 90mm F5.6 Super Angulon XL exceeds the coverage of my 90mm f/4.5 Nikkor-SW by 5-10mm, will sell the Nikkor and acquire an XL.

Yeah, I have a thing(most likely just familiarity) for 90mm, at one point I have like 5 or 6 different version of 90mm with ranging IC coverage to see what work best on 810 (with what degree of vignetting may work better visually). I didn't go for the XL version because the Fuji SW 105mm was more or less in that IC range.