Angulon 165mm in barrel coverage for 8x10

[robsoe]

dagor77 auctioned a 165/6.8 angulon in barrel last month. No, I'm not the buyer. It surprised me that according to his description/experiment, the coverage of this lens seems to be larger than what I thought it should be. Everywhere else I read it barely covers 8x10. Is the barrel version of angulon 165/6.8 a different design than the one in compur shutter?

 

[jimgalli]

I know Ole will jump in on this one. Apparently pre-WWII Angulons, the ones that would say 16.5cm and not be coated, had quite a lot more coverage than the more common coated post WWII version did. I've never had both to do a side by side comparison. But I did get rid of my post war 165 because it was lousy as an 8X10 lens. IMHO of course. YMMV and all those other disclaimers.

 

[avandesande]

This is generally true about dagors as well, which the agulon was derived from.

 

[robsoe]

the URL

I forgot to put the URL:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7592447824

 

[acroell]

That actually is a postwar one, about 1959-1960.

 

[ReallyBigCameras]

Apparently pre-WWII Angulons, the ones that would say 16.5cm and not be coated, had quite a lot more coverage than the more common coated post WWII version did.

Is this actually true? I know the published specs prior to WWII were much more "generous", but do the pre-WWII lenses actually cover any more. Schneider got much more conservative in later years when listing coverage for their lenses, the Aungulons in particular. Like the Dagors, Angulons throw huge circles of illumination and usable coverage increases when stopping down. So, do older Angulons actually have more usable coverage, or did Schneider just get more conservative in quoting specs for their products? Or, do the newer Angulons incorporate field stops to limit the coverage to what the manufacturer considers an acceptable level of performance? It would be an interesting exercise to shoot old and new Angulons side-by-side at a variety of aperures and see just how the coverage compares. Unfortunately, I don't have any pre-WWII Angulons to test.

Kerry

 

[df cardwell]

http://www.schneideroptics.com/info...rge_format_lenses/angulon/data/6,8-165mm.html

A 300 mm image circle @ f/16... hardly covering 8x10 with ease, as Dagor77 brags.

Gosh, he's peddling snakeoil.

 

[ReallyBigCameras]

http://www.schneideroptics.com/info...rge_format_lenses/angulon/data/6,8-165mm.html

A 300 mm image circle @ f/16... hardly covering 8x10 with ease

Those are the more conservative specs I was referring to - specifically 84 degrees of coverage. However, I have some Schneider brochures from the 1930s that list much greater coverage. I'd have to check to be sure, but I think I've seen the coverage listed as high as 107 degrees for Angulons in some old Schneider literature. The 1939 Schneider catalog at www.cameraeccentric.com lists the maximum coverage for the Angulon series as 105 degrees which would equate to an image circle of 430mm, but then they only list the circle of sharp definition at small stops as 13 3/16" (~335mm) - which only equates to an angle of coverage of a fraction over 90 degrees. So, even as early as 1939 Schneider was hedging their bets on exactly how much the Angulon series was capable of covering. From their own documentation, they state the "maximum field angle" is 105 degrees, but the "sharp definition at small stops" only extends out to a hair over 90 degrees. Seems to be the old circle of illumination vs. circle of usable coverage conundrum - and is probably the reason many manufacturers, including Schneider, started using field stops in their more modern lenses to limit the coverage of their lenses to the "cirlce of sharp definition".

BTW, this is consistant with my experience with post-WWII Angulons. The circle of illumination is bigger than the usable image circle. The size of the usable image circle increases to about 90 degrees at f32. Of course, the definition of "sharp definition" and "usable image circle" will vary from person to person and application to application.

Kerry

 

[df cardwell]

Sure: big circles, and an experienced hand will know ( or can tell quickly enough ) where the limits are. The tough part comes when meaningless numbers are thrown around and there is no experience or judgement to interpret ( or ignore ) them

 

[ReallyBigCameras]

Sure: big circles, and an experienced hand will know ( or can tell quickly enough ) where the limits are. The tough part comes when meaningless numbers are thrown around and there is no experience or judgement to interpret ( or ignore ) them

I wasn't referring so much to the eBay ad as I was Schneider's own specs and the claims I've read many times that older Angulons cover more than newer ones. I believe such claims are more likely a result of Schneider's changing specs than actual differences in usable coverage. I don't believe the optical design of the Angulon changed over time. If anyone is guilty of throwing around meaningless numbers, it is Schneider - at least it was back in the 1930s when they claimed a "maximum field angle" of 105 degrees, but then in the very same catalog listed a "circle of sharp definition at small stops" that equates to slightly more than 90 degrees.

Oh, and as always on eBay, caveat emptor.

Kerry

 

[df cardwell]

Agreed... I was speaking of Schneider as well.

And most specs as well !

 

[f7.7]

Dear Mr Cardwell,


dagor77 aka f7.7 here.


I have(had) the lens, I have a camera and I checked the coverage of the optic in question. I am NOT in the habit of selling 'snake oil' and if you have any doubts why don't you E mail the person who won the lens to see if I was lying/exaggerating/selling snake oil? If I mention a lenses coverage its not something I've pulled up from my imagination its what the lens shows me on the groundglass.


Lens manufacturers throw out coverage figures that are all over the place(and vary year to year with no design change) and are considered 'enthusiastic' or 'conservative' on the end users need for whatever coverage they happen to need.


I DO know what a sharp image looks like so if I say a lens has 15" of circle its 15" of circle that can be used, the image circle may be larger but unuseable and I will mention that...though I do on occasion forget the focal legth of the very lens! ;-)


I do get to play with many lenses and don't think its a big deal if a lens has a 10" circle or a 15" circle for the given focal length, I'm not going to make a fiction from unsuitable facts to try and sell a lens for a few more bucks and end up with a negative feedback/bad blood and a bad reputation in two seconds flat etc.


'Just the facts, Ma'am'! as Joe would say.


F7.7/cp goerz/dagor77/andrew.

 

[df cardwell]

Dear Andrew,

Being a happy customer of yours, perhaps you will excuse my posting as over familiarity, born of a long midwestern winter.

It is with the greatest respect and affection that I place you and the phrase 'snake oil' in the same paragraph and only then to the degree you so artfully spin from lore, romance, and experience, those threads to tempt and inform your customers. Perhaps the word Glamour would be better than the phrase 'snake oil.

You are without question a reliable and dependable merchant.

The Angulon is a case that illustrates the plight of photography today: so much forgotten, and so few reliable sources for the inexperienced. The Angulon is certainly a lens that can have broad and generous coverage for some, while being disappointing for others. It is a matter of judgement. In years past, the lens was conservatively described as a 5x7 lens and understood to outperform that description by an uncertain measure. It was a time when the lens was sold to a professional, whose work would be examined by a most critical client. The old commercial standards were different than for a fine artist today.

I would add that for important work, ANY piece of photo gear needs be USED to see how the lore, and facts, suit the USER.

The most important requirement of photo gear is the reliability of the seller. And Dagor77, in all matters but Zeiss, sets the standard.


I hope this finds you well, sir.

Yours,

Donald

Dear Mr Cardwell,


dagor77 aka f7.7 here.


I have(had) the lens, I have a camera and I checked the coverage of the optic in question. I am NOT in the habit of selling 'snake oil' and if you have any doubts why don't you E mail the person who won the lens to see if I was lying/exaggerating/selling snake oil? If I mention a lenses coverage its not something I've pulled up from my imagination its what the lens shows me on the groundglass.


Lens manufacturers throw out coverage figures that are all over the place(and vary year to year with no design change) and are considered 'enthusiastic' or 'conservative' on the end users need for whatever coverage they happen to need.


I DO know what a sharp image looks like so if I say a lens has 15" of circle its 15" of circle that can be used, the image circle may be larger but unuseable and I will mention that...though I do on occasion forget the focal legth of the very lens! ;-)


I do get to play with many lenses and don't think its a big deal if a lens has a 10" circle or a 15" circle for the given focal length, I'm not going to make a fiction from unsuitable facts to try and sell a lens for a few more bucks and end up with a negative feedback/bad blood and a bad reputation in two seconds flat etc.


'Just the facts, Ma'am'! as Joe would say.


F7.7/cp goerz/dagor77/andrew.

 

[Richard Kelham]

Just a thought, but would the fact that this lens was in barrel form have any bearing on the coverage? Just how much, if at all, would a shutter reduce the coverage?


Richard

 

[Ole]

There is definitely a difference in "coverage" between pre-war and postwar Angulons. I might do a little experiment soon, as I temporarily have two 90m's: One of each.

The 165mm Angulon (postwar) was sold for use on 18x24cm format, hich is just enough smaller than 8x10" to make a difference. Like the 90mm on 9x12cm vs. 4x5", the coverage is tight but should be good at f:32. As I only have a 18x24cm camera and no (operational) 8x10", I haven't actually tested this. It's a wonderful lens on 5x7", though!

Shutter or barrel should not make any difference.

 

[ReallyBigCameras]

The 165mm Angulon (postwar) was sold for use on 18x24cm format, hich is just enough smaller than 8x10" to make a difference. Like the 90mm on 9x12cm vs. 4x5", the coverage is tight but should be good at f:32.

But this is still based on the manufacturer's recommendation. Did their recommendation (and specs) change because they changed the design/construction of the lens in a way that reduced the coverage, or did their recommendation change because they became more conservative?

There is definitely a difference in "coverage" between pre-war and postwar Angulons. I might do a little experiment soon, as I temporarily have two 90m's: One of each.

I would love to see the results of such an experiment.

Kerry

 

[Ole]

Kerry, a quick inspection of lenses of widely different vintage shows that the newer lenses vignette at a smaller angle than the older ones. It is quite possible that this "cutoff" is intentionally introduced to conform with a change in the definition of "sharp". I do not know, but I have the things needed to find out.

Two 90mm's, one 5x7" camera, and four sheets of film: One shot with each lens at f:8 and f:32 should show any differences there are, and allow enough "dead corners" to measure the usable image circle.

 

[Ole]

Ah - there it was!

Film is defrosting, both shutters have been checked. One 90mm has a serial number in the 1.5 million, the other 2.6 million. That makes the old one a 1939 model and the new one 1951. Definitely pre- and postwar, then. The old one is the "really old type", with a different smaller front face. Surprisingly both are coated...

Will shoot and develop tomorrow.

 

[nworth]

I have one of these in a Comput shutter. From your description, I think they are the same lens. The old Angulons lack baffles in the lens to limit the image circle. The image circle is huge, but the edges are out of focus and very fuzzy. Mine will not cover 8X10 with good definition at infinity when near wide open, but at f/32 it does fine (as long as I don't need any movements). Depending on your camera, you may get a little flare from the excess light spill. The lens is really quite good, within its limitations.

 

[Ole]

I've developed my films now, will scan them tonight. My initial reaction is surprise - both 90mm Angulons come very close to being sharp over the whole 5x7" negative at f:32! At f:8 anything outside of 5" is very fuzzy, so the corners would be very soft on 4x5". But I won't hesitate to use either 90mm Angulon on 5x7" in the future, at least as long as contact prints are the intended result.

 

[f7.7]

Interesting! So maybe if a 90mm covers 5x7....a 165mm may, and I say 'may' cover 8x10??! ;-)

 

[Ole]

Interesting! So maybe if a 90mm covers 5x7....a 165mm may, and I say 'may' cover 8x10??! ;-)

Like the 90mm was intended for 9x12cm but is mostly used on 4x5", so the 165mm was intended for 18x24cm and is often used on 8x10". The difference in coverage stated and needed is identical. A 120mm Angulon on 8x10" would look as "bad" as a 90mm on 5x7".

For the purpose of contact prints, a 165mm Angulon is more than adequate for 8x10". Maybe I should give mine a try on 24x30cm (9.5x12")?

 

[f7.7]

Sadly I didn't have the 165mm(older version) and the 165mm I have here now which is the newer type just for sake of comparison. I will be able to pop this one on the 8x20 and get the maximum circle and see how much is useable though.

 

[f7.7]

Actually since I wrote that last post I am now in possession of the two different types of 165mm Angulon, a Super in a Copal #3, a barrel Angulon and another in a Copal #3 so I'll see what I can garner from them.

 

[df cardwell]

A rough and ready test for edge-of-field performance is to shoot ( or view ) an unfrosted light bulb - the bare filaments are easy to see and display most of the things we want to know about.

Even better: project a 100 watt lamp through a single surface cheese grater ( a piece of diffusion medium, i.e. paper, between the lamp and grater. )

For contact prints, viewing the groundglass is sufficient. For enlarging, view the image through clear glass and a loupe. For obsessive results, use a microscope's eyepiece and no glass.

.