Super Angulon vs. Biogon at higher magnifications

[Jac@stafford.net]

You need to be more specific. I know of only one relatively modern Biogon intended for 4x5 use, a big clunker with a limited image circle, but with less distortion than
the Super-Angulon[...].

There was the Pacific Optical 3" Biogon which had a rear lens larger than 4" in diameter and sat very close to the film plane with the outcome that there was very little fall-off on 4x5. I am pretty sure it was designed to be used over 5" rollfilm. I can post images of one machined to fit a #5 shutter.

[Peter Yeti]

I'm not exactly sure what you're after, but once I tried to use my SA 5.6/90mm XL for close-up work around 1:1 and the result was disastrous. The resolution was very poor and it seems clear to me that the design of the lens was not made for this kind of work. But beyond 1:10 it's an excellent lens with high resolution and very small distortion.

One of my most favourite cameras ever is my Hasselblad superwide with the 4.5/38mm biogon, sorry that I don't have a LF biogon. The shortest focussing distance is about 30 cm (~12"), giving 1:5. But I've never shot at this ratio because the camera is simply not meant for this. At longer distances, the 4.5/38mm biogon is perhaps the most outstanding wide angle I've ever seen. But it's restricted to 90° image angle and my feeling is that the SA would perform nearly as well within this image angle. The fall-off isn't bad enough to be really disturbing me and to the best of my knowledge there isn't a centre filter available. Without movements, the 90mm SA XL might be used on 4x5" without centre filter with similar results regarding fall-off. But once movements are used one certainly might want one if even lighting is desired.

Long story short, my biogon and SA's seem very similar but the biogon might be optimized a bit further regarding resolution because no compromises for a larger image angle had to be made.

[Jac@stafford.net]

At longer distances, the 4.5/38mm biogon is perhaps the most outstanding wide angle I've ever seen.

[Arne Croell]

Long story short, my biogon and SA's seem very similar but the biogon might be optimized a bit further regarding resolution because no compromises for a larger image angle had to be made.

Plus, one has to take into account the aperture used: Biogons, including the 75mm one, were designed to be used with very good results wide open (at the expense of coverage), whereas the open aperture on a Super-Angulon (5.6 or 8), although usable in the center in a pinch, was intended only for focusing. So wide open the SA will surely be worse, stopped down it probably depends.

[Peter Yeti]

That is probably true. At least I can confirm that the biogon performs very well wide open. I shot tons of night city scapes free hand with the biogon wide open and they are tack sharp. I think I've never used an SA wide open, so I can't compare. And the SA's image angle of 105° refers to f22 (like usual), at smaller f-numbers it's less of course.

[Jac@stafford.net]

FWIW, lenses for aerial mapping were rated at maximum (wide open) aperture. Lower altitude tasks made Biogons' reputation.