Difference between a Super Angulon and a Angulon

[stradibarrius]

I can see from photos the the Angulon is a short lens and the Super Angulon is longer and I assume heavier.

What is the main functional difference?

 

[holmburgers]

Well, that's like asking what's the difference between Man and Superman. Would you put your faith in man to save the world, or go faster than a speeding bullet, or withstand kryptonite?

I didn't think so.....





(sorry, it's Friday!)

 

[Dan Fromm]

Barry, you continue to astound. Learn to search, if not on the great wide Internet then inside the forums you post on.

For lens cross-sections and claimed coverages, look here: http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/archiv.htm

 

[bascom49]

I have the same question. Thanks for the link Dan, but I think that you need to chill out just a little

 

[Chazzy]

The Super Angulon is a later and better design. The Super Angulons are not necessarily longer.

 

[ic-racer]

In the 210mm focal length the older Angulon makes a better backpack lens for 8x10. The Super Angulon in that size needs its own suitcase (3 kg), which limits its backpack use (unless you have a dedicated assistant just to carry the lens ) So, sometimes being slower than a speeding bullet is better

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Super Angulons covered a larger film area. I have a 90mm Angulon and it covers 4x5 but has no room for movements. A super angulon makes a larger image circle.

 

[thisismyname09]

If I recall, the super angulon is a Biogon design. I'm not sure how the Angulon is constructed.

 

[Alan Davenport]

According to “a lens collector’s vade mecum 2nd edition”, the Biogon is an asymmetrical lens with 7 elements in 4 groups while the Super Angulon is a symmetrical lens with 6 elements in 4 groups. My 120 mm Super Angulon covers 8x10with some movements. I have used it with the 8x10 at f/64.

The Angulon has 6 elements in 2 groups , similar to the Dagor, only the powers of the individual lenses are reversed. Hence it is sometimes called a reverse “Dagor”. The Angulons had oversized front and rear elements, giving them their great coverage. The pre-war versions have more coverage than the post-war ones and my 1938 16.5 cm will drown the 8x10 with coverage and the image quality at the smallest aperature is excellent even way out.

The oversized front and rear elements as well as the slower speed of the Super Angulon offer less fall-off at the edge although the early Angulons had much more coverage than the Super Angulons. I own both and I have had each out to the vignette and compared their qualities at their smallest apertures.

Alan

 

[Ian Grant]

The Super Angulon is a later and better design. The Super Angulons are not necessarily longer.

I think Barry means longer as in physical size and the Angulons of any focal length are very significantly smaller than the same FL Super Angulon.

If your lucky to pick up a good post WWII coated 90mm f6.8 Angulon they are great lenses for their size, but they need to be used at f22 before performance get close to the larger 90mm Super Angulons.

As has been said the 90mm Angulons just cover 5x4, it's not worth paying much for one unless you've tried and tested the quality first, unless weight is a big consideration I'd buy a Super Angulon or similar, I do use an Angulon at times for hand held work but my SA & Grandagon are far better all round wide angle lenses.

Ian

 

[pgomena]

If you're really asking which lens to buy, I'd go with the super angulons. They're newer than the angulons, and a better bargain than the latest, greatest models. I own a 120 and a 90mm, and they're outstanding lenses. The 90 is really pretty small and is supposed to cover 5x7, so you'll not run out of image circle on 4x5. The 120 is not so small, and not that wide on 4x5, similar to 35mm on a 35mm camera. If you want a good, versatile wide angle lens, go with a 90 SA. Get the 5.6 if you can afford it, although I don't have a lot of trouble focusing the f/8 I own. They are plentiful on the used market.

Peter Gomena

 

[2F/2F]

Super Angulons are super. They give you the ability to make more movement than their similar Angulon models. And yes, you are corect; this means that they are also bigger.

I agree that this question could probably be merged with about 2,500 others on the Internet.

 

[Lee L]

The Angulons may also work out better for leaving mounted on field cameras when they are folded for transport.

Lee

 

[stradibarrius]

I think most of you understood the heart of the question. There is information that gives very technical descriptions of a lens but I have learned to trust the opinions of many of you here on this forum. In my OP I asked the true "functional" difference between the two. I think many of you also understand that many of the reviews given on the web are in the strictest sense correct but the differences drawn between "A" and "B" are of no real consequence in the day to day use.

 

[Ole]

... The pre-war versions have more coverage than the post-war ones ...

Well, as I see it the main difference between the coverage of pre-and post-WWII Angulons was in the definition of "coverage". My little test of a 1936 model and a 1964 one, both 90mm, used on 5x7" film, showed a very slight difference in that the transition from sharp to unsharp is a little more clearly defined in the later model. At f:32, the corners were a little more diffuse with the newer lens while the sharpness at the edge of a 4x5" section at larger apertures was sharper with the newer lens.

That said, I have used a 210 Angulon on 8x10" with so much rise that the lens axis was pretty close to the top of the film - in portrait orientation. Yes, the top of the image is a bit soft - but that hardly matters since it was mostly (overcast) sky.

I have every Angulon from 65mm to 210mm, and Super Angulons from 47mm (XL) to 121mm (old f:8). I see no reason to carry a longer Super, the 165mm and especially the 210mm are so huge that I would have to leave all the other lenses at home!

 

[holmburgers]

I think most of you understood the heart of the question. There is information that gives very technical descriptions of a lens but I have learned to trust the opinions of many of you here on this forum. In my OP I asked the true "functional" difference between the two. I think many of you also understand that many of the reviews given on the web are in the strictest sense correct but the differences drawn between "A" and "B" are of no real consequence in the day to day use.

I think that every time a familiar question is asked, the answer becomes a more concise and comprehensive assessment of the question. For that reason, its a-okay in my book for newcomers to this field to ask redundant questions.

However, you'd probably save yourself some time (if that's a priority) by looking at a variety of information sources and drawing your own conclusions.

As for the lenses; from an economy standpoint, you can pick up a 90mm Angulon for maybe $100 to $150. Super angulons will be quite more expensive, correct me if I'm wrong. From what I understand, they simply don't allow any movements on 4x5", for full frame coverage. Used 'straight on' I think they are a fully capable wide-angle for 4x5. Besides... it'd be a fun exercise to effect perspective in the printing stage; something I've always wanted to try.

 

[TareqPhoto]

My friend gave me his 65mm SA, i thought it will be so big or heave lens, but i found it that it is just normal weight and it is not that much heavier than my Rodenstock Sironar-N 150mm, i am going to buy 75mm SA lens, that 65mm is not good to use with my Shen Hao, he is using Sinar, so i am going with few lenses, i know that i didn't use 75mm to decide, but i have a big feeling that 75mm will work more or better on Shen Hao than 65mm, and i really don't know what is the difference between a Super Angulon and a Angulon but i think i am not buying many lenses, so SA will be my choice.

 

[Tony-S]

On the subject of Angulons and wars (and at the risk of a thread-jack), does anyone have info on this beast?

Edit: Found a web site that says my serial number makes it an October 1954 lens.

 

[Ole]

Looks like a good 210mm Angulon to me - and if you think that is a beast, look at a 210mm SA!

The 210mm Angulon is a very capable lens. As designed it covers 24x30cm with movements, and I can personally attest that it can be used on 30x40cm (12x16") at small apertures - albeit with somewhat soft corners.