I have seen the 72XL listed on Ebony's site and have seen people say it can cover with a pinch of falloff on 4X10.
90mm XL is next in line. It is right on the edge of covering according to IC. Schneider is underrated, but just how much the IC is underrated with this lens I do not know. I am sure others can chime in and say what they have experienced with this lens on Whole Plate or 4X10 and how useable it is for movements.
Moving on is the Schneider 110mm XL. This one covers and gives excellent room for movements. Well, not like having it on a 4X5, but still.
I know there are others past 110mm, but I'm going to stick to these three for now and see what people with Whole plate OR 4X10 are using as their wide lens of choice and why.
Another question has to be, can that 72XL make it for Whole Plate per Ebony's Spec sheet OR are they a bit "out there" thinking it can? Say it falls off a tad, how much of an image would one have left...a 6X8?...a 5.5X8.5? Trying to get an idea of how much sheet film this lens can cover with edge to edge, top to bottom sharpness.
Here's how I see it:
1) 72mm can make it. It has been proven on 4X10 which I believe is slightly more surface area than the Whole Plate area. However, just how well can it cover "and", is it really a lens to consider or should one "at least" step up to the....
2) 90mm XL: This one has enough IC on base specs to basically "just cover". Given Schneider's specs and that the 110 XL can cover 8X10 "just barely", though it is rated 25mm's less IC than is needed to cover the 8X10 sheet, and if the 72XL can somehow pull into barely covering a Whole Plate sheet with, again, basically 25mm's more IC than stated to have, does the 90mm actually follow these other lenses and have some magical 285mm's of IC=plenty enough for even some movements on Whole Plate? OR, is this lens spec'd about right and the best it can do is cover Whole Plate, maybe with minimal movements, and that's it? Exactly how much movement ability would the 90 XL give for Whole Plate?
3) 110XL: Now we're starting to get out of the wide wide zone and into a wide zone. This one will most certainly cover Whole Plate and then some. But just how wide is this one on Whole Plate and is it "wide enough"? I have to question why one wouldn't go with something like the 115 Grandagon or 120 Nikkor in this situation. Both can be had for $500-$550 vs. $1200 for the 110XL. Both are heavier than the XL, sure, but I think one can get around with a little more weight to save $700 in expense. It almost places the Grandagon in line with either the 72 or 90 for use as a wide. In other words, as a wide wide, the 72 or 90 would do the trick, but for movements and still having a wide lens, the 115/120's would work fine. Even the SA 120 can be had at times for $400...very cheap, again, vs. the 110XL.
So aside from weight, why would anyone use the 110XL over the 115/120's? Question seems to be answered reasonably in a sense that the 110XL may be the only lens one may need for their wide coverage on WP, and that lighter weight combined with a few more mm's of focal difference can come into play very well.
I've put down my thoughts here...what is everyone else's take on the XL based wides for WP and especially, where do the 72/90 fit into the equation, and how would the 110 make sense over the other candidates that are more than 1/2 the price?
Thanks all for your contributions...as a side note, I love shooting VERY WIDE, but at the same time, I do not like having ONE lens that can "barely" make it wide...which means the answer is either have a 72 OR 90 along with a 115/120...OR, have a 110 and whatever other lenses there on up.
Long post, sorry..hope it is not too congested!
Bookmarks