Thoughts on older 90mm 6.8 Angulons

[Charlie Strack]

A friend gave me a 6.8 90mm angulon, and I've never felt the need to replace it. I think it is mid-50's vintage. It's a lot less lens to carry than the Super Angulon is. I doubt, though, that it would handle a 5x7--a 120, though, would probably be fine. I don't have one of those.

Charlie

[Frank Petronio]

Get a Linhof select one with a serial number over 6m, put it in a shallow recessed board and go shoot at f/16-22.

[Jim Graves]

In Schneider's 1934 catalog ... not long after the Angulons were introduced ... they list the 90mm f/6.8 Angulon as having a 105 degree angle of view and as covering 3.25" x 4.25" at f/6.8, 4" x 5" at f/11, and 4.75" x 6.5" at f/22.

But by 1939 they were listing the 90mm as a 2.5" x 3.5" lens with maximum coverage of 3.9375" x 5.875" with a "cirlcle of sharp definition" of 7.0625".

In the same 1939 catalog, they list the 120mm Angulon as being suitable for 3.5" x 4.5" up to 5" x 7" with a "circle of sharp definition" of 9.4375".

That being said ... I have used the 90mm Angulon on 4x5 without any problems ... I stop it down to at least f/16 or above ... and there is VERY little room for movements. I have some very nice 11" x 14" enlargements from it but the ONLY reasons I carry it instead of my 90mm Super Angulon is weight and size while backpacking.

[Greg Y]

Thanks Everyone. I'm looking at using it as Alberto has on a Holgamod 612, so small size is of importance. I sometimes use a 4x5 reducing back on my Deardorff, so I suspect i'll go with the smallest option. & Yes it will be backpacked around a lot.

[Ole Tjugen]

A pre-WWII Angulon 90mm would almost cover 5x7" by the then current definition of "cover": For contact prints.

1950's and later Angulons have a larger sharp image circle at larger apertures, but a more abrupt transition to unsharp corners make them less sharp in the corners of 5x7" despite the larger sharp image circle by current definitions of sharpness.

[IanG]

Some time ago Dean Jones (Razzledog) found that there was a variance in the spacing of the earlier (50's and later) 90mm f6.8 Angulons this was caused by the Compur shutters. He claimed in a thread on this Forum that rectifying the spacing problem improved the sharpness of previously poor versions.

I've used 3 of these lenses the first just wasn't sharp even at f22 so I sold it, later I borrowed another which was the same but I've since bought one which is sharp. Only later I came across Frank's comments about higher serial numbers being better, also Linhof Select, my good one is both of these.

Ian

[Ole Tjugen]

Found it at last: http://www.bruraholo.no/Cameras/Angulon/

Central sharpness is pretty good on both the 1939 and the 1951 models, I'd say. If your Angulon delivers unsharp negatives, there's something wrong with it.

[Greg Y]

Ole, Thank you for the info, especially your comments re: coverage. I'll be scouring the 'bay for an older tiny angulon. Missed one yesterday by a few minutes.

[Dan Fromm]

Greg, are you clear that redesigns, if any, of the Angulon didn't change coverage? What changed claimed coverage was changing ideas about how much resolution, sorry, contrast given resolution, in the corners is needed.

My favorite example of this is Berthiot's Perigraphe Ser. VIa. f/14, made in a variety of focal lengths. Claimed coverage at small stops: 115 degrees in 1912, 106 degrees in the mid-'30s, 100 degrees around 1950. Same design as far as I know, same small stop, increasingly stringent interpretations of "good enough."

[Greg Y]

Thank You Dan & Ole.... & John NYC.... angulon on the way!