600mm/24" for 11x14

[George]

Michael, do you want to say that the 600C isn't consistently sharp in its coverage diameter of ca 600mm?

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

George,

The 600C (like all lenses, generally) is less sharp as you depart from the optical center. Most of this lack of sharpness can be overcome by stopping the lens down considerably. However, this causes loooong exposures and reduces your options artistically to a certain extent. Two things happen; you improve the sharpness out from the center by using the center portion of the lens only, and you reduce the sharpness in the center and somewhat overall by diffraction limitation. This results in an equally sharp appearing field. It works well for contact prining, but would probably cause some issues if you were enlarging.

The 550XXL has such a large IC that even wide open with some formats, you will easily achieve requisite sharpness. The performance at 300mm out from the center is going to be considerably better than the 600C.


---Michael

 

[George]

In other words (and that's what I thought) the 550 has more or less the same consistency in sharpness as the 600 - it's only that it has bigger coverage and therefore it takes longer rise to get to the less sharp zone out of the center. I don't think I would choose this way to hunt some more sharpness for my rise - but people are different.

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

Well, it is a WA dagor design, so it probably performs better at a given angle from center than the 600C, but it may be very slightly worse in the center, where the performance exceeds the requirements anyway.

Personally, I'd like a lens that gives me movements. The 550XXL does that in spades, even for a 20x24 shooter. It's probably overkill for 7x17 but anything above that, and I'd probably be using it's capabilities very well. It will permit a photographer to work with almost complete disregard for the coverage, except on 20x24.

---Michael

 

[Michael Kadillak]

George,

The 600C (like all lenses, generally) is less sharp as you depart from the optical center. Most of this lack of sharpness can be overcome by stopping the lens down considerably. However, this causes loooong exposures and reduces your options artistically to a certain extent. Two things happen; you improve the sharpness out from the center by using the center portion of the lens only, and you reduce the sharpness in the center and somewhat overall by diffraction limitation. This results in an equally sharp appearing field. It works well for contact prining, but would probably cause some issues if you were enlarging.

The 550XXL has such a large IC that even wide open with some formats, you will easily achieve requisite sharpness. The performance at 300mm out from the center is going to be considerably better than the 600C.


---Michael

But let's put some perspective on the current discussion. Last I checked the 550 XXL is about $5,500 which is obviously a financial load for many folks. Considering that the Fuji 600C can be acquired for $1,500 new, there will inherently be many more Fuji's making images in the current market than this offering from Schneider but I believe that Schneider was not looking at a mass selling and as a result only produced a small number. Secondly, when the benefits of "coverage" are one of the determinant purchase criteria there is probably a contact printer on the other end of the equation as the only person that I am aware of that enlarges ULF is Clyde Butcher. As a result, optical performance needs to be put into the correct perspective and in that regard I find the Fuji 600C is a truly marvelous compromise of performance, weight, size, speed, cost and coverage.

In our current lens project, we are balancing a number of these variables to bring a high performance lens into the market that is the best compromise of the above mentioned variables with the dominant criteria being affordability. If we cannot attain a positive purchase response from half of the ULF shooters we contact then we will need to re-group and make an executive go/no go decision. And we will not make this decision in a vacuum as many of you will be asked to be involved in the process at a future point in time. The work continues and when we get to a point where we have substantive progress we will provide an update.

Cheers!

 

[Ole]

... the only person that I am aware of that enlarges ULF is Clyde Butcher. ...

Add Tedd Soost in Sweden to that list. His local lab has a 20x24" enlarger...

 

[sanking]

But let's put some perspective on the current discussion. Last I checked the 550 XXL is about $5,500 which is obviously a financial load for many folks. Considering that the Fuji 600C can be acquired for $1,500 new, there will inherently be many more Fuji's making images in the current market than this offering from Schneider but I believe that Schneider was not looking at a mass selling and as a result only produced a small number.

Cheers!

I agree that the 600mm Fuji-C is a great lens, and with moderate movements on 12X20 its performance exceeds needs for most applications, even assuming some degree of enlargement.

The 550 XXL is obviously a very speciality or custom item with a limited market. However, for certain conditions, say those that require a lot of movements on 12X20, it has capabilities that no other lens can touch in the 500-600mm range. An old 24" Dagor could match, or perhaps exceed the 550 XXL in coverage, but would be much heavier and could not come close in terms of contrast. And would probably command a price close to that of the 550 XXL, if you could find one.

That said, my idea of a perfect lens for the 12X20 would be something on the order of 350-450mm with coverage of around 95-100 degrees, which would give four to five inches of rise or fall. Something like the Computar, but with better performance on the edges and without the curvature of field. So I think your design project is one that should provide an almost ideal line for ULF cameras. Performance in the center of the field is much less important than good coverage all over the field, as the 550 XXL provides, so in that respect the new Schneider lens got it right.

Sandy

 

[Tourmie Green]

new lenses for ulf - esp.7x17.

Greetings.I have been reading with interest the threads on new lens designs.
I am about to commission 7x17 ulf and would appreciate some guidance on
bellows draw. I think a 600 c fujinon would be my max.focal length choice,but
should I be making any allce in spec. to allow for the possibility of increased
movements in a possible new lens design? I am aware of the size/weight against portability argument.I would like to move a little further than 100 yds.
away from my 4x4. Early Christmas greetings to all APUG ulfers!

 

[Chazzy]

Uncommon but fabulous is the Voigtlander APO Skopar f9. Heliar design and just gorgeous. Coated of course.

Someone will have to straighten me out. I thought that the Skopar was a four-element Tessar clone, and that the Heliar was a five-element design.

 

[acroell]

Someone will have to straighten me out. I thought that the Skopar was a four-element Tessar clone, and that the Heliar was a five-element design.

Yes, the Skopar (no Apo in the name) was a Tessar design. No Skopars where made by Voigtländer for LF after WWII, only for smaller formats.
The Apo-Skopar (f/8 or f/9) was a newly developed lens _after_ WWII, and replaced the prewar Apo-Collinear as their process lens. It was available in barrel and up to 450mm also in shutter. And that one was a 5/3 Heliar- (or to be more exact, Dynar-) type lens.The lens diagram is shown here (Voigtländer catalog): http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/voigtlandera/p9.html

 

[Ole]

Pre-WWII there was also the Voigtländer Oxyn f:9 to f:15 - another 5/3 design, but half Heliar, half Dynar. Made in focal lengths up to 1700mm, it was only recommended for single-colour work due to lack of apo-correction.

The Oxyn was also replaced by the Apo-Skopar after WWII.

 

[sanking]

Greetings.I have been reading with interest the threads on new lens designs.
I am about to commission 7x17 ulf and would appreciate some guidance on
bellows draw. I think a 600 c fujinon would be my max.focal length choice,but
should I be making any allce in spec. to allow for the possibility of increased
movements in a possible new lens design? I am aware of the size/weight against portability argument.I would like to move a little further than 100 yds.
away from my 4x4. Early Christmas greetings to all APUG ulfers!

The 600mm Fujinon-C should have more than enough coverage for you on 7X17 as it covers the format with quite a bit of movement. However, if you have enough bellows draw you may also find lenses in the 30"-35" range useful. One of my favorite lenses for 7X17 is a 30" Red Dot Artar.

Sandy King