Schneider SA 72/5.6 XL
vs.
Schneider Super Symmar Aspheric 80/4.5 XL
What is better?
Schneider SA 72/5.6 XL
vs.
Schneider Super Symmar Aspheric 80/4.5 XL
What is better?
What do you want to do with it? In my opinion (for what little it is worth) they are designed to do different things. For architecture on 4x5 (or for a very wide lens for 5x7) go for the SA 72 XL to get the most movements. For landscapes or more general use go for the SSXL 80 which is much smaller and lighter but allows less in the way of movements.
David Whistance
I was thinking along a similar line (75 f5.6 S-A vs. 80 SSXL) in the not too distant past, and I found several threads on the subject that helped me with my decision. The Search function in the top bar will get you there; it's a great function and often underutilized.
They are ill discoverers that think there is no land, when they can see nothing but sea.
-Francis Bacon
The SSA80 is my current short lens for 4x5, as I fomerly used the 72XL. I dedicated the second one to 6x17. I somewhat regret this swap, as I sometimes ran out now of coverage with the SSA80 for architectural work in 4x5.
Definition sounds on par, the 72 XL has some curvature of field, which never was a trouble in 4x5, but is objectionnable in 6x17 (perhaps because of a wider working aperture).
+ an obvious advantage of the SSA80 in terms of weight, bulk and CF cost.
I use 4x5 now. I'm goin' to use 6x17 near future so perharps my choose is SA 72/5.6. I like to take photos with architectures, landscapes, nature...
By the way: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=15123
Do pay attention to Dominique's comment regarding curvature of field exhibited by the 72XL on 617 format. We have outfitted a handful of our (Fotoman) 617 cameras for the 72XL, and in almost every case curvature of field has been a source of heartache, to one degree or another. In the worst case, it was near impossible to achieve sharp corner to corner images, even at f32.
While we do support the popular 72XL on our 617 camera... when asked, we don't normally recommend it. For 617 format we prefer the SS80XL as an ultra wide, which has its own problem of being very soft (on 617) at large apertures... virtually un-useable until f11. However, at normal 617 shooting apertures (f22ish), the SS80XL performs admirably.
It might also be of interest to note that the 72XL only offers an additional 6 degrees of viewing angle, compared to the SS80XL, on 617 format... (diagonal) 101.7 vs 95.8 - (horizontal) 98.8 vs 92.8
When writing my comments, I had a 4x5 use in mind, but I quoted the use for 617, because I noticed its curvature of field only with objectionnable results in panoramic. Paul, who is very helpful through is extensive comments in the Fotoman FAQs, has developped this specific point.
All in all, for 4x5, the 72 XL looks like beeing the best choice for architectural work and I'm thinking of swapping my lenses back (80SSAXL for 617 and 72XL for 4x5).
every 617 I've ever seen had a 90mm 5.6 Super Symmar XL mountedOriginally Posted by Paul Droluk
Is there any other good replacement for SA 72/5.6 XL for use on 6x17 cm camera?
There are some 75 lenses:
- Schneider SA 75/5.6
- Nikkor SW 75/4.5
- Fujinon SWD 75/5.6
- Rodenstock Grandagon N 75/4.5
- Rodenstock Grandagon N 75/6.8
Any experience using them on 6x17 format?
For longer then Fotoman was in business Linhof has offered the 72mm SA XL on their Technorama 617 SIII with no problems. This camera also takes the 90mm XL, the 110 the 180 and the 250mm. The 72, 90 and 110mm perform so well on the T 617 SIII that all three lenses are also available for use with the T 617 SIII's shift adapter!
So maybe it is a case of Linhof's famous lens testing that makes the difference for the 72mm.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks