Super Angulon 65/5.6: Usable without center filter???

[felix_ackermann]

I just got a beautiful Schneider Super Angulon 65 / 5.6 - a lens I

desired for a long time to use for architectural interiors, but

never could afford at the normally current prices.

 

But it comes without a center filter. I certainly will get one

eventually; but now I just haven't the money to spend more than

double the price I payed for the lens for the filter...

 

My actual problem is the following: In 2-3 weeks I have the

irrepeatable opportunity to photograph some rooms in a historical

building, where the Super Angulon 65 offers me more possibilities

than my Super Angulon 90.

 

Therefor I would be very eager to know about your experiences: Is it

possible to use this lens without the center filter? And if yes,

what should I observe to get decent negatives?

[i'll shoot 4x5 inch b/w]

[John Crowe]

Yes. I am familiar with the 65/8, so your lens has a little more coverage for a given aperture. To avoid significant light fall off in the corners I must stop down to f22, and I try to shoot at f32-45. You can check Schneider's website but I suspect your lens would be useful at f16 and more desirable at f22-32.

 

 

I back up every important image I take whether it be a different composition with another lens, or another format, that I have.

 

 

By the way you got an incredible deal on that lens!

[felix_ackermann]

Thank you very much, John, for your informations and your advices, that give me some confidence!

 

Most probably for the interiors I have to shoot I won't need any movements and I can stop down heavily without problems. So the center filter will be useful when I need some movements...

 

I'll most certainly follow your advice: I'll shoot erverything with the 90 mm Super Angulon I'm familiar with (and for which I have a center filter). If the additional takes with the new 65 mm are a success, I'll be very happy; if not, it's not the end of the world...

[leonard_evens]

If you use negative film (color or b/w) and overexpose appropriately, you have the option of compensating when printing by careful dodging. Alternately, if you scan the results, you can compensate in a digital editor. It is not the same as a center filter, but it is better than nothing. If you use transparency film, you pretty much are stuck with what you get, since there isn't enough latitude for significant overexposure.

[felix_ackermann]

thank you for your advice, Leonard: So I will shoot a normal and an overexposed negative with the filterless 65 mm.

[Printing has to wait, because my darkroom with my "new" LF enlarger will not be functional for some time...]

 

I don't have ambitions to create a photographic masterpiece, but just good documentary photographs of a 17th/18th century interior, and for this purpose my new 65 mm would offer additional possibilities...

[tedharris]

I frequently use a 75mm lens without a center filter for landscape work and everything comes

out just fine. You should do a couple of Polaroid exposure first to see how things look. A lot

will depend on your particular subject matter. Yo9u may be able to work without a center

filter and any heroic efforts.

[felix_ackermann]

@Ted: you are right: I'll spend a package of polaroids on essays with the new lens (normally I use little for economic reasons).

 

You contributed dissimulating my fears: I never dared to use my 90 mm Super Angulon without center filter...

[tedharris]

Felix, My 90mm Grandagon and 110 Super Symmar are among my most used lenses and I

NEVER use a center filter with them. Don't even own one for the 90. Same also holds when

shooting with the 110 or a 150W Sironar on 5x7. I just developed 30+ 5x7 chromes all shot

with one or the other of these lenses and went over to the light table jsut now to take a quick

look-see ..... no light falloff, none.

[michael_briggs2]

<p>Schneider provides graphs of the relative illumination of their LF lenses in the pdf datasheets on their website: <a href="http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/large_format_lenses/">http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/large_format_lenses/</a>.

The graph in the datasheet for the 65 mm f5.6 Super-Angulon (<a href="http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/large_format_lenses/super-angulon/pdf/super-angulon_56_65.pdf">http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/large_format_lenses/super-angulon/pdf/super-angulon_56_65.pdf</a>) shows the relative illumination vs distance off-axis (i.e., from the center of the lens) for f5.6 and f22 and for 3 distances. For large distances use the curve for solid lines.</p>

 

<p>Near wide-open, most lenses have some falloff because the lens elements aren't big enough and the barrel gets in the way of some of the light rays. This is called vignetting and is why the curves on the graph for f5.6 (lower trio) are worse than for f22. Usually stopping down by about two or three stops eliminates vignetting for the advertised circle of coverage.</p>

 

<p>Once the lens is stopped down enough to eliminate vignetting, other optical effects remain: the greater distance some rays travel and the angle with which they reach the film, and the shape of the pupil. These effects do not depend on the f-number and so further stopping down will not help.</p>

 

<p>For the datasheet for the 65 mm Super-Angulon, these effects cause the top set of curves. For distant subjects, use the top, solid curve. For 4x5 film with a diagonal of 153 mm, the corner of the film is at 76.5 / 85.2 = 90% on the graph. The graph shows that the relative illumination for this case is 25%. So, without any movements applied, the corner of a 4x5 film will receive 2 stops less exposure than the center (if the subject is evenly lighted).</p>

 

<p>I second Leonard's advice to use negative film and overexposure. I'd overexpose by about 2 stops, to overexpose the center and give the corners the metered exposure. Negative films have large latitude for overexposure but little for under exposure.</p>

 

<p>All lenses (except perhaps fisheyes) have illumination falloff. When a photographer says that their lens has no falloff, it means they find the falloff to be unnoticable. Since real-world scenes are normally not uniformly illuminated, we expect ranges of brightness and if the lens changes the range, it usually won't be noticable. As an example, Ted reports "no light falloff" from a 110 mm Super-Symmar used with 5x7 film, yet Schneider's datasheet shows considerable falloff from this lens. In fact, with the Super-Symmar 110 mm used at f22 and focused on infinity, at the corners of a 5x7 film the illumination is 30% of the center! This shows how large of an illumination falloff can be fully acceptable, even using reversal film.</p>

[mike_grigsby]

I've owned both versions of the 65mm.

