Kerry - Wouldn't you really rather have the 80XL? Or are we committed to 75mm here? And then there's always the 72XL.
Bob - Granted that the Biogon will have less falloff, but it also has less coverage. On balance, when the Grandagon's field of view is similarly restricted, the difference in falloff probably isn't all that great.
Wayne,
I was specifically limiting my choices to the 75mm lenses under comparison here. My first experience with the 80mm SS XL was less than impressive (well documen ted elsewhere on this forum). It certainly looks good on paper (smaller, lighte r, larger image circle than any of the current 75s), and I may give it another g o in the future. It's big brother, the 110mm SS XL is one of my all time favori te lenses.
WRT to the 72mm SA XL. It's really too big (specifically the already large filte r size, combined with an even larger center filter) for my taste. It offers mor e coverage than I really need for my 4x5 landscape work. So, it doesn't really buy me anything other than bigger, more expensive filters. I'm sure it's an exc ellent lens, and others swear by it, just not my cup 'o tea.
Since we've opened this up to other lenses in this focal length range, I'll add a couple comments on some others I've used. First, I'm not a huge user of lense s wider than 90mm. That's not to say I don't use them. I usually have a 75mm i n my kit, but it is my shortest and usually least used lens. Of the ones I've t ried, my favorite, so far, was the 75mm f4.5 Nikkor SW. It was a good compromis e of size, weight, coverage, price, max. aperture, etc. for my needs. I sold it when I ordered my 80mm SS XL (a decision I would later regret). It was my wi dest lens for many years and served me well. I used it with a Heliopan center f ilter and was pleased with the combo.
Currently, I'm back to using a 75mm f6.8 Grandagon-N. This lens is a compromise in several ways. The f6.8 max. aperture makes focusing and composing more diff icult than a lens with an f4.5 max. aperture. Also, coverage, at 187mm, is pret ty tight (I greatly preferred the 200mm IC of the 75mm Nikkor SW). That said, i t does have some advantages, too. After the 80mm SS XL, this is the smallest, l ightest 4x5 lens in this focal length range. It is also the least expensive. T he 58mm front filter size, means it takes a smaller, less expensive center filte r. I am currently using this lens with a Rodenstock center filter that is threa ded on the front for standard 77mm filters (which I happen to have on hand from my days of shooting 5x7 with a 150mm Super Symmar HM). This is actually my seco nd go 'round with this lens. My very first 75mm was also an f6.8 Grandagon-N. After using that one for a couple years, I upgraded to the 75mm Nikkor SW. At t hat time, I did not have a center filter for the 75mm Grandagon-N and was occasi onally frustrated by the lack of coverage. The Nikkor was a definite improvemen t (especially with the addition of the Heliopna center filter). I thought that once I had a "better" 75mm that I'd use it more. I didn't really - just doesn't suit my shooting style all that well. So, when I found myself back in the mark et for a 75mm about a year ago, I found it hard to justify one of the more expen sive lenses (given that this is my least used focal length). So, I picked up a very good deal on a 75mm Grandagon-N and a Rodenstock Center filter (total price less than 1/2 what one of the more expensive 75s along would cost). It's certi anly not the "best" lens in it's class, but for now, it meets my needs just fine . Once I'm confident that Schnedier has a handle on the issues surrounding the 80mm SS XL, I may give it another try. For now, I'm getting by with the little f6.8 Grandagon-N.
Given that lenses in this focal length range don't really suit my shooting style in many situations, I'm certainly not "the authority" on this subject. Others, who rely more heavily on wide and ultrawide lenses, will no doubt have differin g opinions - especially those whose shooting style and subject matter require mo re extensive movements. In any case, I'm just sharing what I've tried and what works (and doesn't work) for me personally. YMMV!
Kerry
What price legend? What price myth? The Biogons are shrouded in mythology and legend. I'm continually amazed at the prices these marques garner on Ebay and other places. I'm guilty of having a little "collecter" in me mixed up I hope with a lot more "user". So when somebody pays $2600 for one of these what portion of that fee is for pedigree. What portion of that price is just for the pure pleasure of owning something magnificent? The ROLEX of lenses. Is it really $2250 "better" in what it can do than the little 6.8 Caltars that go begging for $350 on Ebay? Can't think of many lenses that can out resolve the $350 Caltar. But then it doesn't impress anybody so all it's good for is taking pictures.
Add the Apo Lanthars and the Planars to that list! Along with that funny little Goerz lens with the propeller thingy!
Jim,
That "pedigree" is selling for a lot less lately. I follow E-bay regualarly (I'm not bragging about that either!!!). There have been so many 75mm Biogons on line lately that one can be obtained for under $1,500 easily in exc. + or better condition. That is cheap compared to a few months ago. If you want one, this may be a good time to get one.
