90/8 SAs are mostly very good; it's the 65/8 that is iffy.
Aaargh! Horrible mistake! I was thinking of the 47/8. Complete brain fade when I wrote the original post. Nothing wrong with the 65/8 -- I think I still have one -- but the 47/8 was bad enough that Linhof once rejected 11 out of 12 in one batch (the 47/5.6 was a vastly better lens). Others who used fixed 47/8 lenses also had high reject rates.Hi Roger,
what's wrong with the 8/65 SA?
Ulrich
Aaargh! Horrible mistake! I was thinking of the 47/8. Complete brain fade when I wrote the original post. Nothing wrong with the 65/8 -- I think I still have one -- but the 47/8 was bad enough that Linhof once rejected 11 out of 12 in one batch (the 47/5.6 was a vastly better lens). Others who used fixed 47/8 lenses also had high reject rates.
My apologies to everyone, including Schneider.
Dear Dan,Ulrich, not to disparage Roger at all, but surely the results you get with your lens tell you more about how good it is than he possibly can. I mean, you have the lens and he doesn't.
Also, he might only recently have acquired it, and not have used it much.
Hi all,
I would be careful to promote the 65/8 S-Angulon for 4x5 due to the tiny 00 shutter (lensboards hard to find) and the "just fitting" image circle.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?