 

I wouldn't use the F/8 without a center filter unless shooting B&W, stopped way down, and able to dodge the edges.

 

The F/5.6 is slightly better, but I bought a center filter anyway, and am extremely pleased with the results. But yes, either one could be used without a center filter depending on what your tolerance for light falloff is.

[felix_ackermann]

@Ted:

Thanks again; you keep helping me see things not toooo rigid!

 

@Michael:

I studied the Schneider data sheets, but I didn?t understand much until your explanations!

I would have overexposed 1 stop; but after your suggestions I?ll go for 2, and for metering I?ll put the grey card in an angle of the lens.

 

@Mike:

Timid as I am I will certainly get a center filter when I can afford one; but just now I?m happy to know I can manage without?

 

And just now I talked on the phone with a master photographer (I didn?t dare to call him because of his precarious health?); and I learned he took some architectural interiors I know very well from a publication with the same lens and without the center filter?

[joe_hunt1]

I was about to suggest overexposing until I saw Leonard & Michael had already referred to it. I would also have suggested reduced development to avoid too much density build-up in the centre and to help even things out - "pulling" in other words (or word). Would that be right?

[michael_j._kravit1]

The answer to your question reslly depends on the look youwant. I have a Schneider 65/5.6 on my 4x5 Sinar handy and shoot the lens at f/8 90% of the time. I like fall off as I shoot primarily B&W and it really adds to the expressive nature of my imeages.

 

My close friend David Michael Kennedy is in the process of a 3 year trip across country. he is shooting the entire project (thousands of photos) on with a 4x5 and a 65mm f/8 lens and Polaroid Type 55 film.. He also shoots wide open and the fall off is extraordinary.

 

Check out Davids work at http://www.davidmichaelkennedy.com

[jim_mcbride]

I use a Schneider Super Angulon 90mm f5.6 and a 120mm f8 for all my wide angle work in

4x5 without a center filter. I do tend to overexpose and reduce development to

compensate and rarely miss not having center filters.

[felix_ackermann]

@ Joe & Jim: Thank you for your hints concerning the reduced development: Because of my limited equipment I normally use reduced development for architectural interiors; in this case I'll probably use two lamps to give the stucco ornaments more contrast.

 

@ Michael: I looked at the pictures with great pleasure!

 

Thanks to everybody for the attention and the advice. It's a little stressful using new equipment for an important task - but I'm quite confident now: I'll use polaroids, stop down, use no or little movement, and overexpose/underdevelop...

[allen_whittier]

You say you already have a 90mm center filter. Wouldn't it be possible to step-ring the 90mm filter out from the 65mm lens to the point where the area of the filter normally used by the 90mm lens is now being used by the 65mm lens? It seems to me that it would work as long as you chose the step rings carefully and didn't clip the image circle. This is just a thought. If there is something fundamentally wrong with this, please pipe in.

 

PS I use a 65mm with B&W all the time. It requires stopping down and "careful" attention to the corners. You do end up with dark corners with any movement on 4x5.

[felix_ackermann]

@Allan:

My Super Angulon 90/8 has the center filter IIIb, while the 65/5.6 needs the III (http://www.schneider-kreuznach.com/archiv/pdf/an_su_1995.pdf)

 

The difference is probably not huge, and the filter thread is the same, but I would feel uncomfortable using the wrong filter for serious work - but it is certainly worth a little experiment...

[John Crowe]

I too suspect this filter would be quite good. If it is that important for you to know before photographing this particular subject then try it out on a similar subject beforehand.

[justinblack]

The simple answer is that, yes, you can make excellent photographs with an ultra-wide

without a center filter. You simply need to take into account the inevitable fall-off of

illumination so you can determine whether this effect will work with a given composition.

The attached image was made with a Fuji-SWD 65mm f/5.6 and while there is some fall-

off, I personally feel that it does not call attention to itself and actually helps move the eye

into the core of the composition.

 

SInce you're shooting B&W, you can easily keep the fall-off within range and compensate

in printing.<div></div>

[felix_ackermann]

Fascinating picture, Justin - I suspect you had to use some tilt?

Of course you are right; the subject is absolutely not sensible to light-falloff.

 

In my case, architectural interiors, this is different. But after the various encouragements and because I'll most probably won't need any movements I'm confident...

[justinblack]

Thanks Felix. I used a back tilt on the rear standard to align the plane of focus. This allows

you to work within the small image circle, whereas a front standard tilt would cause

vignetting.

[felix_ackermann]

... tilt on the rear standard - you provoke the deep envy of an architecture- and object-centered photographer... ;-)

 

In some cases vertical tilts on the front standard could be very useful in architecture photography - but I can forget that with the 65 mm.

 

Perhaps I should forget the "light" option and shoot with my Super Angulon 165 mm on 8x10" - it's image circle of 39 cm allows considerable movements...

[norris_lam]

I have been using this lens to take landscape for quite some time without the expensive center filter and the result is very good without complaint. When first time i bought this lens, i got the same question as you and i find out the result by actual shooting under different environment and you will tell from the slides. Rarely i have never shot with full aperture opened, i think this has helpded a lot. I understand the filter looks like a 67-77mm filter adaptor and i ain't sure if itself already introduce some black corners!...

[felix_ackermann]

the session is over and I am very happy with the results. My expectations are fully fullfilled; the lens is just perfect for interiors and I never touched the 90 mm SA...

 

I never had to use any movements and I always stopped down to 22, and I cannot see light falloff.

 

Thanks again for the information, the help and the encouragement; sorry I cannot post one of the shots... (my new darkroom is far from being functional and I won't be able to print the negatives for quite some time...)