Schneider Super-Symmar XL 110mm f5.6 v. Nikon Nikkor-SW 120mm f8

[xkaes]

I was unaware that there were any moose in Arizona, and if there are any, I can understand why they might be angry.

[Salmo22]

I was unaware that there were any moose in Arizona, and if there are any, I can understand why they might be angry.

While not native to Arizona, alien spacecraft will occasionally drop off a bull moose or two when they need more room in their UFO for the friends of Travis Walton. And yes, the moose are not happy about it at all.

[Feanolas]

I've done a lot of "landscapes" in Arizona, from Organ Pipe to the Grand Canyon. My 8 ounce 125mm f5.6 has come in handy, of course, but I never needed more than 200mm of image circle on my 4x5.

Is your experience different getting those Saguaros straight?

I am wondering too why you need so much coverage... A tiny Fujinon 5.6/125 has plenty enough for anything but the most extreme movements.

[Salmo22]

I've done a lot of "landscapes" in Arizona, from Organ Pipe to the Grand Canyon. My 8 ounce 125mm f5.6 has come in handy, of course, but I never needed more than 200mm of image circle on my 4x5.

Is your experience different getting those Saguaros straight?

Excuse my tardy reply. I initially became interested in the Nikkor-SW 120/8 when, on this forum, Kirk Gittings gave it a definitive thumbs-up. I'm an admirer of Kirk's work and value his opinion(s). While there was no guarantee from Kirk, for me it was love at first sight through the ground glass. I think we all respond uniquely to different pieces of ground glass. For reasons I can't really explain, the Nikkor-SW 120/8 just "clicked" for me. I'm sure that your 125/5.6 works very well for you. But it is the quality with which the Nikkor SW 120/8 renders images that has bewitched me.

PS - I've lived in Arizona all my life, 67 years, and haven't found a truly "straight" Saguaro yet

THERE WAS A CROOKED MAN v.17A by Jeffery Dale Welker, on Flickr

[Salmo22]

I am wondering too why you need so much coverage... A tiny Fujinon 5.6/125 has plenty enough for anything but the most extreme movements.

With all due respect, I never said I "needed" all the coverage that I get from the Nikkor SW 120/8. And yes, there are less robust lenses that would give sufficient coverage for my 4x5. But in my initial post I primarily asked about the "qualities" of the 110 SSXL, not how big it's image circle was. If I can't find a lens with qualities similar to my Nikkor SW 120/8, then I'll keep lugging my pot-bellied lens around and order a Copper Fit Pro Back Belt Compression Brace from Brett Favre

[Bernice Loui]

Image circle needed to "cover" 4x5 about 154mm

Image circle of the 125mm f5.6 fujinon about 200mm@ f22, seems like a whole Lot until...

Image circle margin about 46mm or up/down_left/right 23mm or some degrees of swing/tilt (have used >40mm rise/fall/shift on the Linhof TK23s.. this is a 6x9 roll film view camera and much more on the 5x7 Sinar Norma), which is not that much margin for camera movement. If the 125mm lens is used direct/straight on, no issues, with modest camera movements, no issues. Once the 125mm is pressed for image circle via shift/rise-fall/front tilt/front swing.. that is when that 200mm image circle might not do at all.

~Note the image circle is spec'ed t f22, at larger taking lens aperatures, the image circle of optical performance drops off and will not be 200mm any more.

BTW, this is why large aperture view camera lenses like Xenotar, Planar and similar were never popular back in the days when 4x5 view cameras were used LOTs for image making, those large aperture lenses simply did not have much of an image circle greatly restricting camera movements which was one of the prime reasons for using a view camera. Differnt today as most ventruing into this LF view camera stuff carry over their digital/35mm/120 roll film values_ways_habits of using large lens apertures to achieve selective focus.. Back in those differnt times, it was much about most everything in the image in percieved focus.

It all depends on what is needed, or why there is no simple answer or solution to the harsh realities of lenses as they are ALL a specific set of trade offs with none being the magical-miracle lens.


