Maybe I'm unusual, but I don't focus at infinity very often. I'm often focus much closer to the camera. Doing so increases the image circle. I've used my 120 SA on 8x10, and it covered just fine. This fits nicely with super wide photography as often one has to get very close to the subject to get an effective picture. Don't treat photographing with a super wide just like you would with a longer lens. Get closer!
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Thank you. Working with the 159mm/f12 under the redwoods was not a great place to experiment with this lens for me...and while I'd love to blame the lens, you are correct that I need a lot more experience with it. It might find some work on the 5x7.Originally Posted by Oslolens
I have 210mm and 250mm available for 8x10. The 180mm might be interesting for closer work, as Peter mentioned, but my 210mm is great for that (Graphic-Raptor) also, but not in a shutter.
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
Maybe I lucked out with my uncoated f:12 Wollensak, but it was adequately sharp for me edge to edge. I don't shoot 8X10 any longer, but I still use it for 4X10 and it does a nice job for me.
f/16, not f/22. Schneider's data is for f/16. And in this case, Schneider is the proverbial "horse's mouth."
Also, modular transfer function improves as you stop down across the frame, so IC increases, image resolution increases, too, until you're diffraction limited, at least.
And of course an Angulon isn't comparable to a 150mm SSXL! Nobody said such a silly thing.
Everything is a compromise. You under no obligation to like mine.
Again, even if Schneider's published data on image circle states 300mm at f22, which version of Schneider's "horses"mouth is correct? This Schneider catalog sheet from back when these were sold is written: image circle of 278mm at f22.
Lot more than just resolution as defined by diffraction. It is a balance for any lens, as the lens is stopped down there comes a point of best geometric correction -vs- diffraction due to aperture size. This goes back to the worn and tired words about image circle, taking aperture, diffraction and all that has become tire some to beyond worth discussing any more.
Bernice
That's a good point! Which horse's mouth indeed! Schneider also published data on IC that states ~429mm for the 165!
I can't imagine how soft those corners were!
I can say that the Angulon 165 is good enough for pin-sharp contact prints on 8x10 at f/22 straight on. I don't have access to an 8x10 enlarger.
Agreed. That was my point about compromises. We don't need to rehash that stuff again.
Cheers!
Just for the record, I used to use a 165 Angulon for 5x7. One day I found myself in need of an 8x10 lens for a building shot. 40” x5’ print was tack sharp corner to corner. Of course I didn’t have to use the corners of the negative.........
Much like today, there was an obsession over image circle and what a given lens will cover. There was a marketing advantage to claiming "your" lens has the largest image circle. That ~400mm Plus image circle could be achieved by approaching or exceeding life size aka 1 to 1 image reproduction ratio. Which does bring up a very real world way in which many wide angle lenses are used. They are often used by moving the camera in to create large print image object close to the lens -vs- shrinking objects away from the lens. This tends to increase the projected image circle of the lens.
Historical curiosity about the Angulon, it is essentially a "reverse Dagor" done to get around the Dagor Patent. Having used both WA Dagor and Angulon, they have similar performance. These lens designs go back a long time and have stood the test of time for good reasons.. they have quite remarkable optical performance for what they are and given when these were designed and made. Many decades passed before notably better optical designs were done to surpass the optical performance of this seemingly simply and lowly design. The modern trade-off became HUGE compared to the Angulon in the march to improving optical performance.
Not a lot wrong with the Angulon (lf the sample is a good one), this 165mm Angulon in barrel lives with the Sinar Norma in the roller pelican case, serves as the medium wide for 5x7. Does well for this as it is essentially a Dagor in this focal length. Typical taking aperture for the 165mm Angulon is f16 and smaller. It's optical performance at f6.8 to f11_ish is not that "hot"...
Note the size difference between the 165mm Angulon -vs- the 165mm Super Angulon -vs- the 150mm SSXL. Each has its plus/minus for a given image need.
Bernice
Like Schneider, C.P. Goerz American Optical Co./Goerz Optical Co., Inc. became more conservative in their coverage claims for the Wide Angle Dagor. A 1960 piece of Goerz literature I have claims 100 degrees for the Wide Angle Dagor. A 1967 brochure (if I'm interpreting the date code correctly) claims 90 degrees. Typically they specify this is at f/45.
David
5x7 Norma Ready to Go Norma 165 Sup Ang by Nokton48, on Flickr
I've been working with this one and it's ready to go. 5x7 Norma with 165mm F8 Sinar Norma Super Angulon. This is the deluxe version with aperture contol from behind the camera, Compur Special forward mounted shutter. I've heard the Compur Special was desirable because smaller shutter equals higher shutter speeds. Desirable as the the lens was marketed at the time as being fully corrected wide open. So you have all the options with the deluxe version. Notice the Sinar Norma Monocular with bag bellows, no need for focusing cloth and I can see every speck of ground glass grain with the original Sinar setup.
According to my Schneider literature the 165mm F8 chrome Super Angulon covers 11x14 with an image circle of 393mm. Finest results without stopping down.
Super Angulon Catalog by Nokton48, on Flickr
Last edited by Daniel Unkefer; 13-Dec-2020 at 09:15.
Flikr Photos Here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/
“The secret of getting ahead is getting started.”
― Mark Twain
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks