Schneider Super-Symmar XL 110/5.6

Hello to All, I'm new and I want say nice to meet You to all.

 

I'm in love for the large format from years that now I've bought a Shen-Hao 4x5

camera HZX 45-II A without any lens.

 

Now I'm going to buy a first one to begin and I need some suggestions:

 

I come from 24x36 format, and I've used for years 2 focal lenses the 30mm and the

75mm that I want to continuing to use on 4x5'.

 

I think the Schneider SUPER-SYMMAR XL 110/5.6 could be a great lens close to

30mm in the 24x36 format.

 

I need to know if it's necessary to buy a center filter to use this lens with my 4x5

camera? And a wide angle bellow? It's necessary too?

 

Alternative? Can someone suggest me another great lens not so wide? I need superb

quality printing 100x150cm...not bigger.

 

 

Waiting soon for your kind answer

 

thank you in advance

 

Mirko

"I need to know if it's necessary to buy a center filter to use this lens with my 4x5 camera?"

 

No.

 

"And a wide angle bellow? It's necessary? "

 

It isn't a bad idea.

It's a good idea for 4x5 but it's also good to keep in mind that this lens is so sensitive to damage and any problem with it will last in Schneider factory repair...MF

so I can understand that could be good for the center filter, but I must handle with care this lens right? anyway if it's not necessary, I would keep my money for something else...

 

So how works this lens? Can I get 100x150cm prints with superb quality using Provia 100F?

 

thank You

 

mirko

If you can avoid using a wide bellows, do so. They can be a nuisance and often the bellows ends up in the picture. It should not be needed with 110mm. The lens is of very high quality. "Another great lens not so wide " is the Rodenstock Apo Sironar S 135mm.

I really depends on how much the bellows compress and how much movement you expect with the bellows compress that far. Schneiders site shows the flange to film distance required at infinity. The 110 has sufficient coverage for almost 8x10 so the capability is there. You probably will not need that much, but if you want it, a bag bellows is necessary.

 

Move a piece of 4x5 paper inside a 8 diameter circle and see what you ecpect. Then set the bellows to that distance on the camera and see how far it will go. The fist thing that will happen is the lens board will want to tip and strain is not good for bellows.

 

Avoid the bag if you can as they are a pain, but there is no substitute if you need it.

 

135s are great lenses, but they have little excess coverage for significant movement.

For 4x5 you don't need a center filter to even out the illumination. I used taken many photos with this lens, and I have only one photo where a center filter would have helped -- one in which I used really extreme front rise. I'm not sure what "Master Faster" means by saying that this lens is "so sensitive to damage". Maybe that the front element isn't recessed very much ? Excepting one special precaution, I treat it like all my other LF lenses -- with care to to bang it about or to scratch the glass.

 

The special precaution with the 110 SS-XL, which is also necessary with some other LF lenses, is that many regular glass filters will contact the front element. Schneider recommends the use of the EW (Extra-Wide) style filters, which have a diameter glass filter than the thread that attaches the filter to the lens. In this context, the advantage is that the glass sits slightly forward. But there are cheaper approaches: you could just create you own EW style filters for less cost by attaching a step-up ring to the lens. Or even cheaper, just use a empty 67 mm filter ring as a spacer. In theory, this might cause vignetting, but my guess is that this lens has so much coverage, that with 4x5, it wouldn't matter. You could experiment to be sure. The front element is so far forward that an extra filter ring will barely restrict the view of the lens.

 

The 110 SS-XL is my second most used 4x5 lens. It is an excellent choice for a moderate wide angle lens. Before that I used a 120 mm f8 Nikkor-SW. Both lenses work well; the 110 SS-XL is smaller and gives a brighter image to compose with. But I find that to make critical focus judgments off-axis I have to stop the SS-XL down a bit, so the aperture difference isn't as useful as it might seem. Other choices that I have never tried are the 120 mm Super-Angulon, the 115 mm Grandagon-N, and the 105 mm Fuji-SW. I think that the 90 mm lenses are significantly wider.

 

I don't know the Shen Hao in particular, but most 4x5 cameras will need a bag bellows to use the 110 SS-XL to its full potential of movements such as rise. Per Schneider's specs, with a 4x5 film in portrait orientation you can apply 76 mm of lens rise! Rarely will you need this much, but most cameras with regular bellows designed for longer lenses will be challenged at a smaller amount. Try your camera with the lensboard 117 mm from the ground glass (the position when the 110 SS-XL is focused on infinity) and see how flexible the belows are, as Ronald suggested.

First of one thank You to all for your contribute to answer me.

 

Of course, you were very detailed in your answers, but I still think "which lens to buy, for my needs...

 

I'm attracted for the Schneider SS XL 110, but also I'm thinking about the price, and I've seen the Apo Sironar S 135 is cheaper...

 

Yes, the focal is different (110 vs 135) but I don't think it's so important for the kind of pictures that I'm going to take.

 

But in the next step maybe I'll buy an Apo Sironar 210 f/5.6 S so I don't know if will be a good choice to buy 2 lenses not so far like focal: 135 and 210...maybe would have more reason to have a 110 and a 210?

 

A question: the MACRO lenses, can be used to take also landscape or architecture pictures? I've seen the Rodenstock 120 5.6 macro sironar, o I'd like to know how these lenses work with outside landscape photography...

 

Thank You

 

mirko

 

PS to Ronald: whato do You need with "135s are great lenses, but they have little excess coverage for significant movement" ?

To answer the question that you asked Ronald: in learning LF photography, on thing that is confusing is learning to distinguish between the view of a lens and the coverage of a lens. A short focal length lens will see more of the world and thus has a wide view. But this supposes that it is able to project that view onto the film -- that ability to project a quality image onto a certain size film is called coverage. All 135 mm LF lenses that I know of are plasmat designs, and in that focal length, that design covers 4x5 without much extra. This will preclude you from using certain movements, such as more than small amounts of front rise. Conversely, the 110 mm SS-XL has very large coverage for 4x5 and will support extreme movements for that format.

 

For Schneider, from http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/photography.htm you can download the brochure "Large Format Lenses Brochure". For Rodenstock, you can download the datasheets from the link "All pages of these lenses with all data sheets" at http://www.linos.com/pages/home/shop-optik/rodenstock-foto-objektive/analoge-fachfotografie/. Studying these datasheets will show information about coverage and possible movements. (A confusing problem with the Schneider document, at least when I downloaded it, is the Table titled "Angle of view, image circles and range of lens displacements" is actually listing angles of "coverage".)

 

In my 4x5 setup, I prefer to have lens focal lengths spaced about by about x1.6, with a minimum of x1.5. Smaller, and the pair of lenses isn't different enough and weight is wasted. 210 /135 = 1.55, which just meets might suggestion.

You may very well discover to your surprise that the lenses which you use on your 35mm do not translate to their equivilant for your vision with 4x5.<P>The cost of the SSXL 110 is stagering, and I think you would be well advised to start with a 135mm lens, such as the original Symmar.<P>Oh yeah, and welcome to the asylum.

110xl takes 52mm on the back side where filters belong anyway.

I disagree with the rear of a lens as where filters should (always) be used. This is a good place for thin filters, but for thick filters such as glass filters it will introduce a focus shift. Depending on the aperture, the depth of field may take up the shift. Schneider comments on the use of the rear threads in a brochure I cited above, in a sidebar "The correct use of filters". They suggest using the the rear filter location when you want to use two filters, because two filters on the front might cause reflections with bright lights. Schneider states about using a filter on the rear: "In these cases, it is necessary to focus with the rear filter on." -- this of course corrects for the focus shift, but might be difficult or impossible with a dark filter.

Someone who wants 100 x 150 cm (40 x 60 inch) superb quality prints may not (and probably should not) regard the cost of a 110 SS-XL as staggering. It won't be that many prints to equal the cost of the lens.

 

As Bill says, focal lengths don't always translate exactly between formats. One reason is that the formats don't have the same aspect ratios. I notice that you have specified prints with a 2x3 aspect ratio, rather than a 4x5 ratio.

 

Some LF photographers use lots of movements such as front rise that need excess coverage, others don't. Front tilt in landscape photography is frequently only several degrees and doesn't demand much extra coverage. So how much coverage you will need depends. Since your want superb, very large prints, if you decide to get a 135 mm lens, you might want to get a late model, such as the Apo-Sironar-S suggested by Bruce, or Schneider's Apo-Sironar-L. These also have slightly more coverage than older models.

