Schneider XL SA 72/5.6 vs. SSA 80/4.5

[Bob Salomon]

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

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.

[GPS]

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.

Or the not so less famous Linhof manufacturing tolerances? Just an educated guess on my side as I believe that the same problem with the 72mm lens would need to be known on 5x7 format too (if not from 4x5 with shifts)...

[Frank Petronio]

I've never owned either lens but there are several threads with people complaining that their expensive SS80XL being soft, at least the earlier examples. If I were in the market for that lens I would want to compare and test.

FWIW very few people seem to complain about their Rodenstock Grandagon 75/4.5s.

[jb7]

Well, I've got a Linhof Select 72 XL,
and I've never noticed any field curvature...

Not to say there aren't issues with some samples of this lens,
but I've never felt the need to go online to say that it wasn't a problem...

[Bjorn Nilsson]

The 80XL almost covers 5x7" (the very corners are a bit soft) so using the center part, i.e. a strip in the center for 55x170mm should be fine. (I don't know the actual length for 617, but it should be a maximum of 170mm.)
While there are complaints about the early 80mm being soft at f/4.5, these lenses should have been returned to Schneider a long time ago. But doing critical focusing in the corners while testing my sample with a 5x7" back was still softish. But just stopping down half-a-stop to 5.6 made it a bit easier. On the other hand all of the very wide lenses gives you problems in the corners, regardless of format. Last, while maybe being a bit softish wide open, this lens isn't intended to be shot at f/4.5 but at f/16-f/32, where it really shines and is tack sharp without any noticeable distortion.
Apart from that I've used it mostly on 4x5, where it is an excellent lens.
While I do have a camera and a tripod able to hold big lenses, I really like the idea of compact lenses. I.e. the choice between the 72 and the 80 is definitely the 80 for me. (The fact that I also have the 110 which uses the same filter size etc. made it an even easier choice.)

//Björn