Bernice

I am wondering too why you need so much coverage... A tiny Fujinon 5.6/125 has plenty enough for anything but the most extreme movements.

[xkaes]

I'm sure the your 125/5.6 works very well for you. But it is the quality with which the Nikkor SW 120/8 renders images that has bewitched me.

More power to you. Just trying to lighten your load. And I bet you couldn't tell the difference between a print from your Nikon 120mm f8 and a Fujinon 125mm f5.6.

P.S. There are straight Saguaros -- right there in your photo.

[Bernice Loui]

Keep in mind the great modern lens equalizer is f22...


Bernice

[xkaes]

Image circle needed to "cover" 4x5 about 154mm

Image circle of the 125mm f5.6 fujinon about 200mm@ f22, seems like a whole Lot until...

Image circle margin about 46mm or up/down_left/right 23mm or some degrees of swing/tilt (have used >40mm rise/fall/shift on the Linhof TK23s.. this is a 6x9 roll film view camera and much more on the 5x7 Sinar Norma), which is not that much margin for camera movement. If the 125mm lens is used direct/straight on, no issues, with modest camera movements, no issues. Once the 125mm is pressed for image circle via shift/rise-fall/front tilt/front swing.. that is when that 200mm image circle might not do at all.

~Note the image circle is spec'ed t f22, at larger taking lens aperatures, the image circle of optical performance drops off and will not be 200mm any more.

BTW, this is why large aperture view camera lenses like Xenotar, Planar and similar were never popular back in the days when 4x5 view cameras were used LOTs for image making, those large aperture lenses simply did not have much of an image circle greatly restricting camera movements which was one of the prime reasons for using a view camera. Differnt today as most ventruing into this LF view camera stuff carry over their digital/35mm/120 roll film values_ways_habits of using large lens apertures to achieve selective focus.. Back in those differnt times, it was much about most everything in the image in percieved focus.

It all depends on what is needed, or why there is no simple answer or solution to the harsh realities of lenses as they are ALL a specific set of trade offs with none being the magical-miracle lens.


Bernice

You are absolutely right -- for exmple, wilderness, landscape photography has different concerns than architectural, city-scape, interior photos. I use much more tilt/swing than rise/fall -- and I don't usually need much of either. Add in the extra weight of a behemoth lens with coverage for an 8x10 camera and weighting 4-5 times as much, makes the decision a lot easier.

The OP was in regards to backpacking. The first thing that brings to mind for me is weight. Why drag a two pound lens along when a 7 ounce lens will meet the need?

[Bernice Loui]

IMO, most outdoor field camera images do not require great demands on camera movement. This is IMO, one of the reasons why light weight field folders are not precision/precise camera movement centric as this is not a really pressing need with a field folder camera.. similar applies to lenses used with these light weight field folders.. Lower demands for camera movement, lower demands for lens image circle..

Those new to this LF view camera stuff might not have mastered the skill set needed to extract the full capabilities of view camera movements with a given lens, thus pressing lens/camer/camera support in ways a highly skilled view camera user might with ease and full intent of achieveing their image goals.

Add to this, once the lens/camera/camera support is pressed into camera movement centric image needs like architecture, studio table top, macro, and LOTs more.. that is when much greater demands on lens/camera/camera support can become definitive and a harsh reality.

Example of why what outfit works excellent for one given image making needs could be inadequate in too many ways for another image making need.


Bernice

You are absolutely right -- for exmple, wilderness, landscape photography has different concerns than architectural, city-scape, interior photos. I use much more tilt/swing than rise/fall -- and I don't usually need much of either. Add in the extra weight of a behemoth lens with coverage for an 8x10 camera and weighting 4-5 times much, makes the decision a lot easier.

The OP was in regards to backpacking. The first thing that brings to mind for me is weight. Why drag a two pound lens along when a 7 uonce lens will meet the need?