I own both the 75 Grandagon 4.5 and 75 Biogon. I agree that for practical use the Grandagon is a better choice. Lets face it...the majority of LF users are going to want perspective control. The Biogon on allows for minimal movement. If the Biogon only had more coverage I'd consider it near perfect. The Biogon performs outstanding at ALL aperatures; even illumination, very sharp and contrasty (despite lack of multi coating), great up close, and lower distortion than the Grandagon. It is also a classic, a beauty, and a Linhof/Zeiss legend which all appeal to the collector. But w/o coverage the Grandagon wins hands down. I am a big LF Zeiss fan but common sense must prevail...if I had to choose one the Grandagon would win because I'd turn to the 38mm Biogon on my Hassey for hand held use (it should be noted that the performance charactoristics of the 38mm Biogon versus 75 Biogon are very similar...only 5X larger film on the 4 X 5..WHOW). If you love hand held photography and don't mind the added weight, the Biogon would be the best choice because of the performance at wide aperatures, which also applies to the 135mm Planar and 250mm Sonnar.
J. P. Mose
Kerry - I find your remarks on the 80mm XL a little confusing. The results on Perez's lens test board shows the XL to pretty much whomp the other lenses as far as resolution is concerned, especially at the edges of the field (contrast will undoubtedly follow). Since Schneider has admitted that the lens should not be used at full aperture (f4.5!) what are you expecting them to fix? BTW that 150 Symmar HM that you sold me that scored so dismally in Perez's table has the highest aerial resolution of any of the lenses that I own. JGTS (Just Goes To Show) all testing should be taken with a grain of salt. Now I've got to find out if they have 5x7 Gigabit film.
Wayne,
For the complete story regarding my 80mm SS XL experiences, see:
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00773A
In a nut shell, the first lens I tested was SO bad wide open that it was impossi ble to focus accurately in the field. The test results you site only go as wide as f11 and don't reflect how truly bad this lens was wide open. For the test ( indoors under controlled conditions with good lighting), I was able to adjust fo cus at the shooting aperture. By the end of my first day using this particular lens in the field, I was trying to focus at f8, and even then I felt like I was guessing at the point of best focus. Not exactly what I would expect from a len s that cost $1300. So, I returned it for a refund and was told by Schneider tha t the lens never should have left the factory - evidently they agreed with my as sessment on that particular sample.
As far as: "whomp the other lenses as far as resolution is concerned, especially at the edges of the field" Compare it to the 90mm f8 Nikkor SW and my 110mm SS XL at all tested apertures and I think it's the one getting "whomped". These t wo lenses offer the kind of performance (even wide open) that I would expect fro m a lens in the $1300 price range (and the Nikkor was less than 1/2 that when I bought it).
As I have stated over and over, the second sample I tested was MUCH better and a ppeared plenty sharp on the ground glass to focus wide open. Obviously there wa s something wrong with the first sample I received, but based on the reports by others, it was not an isolated incident. If I would have received the second sa mple (which belongs to a friend and came from the same production batch as the o ne I returned) initially, I would have kept it and been singing the praises of t his lens (and wondering why others were reporting that it was soft wide open). The difference between the two samples I tested was like night and day - clearly visible on the ground glass with the naked eye. IF I had not read reports of s imilar issues with other samples, I'd probably have ordered another by now. I p robably will eventually anyway, but for now I'll wait for the dust to settle and hopefully increase my odds of getting a "keeper".
That said, after my experience with my friend's sample, I am perfectly willing t o believe the reports of others who have nothing but praise for this lens. Give n the sample-to-sample variation I saw between the two lenses I used, it is cert ainly possible that there a a whole lot of really great 80mm SS XLs out there be ing put to good use by their happy owners.
Kerry
Sounds as if "Industrial Disease" struck the Quality Control Department at Schneider on that one. Fortunately since I'm sticking with 5x7 I didn't dive in when the 80 hit the market. And like you my experiece with the 110 shows that they can make a good lens. Your description of the lens in question fits a 108mm Wollensak that I own. Just goes to show that the more ambitious the design, and the better that things look on paper, the harder they are to produce. They lowered their standards too far in order to get product out the door.
Replying to Richard Boulware's question: There are at least two, possibly three different '75mm' Biogons for LF. One has an image circle of better than 7". Feel free to contact me via e-mail for info if you like.
(I know it's an old thread, but nobody answered the question.)
Hey, John, I've been meaning to ask you about y'r monster 3"/4.5 Pacific Optical. I was recently given one, am going to have to stop teasing you about yours.
But, seriously, is your estimate of a > 7" circle based on on-film image quality or on how much of a ground glass your lens illuminates?
Cheers,
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks