Coverage of 165mm Super Angulon?

[E. von Hoegh]

Len, http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/...a/8-165mm.html

[Oren Grad]

Lachlan - I have a 165 SA that I intend to try on 11x14. I have put it on the camera and from the GG it looks as though it will just cover when stopped down, but I haven't exposed any film yet.

EDIT: An afterthought - I'm sure the falloff will be substantial, and I'm not sure how comfortable I'll be with that. I recently got a center filter for my 120 SA for use on 8x10, because the falloff bothered me enough when pushing that lens to the limit. Alas, the CF for the 165 is frightfully expensive, so with that lens I'll either live with the falloff or retreat to something a bit longer.

[Lachlan 717]

Lachlan - I have a 165 SA that I intend to try on 11x14. I have put it on the camera and from the GG it looks as though it will just cover when stopped down, but I haven't exposed any film yet.

EDIT: An afterthought - I'm sure the falloff will be substantial, and I'm not sure how comfortable I'll be with that. I recently got a center filter for my 120 SA for use on 8x10, because the falloff bothered me enough when pushing that lens to the limit. Alas, the CF for the 165 is frightfully expensive, so with that lens I'll either live with the falloff or retreat to something a bit longer.

Thanks, Oren. I'll defer to your findings!

(By the way, as you're currently on post #3,999, congratulations on the impending 4,000th post!!)

[Len Middleton]

Len, http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/...a/8-165mm.html

EvH,

Actually it is Lachlan who would be looking for that information.

I have the non-SA version (165mm / f6.8) for my 8x10, but even if the 165 SA would cover 8x20 is much too wide for my vision on 8x20. The 355mm is close to the wide end of my vision there.

Thanks for your efforts to help,

Len

[Oren Grad]

(By the way, as you're currently on post #3,999, congratulations on the impending 4,000th post!!)

Makes me feel as old and decrepit as some of my cameras!

[Lachlan 717]

Old thread, resurrected.

In the period since I posted this,has anyone had cause to use the 165mm on either 11x1 or 7x17”?

I’m looking for a WA for my 8x10” and would love it if this killed two birds with one stone.

(Sorry to bri g this up again, Oren. You’re double plus 4000 ow)

[John Layton]

...very curious to hear (and possibly see!) results of the above (165 w/11x14 - 7x17). Even a bit of vignetting/edge softness could look really interesting and work well for certain subjects.

[neil poulsen]

Image circle of the 165mm SA is 395 at f22. The diagonal of an 11x14 image is 452mm. The diagonal of 7x17 is 466.

Maybe . . . at very small apertures, this lens might cover???

[MAubrey]

Image circle of the 165mm SA is 395 at f22. The diagonal of an 11x14 image is 452mm. The diagonal of 7x17 is 466.

Maybe . . . at very small apertures, this lens might cover???

The 120mm SA is well known for covering 8x10 despite official specs otherwise, I believe the hope is that the same is true for the 165.

[Mark Sampson]

I occasionally used one on the job in the 80s-90s. It did throw a huge image circle on 8x10, and it was quite sharp, but we didn't use any larger formats. If it will cover any of those, it will be an extremely wide view.