Yes I want superb very large prints, and if it needs to buy an expensive lens, of course I won't look at the price...(in my possibility).

 

I've seen You all thalking about Filters...but it's so necessary to use a filter with these lenses? Why? For protection? For something else?

 

Sorry for my ignorance in the argument but I'm new in the large format, and if You're so kind to help me it would be very nice.

 

Thank You to all

 

Adam Mirko

As far as choosing focal lengths, I think it is wise to use that 1.5--1.75 rule mostly for the "normal" lengths and not the wide angles where I find that a 1.25 to 1.35 change is more appropriate (e.g. for both 4x5 & 5x7 using 72mm SA-XL, 90mm SA or Grandagon, and then 110mm SS-XL or 115mm Grandagon, followed by normal progression into the 'normals" (150mm or 180mm, then to 300mm and either a 450mm or 600mm thereafter).

 

The reason for this is that the perspective change with wide angles is more pronounced than with the normals and telephotos, and this is quite evident to those having had and used a full range of WA lenses in 35mm. At one time I routinely carried a 17mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 200mm and 300mm with me just about everywhere my camera gear went, plus several macros & WA and tele zooms, and often wished I had the missing pieces for the wide angles (20mm in particular, but even wider rectilinear wide angles than the 17mm were also available, while the 58mm SA-XL is good for 4x5 but also quite usable on 5x7 with a little planning). Sometimes one WA is too long for the shot, and another is too short, but the in-between is just right for the correct effect, and this is in particular true with tight interiors and also for "close-ups" where exaggerated perspective is wanted.

 

For this reason I plan my lens purchases to cover the crucial needs and then fill the voids, and the changes in the focal lengths of my wide-angle selections usually ended up being in the 1.2 to 1.3 range. Another problem is having the correct lens for the film size being used (we've been talking about one film size but three large format sheet film sizes are still in common use), and since I love the 5x7 format but also use 4x5, 8x10 and perhaps someday even ULF films like 8 & 12x20, effective coverage for all of these creates overlaps. As I've noted in other threads, the 210mm G-Claron is both a "normal" for the smaller sheets (4x5 & 5x7) plus a wide angle for 8x10 (when stopped way down), while the 240mm G-C is still a modest WA for 8x10 plus a "normal" for 5x7, but a modest telephoto for 4x5.

 

Size and length matters!

 

Finally, assuming you do find the need for a center filter, buying WA lenses that use the same filter can save you space, money and weight. This is not so commonly possible with Schneider lenses, but the Grandagon 90mm f/4.5 and 115mm do use the same center filter, have a change in focal length of about 28%, and make good choices for 4x5 and 5x7 systems (I mostly use a 5x7 field camera which also has a 4x5 adapter back).

 

Planning for other filters with your lenses means having the proper step-up rings and a good selection of the matching filter diameters, and perhaps also using something like the Cokin, Lee or other mostly plastic filter systems. I find that the 52mm filters which also fit many of my 35mm Canon and Nikon lenses are a good staring point to work on my other lenses, and then things jump to a smaller selection of 72mm and 77 mm filters which were originally for my 35mm lenses, finally getting up to the 105mm and larger filters that are required for the LF WA lenses, with these much more limited in number and selection, but also usable on some of the more exotic 35mm lenses (e.g. long telephotos).

I find when moving from one format to another, you can't expect the equivalent focal

length to mean what it is purported to. First of all you are comparing different aspect

ratios so equivalency is a very contrived meaning here. Second and more important,

you will probably find that your way of visualizing and approaching a scene is very

different when using a 4x5 on a tripod compared to a 35 mm. So don't expect the equivalency calculation to work for you. It might or maybe not.

 

The only way to know is to go out and try a few options. Unless you know what your

style is and what you are going to shoot (like architectural interiors), I'd suggest that

you rent before you buy an expensive lens like the 110XL.

 

As for the center filter. The falloff can be minimized by selecting the right aperture.

Some people like falloff and for many subjects it is not noticeable. You might find

you want the center filter but it is not needed unless you are shooting blank walls or

interiors where falloff may be too apparent in some compositions. Here's a recent

thread that you may find helpful. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PfAS

 

Finally, if you are looking for inexpensive you should pick up a 90 mm Angulon.

Although not as versatile as the 110XL they are very sharp and offer plenty of

coverage for 4x5. I picked up mine for $50 with a shutter and have enlarged images

shot with this lens to ~30 x 40 inches and have been astonished at the results. I will

acknowledge that some people have found that some samples of this lens are not

as good as that. YMMV. I'll acknowledge that if you want the sharpest, you will

probably get better results with a modern lens. But if you want the sharpest for that

size, an 8x10 is the way to go.

As someone has pointed out elsewhere, a center filter is more important for a wide angle used to its limits where the light falloff will be noticeable on one side of the image. A 5x7 will be more prone to this than a 4x5 for the same reasons stated below. Solid blue and overcast skies are also a common victim of such light falloff.

 

The 5x7 format is obviously very similar to the 35mm format in its 2:3 aspect ration (this also alters the corrective abilities of a 5x7 view camera within the image circle of the lens, and often makes a center filter more appropriate as well), but the other issue is really just how the image perspective is "expanded" or "compressed" by the choice of lens, and this is more than just a bit independent of the film's aspect ratio (it actually occurs regardless of that aspect ratio but is very much dependent upon the ratio of the lens' focal length to the diagonal of the film).

"I've seen You all thalking about Filters...but it's so necessary to use a filter with these lenses? Why? For protection? For something else?"

 

No, it is not more necessary to use filters with the 110 mm Super-Symmar lens. My opinion is that a center filter is unnecessary with this lens and the 4x5 format. I went into the subject of using filters with this lens in some detail because one poster asserted that the lens was sensitive to damage. I brought up filters because that their use is the only special precaution that I know of for this lens.

Thank You to all...of course the 8x10 would be the best, but I've bought a 4x5 three days ago...my needs are also to travel at equatorial places and I need a light equipment.

 

Anyway now I've more clear what You mean about filters and focals...of course I come from 35mm, and I know that 4x5 is different in aspect ration.

 

Here's very hard in Italy to rent Large Format lenses 'cause digital cameras are a standard here!!!! I've understood in Italy is very hard to find ppl with a real passion for PHOTOGRAPHY, getting efforts to get beautiful images...anyway, talking about lenses, ...Does someone know this lens?

 

The next lens I want to buy, after the 110 is a 210...I've seen the Rodenstock 210/5.6 Apo Sironar S NEW and the Schneider 210/5.6 APO-SYMMAR COPAL 0 USED...Can someone tell me something about these lenses and which is the best to obtain great details?

 

thank You

 

adam mirko

Both the Apo-Symmar and the Apo-Sironar-S are plasmat design lenses. The Apo-Sironar-S is a more recent design, and is still made by Rodenstock. The Apo-Symmar is a slightly older design that has been replaced by Schneider with the Apo-Symmar-L. Will you notice a difference in performance between the lenses? It is hard to say -- the difference, if any, will be quite small. The Apo-Sironar-S uses ED glass to reduce chromatic aberration, but LF lenses were already very sharp by the time of the Apo-Symmar. The Apo-Sironar-S and the Apo-Symmar-L are spec'd to have slightly more coverage, but for 4x5 and the 210 mm focal length, you won't ever use that extra coverage. One could make a case that the Apo-Sironar-S is the best, but I doubt that it is worth the cost increment to go from a used 210 Apo-Symmar (assuming excellent condition) to a new Apo-Sironar-S.

 

Here is another recent thread discussing the recent plasmats from Rodenstock and Schneider: "150mm Lens - Sironar or Symmar S/L/XL?" at http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PbTf .

 

110 and 210 will make a excellent two lens setup. The lenses that I use most frequently for 4x5 are 110 and 180 mm.

 

I feel that 105 to 120 for 4x5 is moderate wide. 150 to 210 is considered normal. I listed above various lenses from 105 to 120 -- all would be excellent choices if you want a moderate wide for your 4x5 setup. I think 150 mm would be a bit too close to most of these focal lengths, so 180 or 210 mm would be your best choice as a normal lens.

Thank You...I'll think about it, and if possible I'll rent it to try...

 

regards and thank You again to all!

 

Adam Mirko