Problems w/ Super Symmar 80XL

[gregory_von_liebig]

I saw an earlier post on this site about problems with the Schneider Super Symmar 80XL lens. I cannot get the publication the poster mentions, but I am still would like to know.

Also I�ve seen that the Schneider Super Symmar 110XL is now selling for considerably less then two years ago? Is there a problem there too, or what gives?

Thanks,

 

<p>

 

gvl

[walter_glover]

Gregory,

 

<p>

 

I responded to your query off-line at the link beside your name. I

received a response from your office saying you were on

extended leave. Is there somewhere else I can forward the

review to?

 

<p>

 

Cheers ... WG

[philip_glass]

Walter,

 

<p>

 

I am sure I am not the only one in the forum who would also like to

see the review. Please post it. Thanks.

[walter_glover]

Hi All,

 

<p>

 

Just didn't want to be filling the forum with material of esoteric

interest to only the person who asked. Please accept my

apologies.

 

<p>

 

The Joe Cornish review is published in the October 2001 edition

of Outdoor Photographer� as a break-out at the end of a review

of the Ebony RSW45. He says, following a lengthy appraisal of

the 90mm Super Angulon XL 1:5.6:

 

<p>

 

"The 80mm Super Symmar XL 1:4.5 is a very different animal.

Much more compact, with a tiny exit pupil, it is as handy and

convenient as a standard lens. I found it allowed extensive

movement for such a wide lens and produced a flat enough field

to make any need of a centre-filter redundant. At normal taking

apertures of f/16 and f/22 the on-film performance was superb,

but wide open at f/4.5 I found the image soft enough to make

focussing difficult. I was concerned enough about this to contact

Ulrich Eilsberger at Schneider to ask if it was to be expected. He

informed me that the f/4.5 aperture is really there for viewing only.

Sharpness is improved considerably by stopping down to f/5.6 or

a bit further, and this may be preferred when it comes to fine

focussing with a loupe.

 

<p>

 

"In the field no landscape photographer would contemplate

shooting with an aperture of wider than f/11, and my experience

suggests this lens fulfills the high expectations that are attached

to an XL lens when it is used at its mid-range apertures. As a

fast, compact lens (equivalent of around 22mm on 35mm) which

offers masses of movement it can be heartily recommended."

 

<p>

 

Examination of the MTF curves on the Schneider site seem to

back up these allegations and, to my reckoning, the overall

performance seemed inferior to the MTF curves for the

Grandagon-N so that's what I went for.

 

<p>

 

Cheers ... WG

[walter_glover]

I should add that I have owned and used the Super Symmar XL

110mm 1:5.6 for 15 months now and find it to be a truly

extraordinary lens. Same goes for a chum who has the 150 and

210 Super Symmar XLs.

 

<p>

 

WG

[todd_caudle]

Hey Walter,

 

<p>

 

I looked through the 10/01 edition of Outdoor Photographer and

couldn't find the article you referenced. Can you confirm? Perhaps I

looked right at it, but I browsed a few times.

 

<p>

 

THANKS!

[dave_glenn]

Todd,

 

<p>

 

I think Walter meant "Outdoor Photography" which is a British

magazine along similar lines to the US "Outdoor Photographer". It's

caused me a certain amount of confusion in the past!

 

<p>

 

Dave

[walter_glover]

Yes. it is the UK publication to which I referred. I am also familiar

with the identically titles US magazine and should have been

alert enought to cite the difference.

 

<p>

 

If you are able to acquire the UK magazine it should prove quite

interesting since it is one of the few photo mags I've encountered

that always give detils of where a site is, how to get there, where

to seek accommodation and where to find a feed and a drink. Of

course the British outdoors is of a totally different scale and

nature to the US outdoors so there are considerable differences

in the context of the articles. The Australian outdoors is different

again, however we don't have the good fortune to have

magazines like these here.

 

<p>

 

A recently introduced sibling publication to UK Outdoor

Photography is Black & White Photography - it is shaping up as

quite a worthwhile read also.

 

<p>

 

WG

[bill_smithe2]

Guys,

 

<p>

 

I have been using the S. Super Symmar 80 XL for about a year and the

S. Super Symmar 110 for almost 2 years. Performance has been

excellent. sharpness superb, and my images IMHO are outstanding.

