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

[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

[Bruce Watson]

I use 4x5 now. I'm goin' to use 6x17 near future so perharps my choose is SA 72/5.6. I like to take photos with architectures, landscapes, nature...

By the way: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=15123

Yeah, yeah. Some early copies of the 80mm SS-XL did have some problems with being soft wide open, as that four or five year old thread explains. Schneider has been very cooperative in fixing the problem. I doubt there are more than a handful with that problem still out there, and even those Schneider will undoubtedly fix if given a chance.

My own 80mm SS-XL is one of the ones that Schneider fixed (so the previous owner told me). Mine is tack sharp wide open. Very easy to focus. Stopped down to f/11 it's razor sharp. The biggest print I've ever made (150 x 92.7 cm) was made with my 80mm SS-XL and people still comment about how sharp that print is.

The 72mm SA is a completely different design. It's like comparing apples to oranges. The 72mm lens is designed to be an architectural lens. It's got the coverage that architectural photographers need for the extreme movements they sometimes must use.

For me, the 80mm SS-XL won easily. Because I'm doing almost exclusively landscape, and I backpack to do it. So weight is more important than extended coverage for me. To be honest I never considered the 72mm lens for my purposes.