Schneider-Kreutznach Super-Angulon 1:8.0/65mm

[braxus]

Just wondering about this lens. Does it cover a full 4x5 view? I intend on using it on a Graflex Speed Graphic 4x5. The seller I think was using a 2x3 Graflex, but he was also advertising it for 4x5. His comes with a lens board and I'm not sure the smaller camera uses the same lens boards as the Speed Graphics. Also is this a decent lens for its day? My main use for it will be landscapes or just general outdoor use. Also are these lenses coated? And when were they produced? Any info would be great.

 

[roteague]

I haven't used this particular lens myself, but I think it should work just fine for what you want - it is a pretty wide lens.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Not a bad lens. It just covers 4x5", but it's sharp out to the corners, and is quite affordable compared to new ultrawide lenses. It is usually single coated, but if it says "MC" it's multicoated. Some are in 00 shutters (like mine), which don't have a focus lever or "T" setting, so you need to set it on "B" and lock the cable release to focus. They made a center filter for it, which is hard to find, but I managed to turn one up on eBay a few months ago.

Here's a sample photo with no center filter, and it shows some vignetting from "too much" front rise, but I think it works in the way it does in some 19th-century landscapes, so I didn't crop it out--

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Go to www.schneideroptics.com for official specs and serial number info to date your lens.

 

[Ian Grant]

As David says it's a sharp affordable lens. I've been using one for over 20years..

The negatives and transparencies I've made with it are just as sharp and have the same tonal qualities as images made made with my other lenses, Prodenstock's and a Nikon.

There is essentially no room for rise and fall, as David's image clearly shows, but then this is probably not a lens you would be using that frequently. It is an excellent addition to any 5"x4" photographers range of lenses, as a good affordable very wide angle lens, approx equivalent to a 19mm lens on a 35mm camera.

Used carefully you won't have a problem with cut off at the corners, a great lens.

Here's an image shot with mine:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Ian

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I used one for a while (took demise of the harvest capella with it - see my gallery. It just covers assuming your image camera has a perfectly centred back. My Ebony RSW45 had one about 5mm off centre to one side(designed that way I assumed) and you could tell..just. No room for movements, very small and tiny 00 shutter whilst fine sometimes needed a warm up. Certainly had to be stopped down for full 5x4 coverage.

Overall, I would not recommend one. I sold mine for a 65 f4.5 grandagon which was better in all respects (apart from being heavier) and allowed movement. Front tilt can be used with the SA f8 if you use a bit of drop too. Dingy as hell tho. The grandagon made the process of composure less like trying to see in the dark.

IMO better off saving for a 65/75 f4-5.6 lens.

 

[Ian Grant]

Strange comment about the lens Tom, as at the same time you are actually recommending using one, 8 minutes earlier:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I won't disagree that if funds are available then a better buy would be a faster Grandagon 65mm, but the cost will be substantially more, and you have to take into account the extra weight, and also how much you will use it as well.

Ian

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Ian,

The thread you refer to was to identify the most compact kit possible which I took to be regardless of other considerations (possibly incorrectly). I believe it is about the most compact lens to cover in that focal length but it would not be my personal choice but is well liked by others I know. Realising the ambiguity, I have modified my previous threat to make this clear.

Whilst it is light and cheap, it does not matter how little you use it, if you find that for the one shot where you need it sufficient rise is not available.....you might have well left it at home. I also found that simply using it was enough to dissuade me from using it bacause it was so dark. I do like the focal length and so was prepared to go for something with more coverage (and more cost). For the Harvest Capella shot I did not need any movements so had no problems and with 65mm of course one gets lots of DOF at f22! Were I building a kit again I would either save or put the money into getting the other focal lengths right for my purposes even if this meant having fewer slightly more widely spaced lenses. I instead of 65 f8, 90,135 sell all three and go for a 75 and 120 or so.

Still, when shooting straight on it was plenty sharp enough just out to the edges assuming shot at f22. mine was single coated and never flared.

 

[darinwc]

I have an Ilex version of this lens.. while it is nice and sharp, there is considerable falloff at f8. This makes it very hard to see if the corners are in focus. If you are shooting without any movements its not a big deal, because there is a ton of depth-of-field (focus?). But if you are trying to use tilt, its a pain in the a...

 

[braxus]

I don't use 4x5 no where near as much as my 120 and 35mm, so this lens is mostly to get wide angles of landscapes. I thought this lens was closer to 24mm really. I don't feel like spending a lot of money for this camera (its very old), and this one seems inexpensive enough. I already have an Ektar 127mm lens with this camera. I rarely use the rise/fall on this camera. If I needed to I probably would have bought a real view camera. I'm used to shooting as is through the view finder.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I'd say 75mm on 4x5" feels more like 24mm on 35mm, and 65mm on 4x5" feels more like 20mm on 35mm.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I'd say 75mm on 4x5" feels more like 24mm on 35mm, and 65mm on 4x5" feels more like 20mm on 35mm.

Absolutely. 65mm on 5x4 is a whole lot wider than 24 on 35mm, as you say 19/20mm.

As decent 75s tend to be quite expensive a 90 might be a good bet as an equivalent of about 28mm. They are common and cheaper. Prob the best budget option as an older SC 90mm f8 will be a similar price as the 65 F8, but have miles more coverage and perhaps be more 'general use'.