Schneider Super Symmar XLs on Press Camera?

[Seascape Man]

Hi Folks,

I've been lurking and learning on apug for a year now, and while I have acquired a $118 Speed Graphic with an Ektar 127 and learned to develop 4x5 in my bathtub, I need to bump things up a step and get some glass that can give me greater coverage of the landscapes and seascapes I am photographing, and greater coverage of the film as well.

I'll probably end up getting the Walker Titan 45 XL when I can afford one, or something else that is also light and has movements, but right now I only have the Speed. Except for movements, the Speed works great.

I'm getting pretty drawn to Schneider Super Symmar 80 and 110 XLs. They seem to have the edge to edge sharpness and wide coverage I need to capture my subjects.

How big are these two lenses? I can't really tell from the photos I've seen.

I need to hang off of cliffs and skate on top of seaweed a lot. It's by no means an absolute requirement, but it would be nice if they were small enough to leave on the camera when it's closed up. I doubt they're even close to being small enough. Are they?

Thanks in advance, apuggers. You folks are the best!



-- Ashton

 

[david b]

I would think the 110 SS would be fine but the 80 SS might not work because of the tight bellows.

I own the 110 SS and it is an amazing lens.

 

[Seascape Man]

David, thank you for your encouraging comment. The 110 SS is the one I would use most often. Anything wider or longer can go in the kit.

If you're right, I'll be in heaven.

BTW, I liked your photos.

-- Ashton

 

[Ole]

You are right, they're nowhere even close to being small enough to close up inside the camera.

With your suggested "shooting modes", I would suggest something you can afford to break instead. Like an old Schneider Symmar - the 150mm just covers 5x7", so it gives plenty of movements on 4x5".

 

[Trevor Crone]

I have both the 80 & 110 XL SS. They are super lenses with excellent coverage on the 4x5 format.

They both take 67mm filters.

The 110 is just under 600g inc. Linhof lens panel.
Approx. 60mm long.
Rear cell dia. 53mm, protrudes 17mm.

The 80 is approx. 400g inc. Linhof lens panel.
Approx. 54mm long.
Rear cell dia. 43mm, protrudes 11mm.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I'm with Ole.

Get a relatively cheap 90 mm lens that will close up inside the camera, e.g., 90/6.8 Angulon, 90/6.8 Raptar, 88/6.8 B&L, or a 100/6.3 WF Ektar, and go fall off of cliffs. Since you have a Speed, also consider an 80/6.3 or 100/6.3 Meyer Aristostigmat in barrel, they seem undervalued.

The Schneider lens you think you really want are wonderful, but their coverage is completely wasted on a Speed Graphic.

 

[Trevor Crone]

I'm with Ole.

Get a relatively cheap 90 mm lens that will close up inside the camera, e.g., 90/6.8 Angulon, 90/6.8 Raptar, 88/6.8 B&L, or a 100/6.3 WF Ektar, and go fall off of cliffs. Since you have a Speed, also consider an 80/6.3 or 100/6.3 Meyer Aristostigmat in barrel, they seem undervalued.

The Schneider lens you think you really want are wonderful, but their coverage is completely wasted on a Speed Graphic.

Dan is right, before I got the SS's I got, and still have Schneider's 90/6.8 Angulon. It's a 'cracking' little lens, tack sharp and so small (40.5mm filter thread) it fits in my shirt pocket even on the Linhof panel. They have large coverage but their full off in sharpness is pronounced when moved off centre. They are quite cheap on the second hand market.

Hold on the SS's until you invest in the Walker Titan which offers a lot more in the way of movement.

 

[photobum]

Another one here with Ole and Dan. I have a choice of 4x5's yet the most used/abused is a Crown. I cart it on the back of a dual sport motorcycle. Light little lenses that can take a beating and cameras that are cheap to replace have their place in the world. When you stop hanging off of cliffs and start shooting from your trunk is when you go to big and expensive.

 

[Ole]

Yet again, my Angulon test is Dead Link Removed. Note that these were 5x7" (really 13x18cm) negatives, so you can see what the coverage is like.

For slightly longer and more coverage, there is the 120mm Angulon to consider, too. And Meyer Weitwinkel-Aristostigmats - both f:6.3 and f:9 versions - the 80mm's are tight, the others cover nicely. I have and use 120mm and 160mm of these, too. And the Symmars (again) for somewhat more "normal" focal lengths with decent coverage.

And my speed graphic, with antique WA lens on, is HERE. The two "Holiday snapshots" in my gallery were shot with that combination.

 

[Ted Harris]

I'll take another approach. If you are about to make the investment in an SSXL why ot also consider upgrading your camera body to something still relatively inexpensive but something that has more movements available .... such as a Chamoix or ShenHao or Tachihara?

 

[Seascape Man]

You guys are all wonderful, and you've gone to great lengths to give me hard information and suggestions on lenses ... but I need to explain more ...

I'm engaged in what can best be described as "photoarchaeology." I have about 6,000 digital images and something less than a couple of hundred analog. Digital is great for finding things but to draw out details I of course need film.

This is my fifth year struggling to document a large number of old monuments I've located along some fairly rough stretches of seaboard. They seem to be covered with as many as thousands of inscriptions and pictographs. If they are not too weathered, I would like to be able to "read" them (that is, if I can ever figure out what alphabets and languages they're written in.)

There aren't that many days of the year when I can shoot. Critical parts of the monuments often descend into the ocean, so I need the lowest possible tide. They are light dependent, so I must shoot at only certain times of the day or there will be nothing visible to photograph. And, oh yes, I'd rather not have my fingers freeze to metal and I need somewhat windless days so the wind doesn't create blur when I fire a shutter. It can't be foggy, raining, sleeting or snowing.

Because there aren't that many good days when all these factors are right, I need to make each shot count.

I'm looking for 100 degrees plus of edge to edge sharpness with as little distortion as possible.
If a lens has a narrower field of view than that, it won't be able to capture what I'm shooting. The monuments are simply too big. Sadly, I'm rarely graced with the option of taking a step or two back.

Movements are less important at the moment (since I only have the Speed) but they will be important when I get a better camera, which I would have probably purchased already if my car hadn't frizzed out on me last month!

Forget that I have a Speed. I'll be moving to something better as soon as possible. But no matter which camera I end up with, I'll still need the best possible lens (or lenses) I can afford which are suitable for fairly rugged field use (not studio size), and which have the edge to edge sharpness, as little distortion as possible, and 100 degree plus field of view that my subjects require.

Dan, Trevor, Ole, you guys are right! It's unwise to risk a costly SS XL on a camera without movements, especially where there's ample opportunity to damage both of them, but I see no way out here. Personally, I'd rather that a $200-300 lens did the trick myself!

What do you guys think? Now that I've given this really windy description of what I'm up against,
are there any other fine lenses I should be looking at that will give me the equivalent to the SS in sharpness and field of view, sans distortion?

Lets not get started on Mamiya MF options yet. I'll probably end up with one of those, too.

I sure appreciate all the help here. The little I know about technical photography I have learned here on apug from all of you.

-- Ashton

 

[Nick Zentena]

Ole sort of touched on it.

5x7 with a cheaper lens. Off the top of my head I don't know what focal length you'll need to get 100 degrees but I wonder if the 150mm suggested by Ole might do it. Old touch wooden 5x7s aren't expensive. Cheap lens. Cheap camera. More movements then your current setup.

 

[Ian Grant]

Old touch wooden 5x7s aren't expensive. Cheap lens. Cheap camera. More movements then your current setup.

5x7 film holders are difficult to find, and expensive new, and the range of film easily available isn't as great as 5x4.

Ian

 

[Nick Zentena]

$65 for new ones? I bought a bunch of used ones last year for an average of $5-7 each. All from KEH. Of course I didn't find any until I gave up looking and then they just showed up.

 

[david b]

My apologies for not reading the original post all the way through. whoops.

I would not be using one of these expensive lenses for the work you want to do.

Follow the other advice and get a cheaper lens for a few hundred dollars.

 

[Trevor Crone]

Ashton,

If we are to forget the Speed and you go for something like the Walker Titan XL then the 80 XL SS is certainly an option. Providing you don't start throwing it around or get it soaking wet, It's rugged enough. I use it extensively for coastal phototgraphy, I keep a UV filter on it at all times to protect it from sea sprey. I also keep the camera covered as best I can during heavy sea sprey and rain.

As you probably know the 80 on 4x5 is approx. to a 24mm lens on the 135 format, so it's a great wide angle with a fair bit of movement to boot which the Walker will certainly put to good use.

Regards,
Trevor.

 

[Ole]

100 degrees?

That's a lot - and you need it across the film, not corner-to-corner???

I think you're looking at a Super Angulon XL 47mm f:5.6 there... That would give you a fraction over 100 degrees across a 4x5" sheet. Or the 72mm version of the same for 5x7".

But with that kind of angle of view you should also have a center filter to correct for the fall-off. And many cameras just can't handle those short lenses, so you will have to make sure you get a useable one. I know the Speed Graphic can't do it, and I know that the Carbon Infinity can. In fact I think the CI might be the perfect camera for you, but they are rare, and even more rarely for sale (no, I'm not selling mine)! Or perhaps an Argentum XL?

The 80mm Super Symmar won't give you that angle of view, nor will the older 65mm f:8 Super Angulon which is the only reasonably low-cost alternative I can think of (the Schneider or one of the "others" like the Ilex Acugon, which is pretty much the same thing).

95 degrees is pretty much the limit of what you can get from a reasonably sharp lens without paying a fortune for something super-special.

 

[Trevor Crone]

Yes if you really need that sort of coverage Ashton, you are looking at the Super Angulon 47XL, Apo Grandagon's 45 and 55 and maybe the Super Angulon 58XL.

They offer limited movement on 4x5 but have tremendous coverage, however light full-off can be a problem, especially if using colour materials. As Ole said a centre filter does help.

The Walker Titan XL will handle these lenses as will some of the Ebony's, I use their SW45 which will handle even the 35 Apo Grandagon with a recessed lens panel.

 

[Seascape Man]

Ole and photobum, I love my beat up Speed Graphic. For fun, I'd cerainly rather play with the old stuff and not worry so much about damaging equipment. I have a Nikon D200 that I miss shots with because I don't want to get it soaked with salty spray or sand blasted. You don't need to convince me .. I'm in love with my one old Ektar and ancient SG. She might never be the best, but the photographic experience is pure and very enjoyable to me. Cheap, too.

BTW, Ole, thanks especially for the link to your test. I looked at it for a few minutes but I'm going to study it again. The lens looks sharp as hell in the center, but the falloff and distortion look a bit much for my purposes. Would there be much of a difference in edge to edge sharpness between a 4x5 and a 5x7 that uses the same lens?

Ted, as I said, I'll be moving up to a better camera as soon as I can, but better glass is more important for what I'm shooting. My biggest problems (apart from waiting for weather and tides, my novice darkroom skills, and relentless poverty) are edge to edge sharpness and, if I recall the number correctly, the limitations of a lens with only about a fifty degree field of view. In doing some research on all of this earlier, I couldn't help but notice that your long use of Horseman FA and your acquistion of a Walker Titan parallel my own gut feelings on the types of cameras that might work best for me. I appreciated what your wrote. Thanks!

Nick and Ian, I'm sorely tempted by 5x7. That's another reason I have an interest in the 110 SSXL. I figured I can use it on a 5x7.

I'm sorry that the question I started this thread with has morphed a bit. It's become this:

Is there any field lens with a FOV around 100-plus degrees which is as consistently sharp across the whole photo, for 4x5, that's about the same size, or hopefully smaller and much less expensive, as a SS XL?

I need all the help I can get on this one.


-- Ashton

 

[Trevor Crone]

Is there any field lens with a FOV around 100-plus degrees which is as consistently sharp across the whole photo, for 4x5, that's about the same size, or hopefully smaller and much less expensive, as a SS XL?