 

<p>

 

I really appreciate the f/4.5 aperture for focussing and the

lightweight small compact size of the SS80XL for travelling.

 

<p>

 

I guess to each his own.

 

<p>

 

Bill

[d_g]

" Examination of the MTF curves on the Schneider site seem to back up

these allegations and, to my reckoning, the overall performance

seemed inferior to the MTF curves for the Grandagon-N so that's what

I went for. "

i came to the same conclusion, because i only shoot landscapes,

i believe the ssXL to be better than the grandagon N for close work,

this is only supposition !!!

[michael_alpert1]

In response to several contributors in this thread, I have a few

questions. I have read on this forum that Zeiss is the only lens

manufacturer who actually tests lenses for its MTF graphs. Schneider

and Rodenstock (and perhaps others) base their MTF graphs on the

computer output of the lens design. First, is this information correct?

Second, if it is correct, what limitations does this put in place when

comparing an MTF lens-graph from one source with a lens-graph from

another source? And last, since their are so many variables involved

from the design stage to the actual completed lens, and since there is

some variation in the quality of individual specimens of a given lens-

type, what are we to make of MTF charts in general? I feel that I

should add that I've heard encouraging reports about many modern

lenses, and my limited experience with contemporary Schneider, Zeiss,

and Rodenstock lenses (including the Super Symmar 110XL) has been

positive.

[bob_salomon]

"and my limited experience with contemporary Schneider, Zeiss, and

Rodenstock lenses (including the Super Symmar 110XL) has been

positive."

 

<p>

 

HP Marketing Corp. was founded as a photographic importer and

distributor over 30 years ago by Herbert Peerschke.

 

<p>

 

Herbert Peerschke was the President of Zeiss Ikon Voigtlander USA and

founded HP Marketing Corp after Zeiss Ikon Voigtlander (including

Carl Zeiss) had decided to withdraw from the photographic industry.

 

<p>

 

At that time Peerschke purchased the inventory of the US office as

well as the stock remaining in Germany and with the products

distributed in the US by ZIV (Metz, Gepe, Bewi, etc.) he began HP

Marketing Corp.

 

<p>

 

Zeiss has not produced general optics for large format since that

time save for some special runs of certain lenses for the Japanese

Linhof distributor who bought entire production runs occassionally.

 

<p>

 

Currently Zeiss is not a player in large format lenses and has not

been for more then 30 years.

 

<p>

 

So finding MTF curves on Zeiss large format lenses would not be easy.

 

<p>

 

However we can guarantee you that every Rodenstock lens is tested at

the factory prior to release. And, if sold by Linhof, the test is

duplicated again at the Linhof factory and then the Linhof name is

also added to the lens.

 

<p>

 

All Rodenstock lenses can be expected to perform to the performance

curves current when the lens is made. If not it is covered by a

warranty that will either make it meet thoses specs or be replaced

(HP Lifetime Warranty on their lenses in the US). Other suppliers in

other countrys will have different warranty lengths as will suppliers

other then HP Marketing Corp.

[bob_salomon]

"i believe the ssXL to be better than the grandagon N for close work,

this is only supposition "

 

<p>

 

Wide angle lenses like the Grandagon and Apo Grandagon are not

designed for close range work. The Apo Macro Sironar lenses are.

[carey_bird]

I find comments about the performance 80mm f4.5 being less than ideal

wide open intriguing. When would you ever want to use this lens wide

open? In my experience, the depth of field with LF lenses, even WAs,

tends to be so narrow that some stopping down is essential. I, for

one, certainly have no need of a lens with a max. apeture of f4.5

when it comes to exposing film. But when it comes to focussing...

That's another story... (one slightly used grandmother available for

exchange on 80mm F4.5. Contact me off-list if interested.)

[adam_friedberg]

"but wide open at f/4.5 I found the image soft enough to make focussing

difficult."

[d_g]

"When would you ever want to use this lens wide open? "

if you want to make an image with a little amount of deph of field,

some photographer use LF just for it !

 

<p>

 

"Wide angle lenses like the Grandagon and Apo Grandagon are not

designed for close range work. The Apo Macro Sironar lenses are. "

yes but the 110xl is good at close distance (i didn't say macro)

if you shoot architecture, and some time you shoot details you don't

have to buy and carry two lens !!!

