Schneider Super Symmar XLs on Press Camera?

[Trevor Crone]

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?

Actually the manufacturers do quote AOV but I think they actually mean AOC for example in Schneider's Super-Angulon brochure they quote the following AOV for these lenses, eg.:
47XL = 120*
72XL = 115*
90XL = 110*
90 = 100*
210 = 100*
These are not AOV as we would normally relate them but more AOC.

As Nick has said, "do you have a 35mm format lens focal length that works?"

These conversions may help (originally published in View Camera Magazine)
4x5.......135
47........14
55........16
65........21
80........24
110......33
127......38

 

[Ole]

Dinner finished now...

If you need twice the field of view, you need half the focal length. That does not give twice the angle of view - except when the angles in question are very narrow.

So a 65mm would give very close to twice the field of view that a 127mm does, but you need a 47mm to get twice the angle of view.

 

[Seascape Man]

I think I accidentally pulled a few people off thread. I was on the computer too long and near the end I inadvertently used the term "angle of view" when I meant to say "field of view," which is the term I tried to use throughout the thread.

My apology for the error.

Thanks everybody. I got highly specific information to my question about whether the Schneider Super-Symmar 80 XL or 110 XL can stay on a closed Speed Graphic (as I suspected, it's not even close to fitting), and I was told some names of a few comparable or near comparable lenses.

I'll check the thread for a while in case anybody else has an opinion.

Once again, my deepest thanks for the advise!

-- Ashton

 

[Seascape Man]

I'm back. I guess I need to figure this out more.

 

[Seascape Man]

35 mm doesn't cut it. Let's not talk about why right now. Let's go forward with this.

My primary concern is what I called edge-to-edge sharpness. Maybe that's not the best term. I don't know.

If there were such a thing as an Ektar 127 without fall-off and a decrease in sharpness away from the center of the photo, well, that would give me a great deal more detail than I'm getting now. That would be pretty much the lens I need for the great majority of my shots.

I figured the 110 XL would meet that need.

I also have a fairly infrequent need to take some important shots with something that gives me double the field-of-view, i.e., a wide, wide-angle. I realize one needs a camera that doesn't get in the way of a lens like this. So I figured something like a Walker Titan XL might be a good, weather-resistant camera to check out.

When speaking of lenses from the same generation, I am perfectly aware of what Ole said about a 65mm lens giving about double the FOV of a 135mm. I understand that.

Where I am confused concerns the manufacturer's claims and many of the published test results that can be found on the web.

I may have inadvertently confused one claim as to angle-of-view with another testers measure of field-of-view.

One unrelated quick aside ... Ole, your Carbon Infinity is wonderful!


-- Ashton

 

[Dan Fromm]

Ashton, you haven't responded to my suggestion that you can accomplish what you want to by using a relatively narrow lens, e.g, your humble 127 Ektar, and taking several shots as well as by using a wide lens and taking just one. If I've completely misunderstood what you're trying to accomplish, please correct my misapprehension. Documentation doesn't have to be fine art.

The only way you're going to get uniform edge-to-edge sharpness is by staying well within the circle your lens covers. Do look at the Perez/Thallman lens tests, at http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html . They make the point that very few lenses are as sharp at the edge as they are at the center. Some are a little worse, some are much worse. They also make the point that because of variation in performance from lens to lens every lens, new or used, should be put through acceptance testing before being used in a demanding application.

If you think about circle covered, much of the confusion caused by verbiage about angle of view and field of view will evaporate.

 

[Seascape Man]

Dan, I just sent you a private message hinting at the difficult physical set-ups required while you were posting to me about the same "testing.html" page on hevanet.com that I was looking at an hour ago.

Talk about ships in the night ...

Dan, I have to go food shopping and take a break for at least a couple of hours. Lets message privately later or you can decide whether to take this into a chatroom or start a new thread.

I'm hungry and exhausted, and I think the thread has now gone off the topic I started. (My fault.)

If you want to create a new thread on "comparing lenses from different manufacturers" I'll be back in a couple of hours or so. I don't know what's already up, though. Hopefully, I'll still be awake.

-- Ashton

 

[Nick Zentena]

35 mm doesn't cut it. Let's not talk about why right now. Let's go forward with this.

Nobody suggesting switching to 35mm. But if you have a smaller camera with a focal length that works then we can pick a 4x5 focal length using that info.

From the sounds of the rest of the post you're saying the 127mm focal length basically works for you? You just want more coverage?

120mm Nikon SW covers 8x10. So 4x5 is just the centre.
Various 135mm lenses will have more coverage then your current lens.

I think Fuji made/makes a 125mm wide angle that covers about 280mm.

The 110mm you were thinking about.

 

[Ole]

... If you want to create a new thread on "comparing lenses from different manufacturers" I'll be back in a couple of hours or so. I don't know what's already up, though. Hopefully, I'll still be awake. ...

The general differences between lenses from different manufacturers are less than the sample-to-sample variations within one single lens type from one single manufacturer. So that discussion would serve no purpose.

There are some (significant) differences between different basic lens types which could be worth discussing, though.


And another thing: All lenses of the same focal length will give exactly the same field of view on the same film size. The differences in coverage only come into play when you a: use lots of movements, or b: use a larger film size.
That's why I mostly use my 90/6.8 Angulon on 4x5", and mostly use my 90/8 Super Angulon on 5x7". The 90/8 only goes on the 4x5" when I need lots and lots of movements.


Using a lens with lots of excess coverage does not necessarily mean more overall sharpness. Looking at Chris Perez' test page again, you can see that at f:22, one of the 90/6.8 Angulons actually outperformed everything else of that focal length in terms of edge sharpness. Not by much, but enough to show the effect of sample-to-sample variations as well as the fallacy of equating greater coverage with better performance.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Using a lens with lots of excess coverage does not necessarily mean more overall sharpness. Looking at Chris Perez' test page again, you can see that at f:22, one of the 90/6.8 Angulons actually outperformed everything else of that focal length in terms of edge sharpness. Not by much, but enough to show the effect of sample-to-sample variations as well as the fallacy of equating greater coverage with better performance.

Ole how is edge versus centre defined? The 127mm he is using might cover 150mm or so. The 110mm he started the thread just covers 8x10 so lets say 2x the coverage of the 127mm. The edge of the 127mm isn't the edge of the 110mm image circle. Might not be the centre either.

If he's using something like the 110mm on 4x5 with no movements the edge of the 4x5 sheet should look better then it did with the 127mm. No?

 

[Seascape Man]

The general differences between lenses from different manufacturers are less than the sample-to-sample variations within one single lens type from one single manufacturer. So that discussion would serve no purpose.

Dan Fromm said the same thing just a couple of posts before.

If that is not acceptable as the final word on this subject I cannot imagine what would be.


I started this thread to get some advice on my own lens needs.

Not only were ALL my questions answered, I learned something about Meyer-Weitwinkel-Aristostigmats, Ilex Acugons, Carbon Infinity and Argentum XL cameras, and the Goertz Hypergon.

Thanks, everybody.

I have to go now.

I have to compose an ad titled "Kidney for Sale" so I will have the funds to relieve Ole of his amazing Carbon Infinity ...

-- Ashton

 

[Ole]

...
I have to compose an ad titled "Kidney for Sale" so I will have the funds to relieve Ole of his amazing Carbon Infinity ...

-- Ashton

I also need a camera which I can "safely" clamber over wet, slippery rocks with - and if I can leave a 150mm Apo-Lanthar safely tucked away inside it, so much the better. Even more - a camera which can take any lens I use, from 65mm to 420mm, without changing bellows...

 

[Seascape Man]

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.

I goofed. I owe Ole a HUGE apology.

Ole had suggested earlier in this thread that I check out his Angulon 90 test page Dead Link Removed, and I basically said at the time what is in the quotes above, that the Angulon did not appear sharp enough for my purposes.

I took another look at his test today, and I realize now that in my haste to keep up with the flow of discussion I had completely misunderstood what I was looking at.

I think Ole's test shows the Angulon to be a very sharp lens on 4x5 when used without movements. (I'm assuming the test was without movements.)

Also today, a search of my archives turned up a very detailed head-to-head comparison of the 90/6.8 Angulon and the dream lens in question, the 110 SS XL, which Christopher Perez posted here.

Well, I'll be darned ... For shots without movements, I'm sure the lenses will be plenty close enough for my purposes.

My plan now is simple ...

For shots that are potentially hazardous to life and equipment, the next thing I'll get will be an Angulon 90mm for the Speed, since mine has few useful movements and who has time for swings and tilts anyway when you're trying to avoid being swept into an outgoing December tide by a rogue 15 foot breaker. I'm probably as careful as anyone can be, but that happened once.

The tiny, 90mm Angulon (or the 127 Ektar) can stay inside the old Speed Graphic.

A much bigger and costlier 110 Super Symmar can stay on a fancier camera I'll get for using movements in set-ups that are a bit less risky.

No need to remember where a lens is in when I'm rushing to take a picture.

I will still have need for a super-wide lens, but it will have to wait.

My heartfelt thanks to all the experts who contributed. I think most of you would approve of this plan. I was expecting to take a different approach when this thread started.


-- Ashton

 

[Ted Harris]

You might also think about insurance for the equipment. A scheduled rider on your homeonwers if you are purely an amateur, that is make NO money from photography or a dedicated policy if you are a pro or semi pro. In either case it will likely be cheaper than replacing the lost equipment.

 

[Seascape Man]

You might also think about insurance for the equipment. A scheduled rider on your homeonwers if you are purely an amateur, that is make NO money from photography or a dedicated policy if you are a pro or semi pro. In either case it will likely be cheaper than replacing the lost equipment.

I would think that insurance would be critically important for someone who has to deal with the public, because of the risk of theft or loss of use.

But in my case, Ted, I don't think it will be an issue until I move beyond the SG and the one old Ektar.

I'll be sure to revisit the idea when I get the 110 SS and a Horseman, Ebony, Walker, or comparable!

On that subject, I'm still trying to figure out whether I am better with something fairly compact like the Horseman FA or HD, or one of the seemingly rugged Walker cameras. If a Walker, which one?

I'm getting exhausted just thinking about this. I'm really not a gear head. I just want to get back to work taking pictures.

-- Ashton

 

[Trevor Crone]

If a Walker, which one?
-- Ashton

The Titan XL 4x5. Will allow the use of a SA 47XL on a flat lens panel, should you ever want to go that wide. Not so good with longer lenses, 180 without the use of lens extension tubes ('Top Hat').

 

[spongeboy]

Try to find a late, coated 108mm VIIb Cooke in Copal 0 or front-mounted on a Copal 1; about the same size as an old 90mm Angulon in the C-0. Image circle is plenty, enough even for 5x7 (100+deg. @f32)....rare as hens-teeth though (...and I have one of each set-up ))))
If Cooke ever deemed making a new version of this lens, Schneider would have IMHO more on their hands than just a serious competitor to the S-S XL series. But that's of course just my hype and not to be taken seriously .
The originals are all barrel lenses that were designed to be front-mounted on Epsilon shutters.

 

[Seascape Man]

spongeboy,

Do you have any photos online anywhere that were taken with one of these lenses?

It looks like fun.

--Ashton

Try to find a late, coated 108mm VIIb Cooke in Copal 0 or front-mounted on a Copal 1; about the same size as an old 90mm Angulon in the C-0. Image circle is plenty, enough even for 5x7 (100+deg. @f32)....rare as hens-teeth though (...and I have one of each set-up ))))
If Cooke ever deemed making a new version of this lens, Schneider would have IMHO more on their hands than just a serious competitor to the S-S XL series. But that's of course just my hype and not to be taken seriously .
The originals are all barrel lenses that were designed to be front-mounted on Epsilon shutters.

 

[Trevor Crone]

Try to find a late, coated 108mm VIIb Cooke in Copal 0 or front-mounted on a Copal 1; about the same size as an old 90mm Angulon in the C-0. Image circle is plenty, enough even for 5x7 (100+deg. @f32)....rare as hens-teeth though (...and I have one of each set-up ))))
If Cooke ever deemed making a new version of this lens, Schneider would have IMHO more on their hands than just a serious competitor to the S-S XL series. But that's of course just my hype and not to be taken seriously .
The originals are all barrel lenses that were designed to be front-mounted on Epsilon shutters.

A Cooke 90mm series VIIb would be my 'dream machine'. I know they were looking at producing a new version but sadly all their LF lens development has been put on hold.