I need all the help I can get on this one.


-- Ashton

The cheapest lens here in the UK that fits the FOV for the 4x5 you need is the 55 Apo Grandagon at £710.

Not a small lens: 67mm filters, rear lens cell 60mm, overall length 69.8mm. But it is a very sharp lens across the entire field.

 

[Ole]

Ashton,

on 4x5" vertical orientation, my "test scene" would extend from the treetrunk in th etop left detail, over to just about the end of the tree silhuetted against the sky. That's by just using the 5" dimensions of the two films as the same, and cutting away what doesn't fit on a 4x5" film. So it really needs stopping down to get the corners sharp, but it's nowhere near as bad as some would have you believe.

The only lenses I know with the wide coverage and sharpness right across comparable to the SSXL and SAXL is the by now mythological Goertz Hypergon. But that one doesn't have as good overall sharpness, doesn't come in a shutter, and tends to go for ridiculous sums on the rare occasions when one is sold. Oh - and the last ones were made no later than 1927...

 

[Dan Fromm]

Ashton, thanks for explaining your goals. You've left me more puzzled than ever.

If your goal is documenting inscriptions and pictographs on your monuments, making a picture that's pretty and includes the whole thing is secondary. Why not use a lens with a narrower angle of view than 100 degrees and take more than just the one shot? With a longer lens you'll be shooting at higher magnification than with a 100 degree lens, won't require as much sharpness from lens or film and won't require as good technique either.

I also don't understand why if you're documenting pictographs and inscriptions you can't live with the distortion caused by tilting the camera/lens assembly (converging parallel lines) instead of using front rise. That distortion can be corrected in printing, if you make conventional prints, or in Photoshop.

I do understand wanting better gear than your Speed and its humble 127 Ektar. I'm not convinced that a very wide angle lens on a camera that can use its coverage is the best solution to your problem.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[Seascape Man]

I'm back and forth from the computer today, and I'm always going to be some number of posts behind here.

Ole asked whether the field of view I need is a 100 degree field-of-view edge-to-edge, or whether I need one that is 100 degrees corner-to-corner.

Ole, In all honesty, I don't know, because I'm not sure which way the lens manufacturers measure it, though I suspect diagonally.

What I know is that I need at least twice, or maybe around twice, the angle of view I'm getting with my Ektar 127.

I thought that was in the low 50's, so I figure I need a field-of-view around 100-plus degrees.

I also need as little distortion as possible, so I figured the 110 would be better than the 80, since I had read that distortion increases as lenses get wider from what is normal, which as everyone knows is about 150 on 4x5.

Hence my interest in a field-of-view close to 100, or ever so slightly wider.

By the way, Ole, I have never really looked at the Carbon Infinity or the Argentum. Many thanks! I missed those. Will I need to beg Sean to take my ad "Willing to trade kidney for rugged camera equipment"?

Trevor and Ole, I have of course been reading about many of the lenses you both mentioned.

I'm listening very carefully to what you both have to say.

-- Ashton

 

[Ole]

Well now...

You need twice the field of view you get with your 127mm, which is not quite the same as twice the angle of view! Dinner in a moment, so somebody else will have to calculate that.

Distortion is really not relevant in LF. All lenses, and especially the more-or-less symmetrical ones, can be assumed to be practically distortionless. Only at a ratio of 1:1 can a truly distortionless lens be made, but even at other distances just about all LF lenses stay well below 0.5% distortion. The SSXL actually has a fraction more distortion than the SA XL...

The Carbon Infinity is a nice camera. No - that's a lie: It's a wonderful camera! Unfortunately, they are as rare as hen's teeth and considerably more expensive - there were only 80 made.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Ole, In all honesty, I don't know, because I'm not sure which way the lens manufacturers measure it, though I suspect diagonally.

I think you're confusing a couple of things.

I don't think any LF lens maker quotes angle of view. They quote angle of coverage. Angle of view is dependent on the size of film put behind the film.

The 110mm won't have a view greatly wider then your 127mm. It will have much greater coverage.

How about this. Do you have a 35mm format lens focal length that works?