[glenn_kroeger]

Walter:

 

<p>

 

Can you provide any contact information for the UK version of Outdoor

Photographer magazine (web site, mailing address, publisher)? It

would be nice to read about outdoor photography across the pond.

 

<p>

 

Glenn

[kerry_thalmann2]

I have experience with two samples of the 80mm SS XL. The first mirrored the comments in the Joe Cornish review. In fact, the first one was so bad wide open I returned it for a refund. Not only was it VERY soft wide open (the worst of any lens I've ever used - and I've used a LOT of lenses), but the point of "best" focus seemed to vary from the center to the corners. I noticed this the very first time I usd this lens, and it became so frustrating that I started trying to focus at f8 (sort of defeats the whole purpose of having that f4.5 setting). Up until reading this thread, I thought this was just an isolated incident and that I just got a defective sample. It was one of the very first ones off the line. It was fine enough stopped down to f16 or f22, but I had so much trouble focusing it, I could never be sure if it was actually properly focused. So, I returned it (Schneider graciously accepted it and apologized for the problem).

 

<p>

 

The second lens, I used was loaned to me recently by a very trusting friend. I had that sample for two months and didn't notice any problems at all focusing at f4.5. In fact, it was a darn good lens overall. It was also from the same batch, purchased at the same time as my original sample with a very similar serial number. For whatever reason, I got a dud and my friend got a gem.

 

<p>

 

I shot the standard USAF resolution test chart with both lenses. Unfortunately, we limited our tests to f11, f16 and f22. The results can be viewed at:

 

<p>

 

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

 

<p>

 

The second 80mm SS XL listed in the table was the one with the focusing problem that I returned. As you can see, it's in the same ballpark as my friend's 80mm SS XL at f16 and f22, but a LOT worse at f11. And believe me, that trend continued as the size of the aperture increased, until it was total mush at f4.5. On the other hand, my friend's 80mm was plenty sharp enough to focus wide open. I had no difficulty focusing with it in the field under low light conditions. It was, in fact, one of the finest wide angle lenses I have ever had the pleasure top use. If my friend ever decides to sell it, I'll be first in line.

 

<p>

 

I have no idea why one was so bad and the other perfectly fine. I'm just sharing my experiences with two different samples of this lens.

 

<p>

 

My experience with the first lens was especially disappointing. Ever since I got my 110mm SS XL almost five years ago, I looked forward to a shorter focal length lens that would offer a similar combination of great coverage, incredible sharpness and relatively small size and light weight (and I sold both my 75mm f4.5 Nikkor SW and 90mm f8 Nikkor SW once I knew the 80mm SS XL I had ordered was on the way). My 110mm SS XL is still the most amazing lens I've ever used, and one of the first things I noticed about it was how the image just seemed to snap into focus on the ground glass. I had hoped for the same in the 80mm SS XL. After reading Joe Cornish's comments, I am now wondering if my friend's lens is the exception, and not the one I returned.

 

<p>

 

WRT to Gregory's question about the price of the 110 XL. I believe the lower prices you are seeing on this lens are the direct result of the global marketplace in action. When this lens first came out, it was selling for over $2200 in the US. I paid $2250 for mine - minus a $400 trade-in Schneider USA was running at the time. The much lower prices you are seeing on this lens from Badger Graphic and Robert White are for direct import lenses that are not sold or supported by Schneider USA. This does NOT have anything to do with a quality problem with the 110 XL. It is a wonderful lens, and at the current lower prices, I think it's a great bargain. Afterall, I paid nearly $1900 for mine and am perfectly happy with it.

 

<p>

 

Kerry

[alpshiker]

Is it still a good time to buy the 80XL, or will the price lower to it's long term level soon, as it did for the 110?

[dan_montgomery2]

I've been playing with my new SS 80XL for about two months now. I

must have got another good one. No problems focussing at 4.5 and

painfully sharp at f22.

[ben_collier]

All,

 

<p>

 

Recently noticed minimum aperture for the SS 80XL has been extended

to f/45 from f/32. Is this a new development/redesign or have I just

not been paying attention?