pete_caluori Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 Greetings, There have been posts in the past that indicate the 110XL can cover 8x10 when stopped down. Granted, the specifications for this lens clearly indicate that it will not cover the 8x10 format, but many lenses cover more than their specifications indicate. Dan Smith recently replied to a post indicating that his lens does cover 4x10 and barely covers 8x10 when stopped down. I don't doubt Dan's claim, but find it interesting, because the one I used clearly does not. I know this is common with older lenses (i.e. Dagors) but I would think that a modern lens, made by one of the foremost manufacturers of LF wide angle lenses to be manufactured to a higher degree of consistency. I guess this isn't true, becuase the proof is in the print. This image was taken with a friend's 110XL on 8x10 and it was shot at f45, the smallest aperature, and at less than infinity, meaning it would have had even less coverage at infinity. It's contact printed on Azo and it has white borders, because of my contact printing frame. If you look closely, I've scanned the entire sheet of paper and this lens would not cover 4x10. Just curious Dan, but I'd like to know the serial number range of your 110XL? Regards, Pete<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd_caudle Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 Clearly a lens that won't cover anything X 10, but what a great shot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_a._zeichner1 Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 This scene looks familiar. Hey Todd Tiffan, you out there? Didn't you shoot this awhile back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_goldfarb Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 And just to be sure--there were no filters or adapter rings on the lens for that shot? No center filter, for instance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clayh Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 Mine does. In fact, it covers 5x12 as well. You either have a lemon, or I just got lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_smith Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 Well, the one you have certainly doesn't cover...as your image shows. The one I tried after hearing they covered did do so. It was at Calumet and they put it on a technika board & I shot an 8x10 in the parking lot. Full image at f/45 on the film. But, I can't afford one these days & still use the 120 SW Nikkor on the 8x10. It does very well & is paid for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_mutmansky1 Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 Mine covers also. The stated coverage at f/22 is 288, which is only 24mm (1 inch) short of making the diagonal of an 8x10. Clearly, the lens you used for the photo was either not a 110XL, or they have made a major change to the lenses recently. The photo looks like you may have used a CF on the lens? I don't see too much falloff toward the edges, which makes me suspect that. I would have expected a loss of coverage from the CF, but not that much. I'll have to try mine with the CF to see if it loses that much. If Schneider did change the lens design, then older ones have just gotten more valueable, as people will be searching them out for use on 8x10's in the future! The coverage you have shown looks more like the coverage from the 80XL on an 8x10. It doesn't come close to covering, and will make a round image like that. ---Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_floyd Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 my 110xl covers at f45...s/n is 14,771,988. 2000 year models started at 14,730,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_hamley Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Pete, Mine also covers. Thanks! Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william_marderness1 Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 The 110XL I used covered 8x10. It looks like there is a filter on the lens you used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tedharris Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Add me to the list, mine also covers. Camera design could also be a factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_caluori Posted April 16, 2003 Author Share Posted April 16, 2003 Greetings, I'm glad to hear that many of you have 110's that do cover. The lens I used was indeed a 110XL (that belongs to a friend) and no filter was used. The sharpness of this lens is quite amazing, right out to the corners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cxc Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Mine covers at f/22. I can't imagine an explanation for your results. CXC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_mutmansky1 Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Pete, This is really a suprise. It looks like your photo has about 9" of IC to it, or about 230mm. That's nowhere near the 288 in the literature. The 80mm XL has a stated IC of 212mm, which would put it at just about the size you have shown. Maybe they mislabelled the lens? What shutter is it mounted in? The 80XL is in a #0, and the 110 is in a #1. Other than that, I can't come up with any ideas why there would be this much variation. At 230mm, it barely has the coverage for 5x7... ---Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey_swenson Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Perhaps that is why Schneider had reduced the price of the 110XL. Do any of you think this is a possibility? It is interesting that the redesign is not widely advertised. Why is the redesign?? Cheers G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_goldfarb Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 That's too strange. Double check on the filter issue, maybe a rear mounted filter, or even a step-up ring for an oversized filter could do it. It doesn't take much to vignette an ultra-wide lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregory_owens Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Mine also covers 8x10 @ f22 on my ZoneVI. In fact wide open I am getting better coverage then you seem to be getting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcrisp Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Mine (1 1/2 years old) covers without a problem. Something else is going on here. Glass is in original shutter? No spacing issues? Yours seems like it covers 5X7 with just a little room which is not typical of this lens. (I like the print, though.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_caluori Posted April 16, 2003 Author Share Posted April 16, 2003 I can't believe all the folks that are using this lens with success! I spoke to my friend and he told me that he acquired the lens in 1999. I'm going to try the lens again, but it may be a week or two before my friend and I can hook up. I'll let you know what happens. Thanks for all the replies! Regards, Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_atherton2 Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Pete , I'd at least start by checking how it's mounted into the shutter and on to the board... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd_caudle Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 Considering there's no filter use in play here, the separation between the clouds and the sky sure looks suspicious. Might there be a yellow rear element filter? Then again, that would've been pretty obvious on the GG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn_kroeger Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 Another problem with the sky is no apparent light falloff. The 110XL is a great lens, but does show light falloff... I suspect some mechanical vignetting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ole_tjugen Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 This photo doesn't even look wide enough - even edge to edge, there seems to be less than 90° there. You would almost think that part of the rear element is missing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_smith Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 In taking a closer look at the image it appears the lens isn't even close to the advertised coverage. With so many others getting much more out of it somehing is amiss. Get ahold of the folks at Schneider & have it checked out. This kind of advertising they don't need. A lens that doesn't even meet the published specs is out of whack(scientific lens industry term) somewhere. So give the folks at Schneider a hollar, either through the dealer he got it at or the reps & find out what is going on... and then let us know what is said & done about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_caluori Posted April 18, 2003 Author Share Posted April 18, 2003 Again I thank everyone for their comments. I will indeed see what's wrong with this and report back. It never dawned on me that the image I took doesn't even come close to the stated specs, so I to am curious... Several of my Lenses are Schneiders and I personally think their wide angle offerings are superb. As for the seperation in the sky, that's a result of Azo and the light the morning it was taken. Regards, Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now