Frank Comments on the Schneider Super AngulonXL 72mm

[ray_tan]

Hi All,

 

I have read a few posts regarding the Schneider Super Angulon XL 72mm

and was still not able to draw a thorough conclusion on it's

performance.

 

Is there anyone out there who owned the 72mm and who can give a frank

comment on it's Sharpness and Contrast?

 

Can anyone who also own the Schneider 75mm comment on the difference

in the quality of the 72mm and the 75mm?

 

Thank you all very much! I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Regards,

Ray

[george_hart1]

See here:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0032dq

 

I am very happy with my 75/5.6. However, I understand from Matt Sampson at Robert White that Schneider have discontinued this lens. The RW website states that they have one left.

[pete_caluori]

Hi Ray,

 

I not sure how to answer your question, but I use the 72XL and it's an incredible lens! I've never used the 75, so I can't compare. I suggest you rent one, or find someone in your area that has one and give it a try for yourself.

 

How sharp? I don't shoot resolution test targets, but two shots come to mind. One was inside an abandoned mill taken at f16 with a 6 minute exposure: the lettering on century old machinery 75 feet away is perfectly readable and crisp. Another shot of a canon in front of an old church: the canon was less than a foot from the lens and the church was 300+ yards away. Every nuance of rust on the canon's muzzle is perfectly sharp and flaking white wash on the church also crisp.

 

There's a lot more to an image than sharpness, so I wouldn't obsess about it. If you're looking for a lens with incredible coverage and gobs of movement on 4x5, you won't be disappointed and no, I don't have any affiliation with Schneider. Good luck!

 

Regards, Pete

[bob_moulton7]

Ray,

I have owned the 72mmXL for about 4 years and I am highly pleased with its sharpness, and covering power . Previously I owned an older Schneider 75mm; the coverage of that lens was inadequate to my needs. I like the Schneider 72mm XL a lot.

The sole reservations I have about the lens are the filter size and contrast. The 95mm front end requires thin glass or extremely bulky gelatin holders, all expensive, and Schneider chose to exclude a rear thread. In addition, lenshooding the 72mm is difficult. I use a gray card, a piece of black foam core or a dark slide. The compendium holder for most view cameras are too small or incredibly costly.I should add that I now have a camera which does not feature a very tapered bag bellows. So I am able to use rear filters--gelatin--if I want. I do not feel this reservation hampers my style. I point it out because others may think it is.

 

Contrast: Very opinionated!. I prefer the contrast on Nikkor lens to that of Schneiders. I believe the Schneiders have a different contrast paradigm than do other major lenses. I find my Schneider 110XL and the 72 XL similar, but a lot different from my 135, 210 and 300 nikkors. John Sexton pointed this out a decae ago when he shifted from Schneiders to Nikkors. However in Places of Poweer he uses some Schneiders. They make the premier line of WA lenses available for LF photographers now. The Schneiders aren't bad, just a bit "cooler." So in b/w I retested and found for my printing preferences I needed to alter film development. Since I do not process color and no service lab in my area can process it, color is moot.

I hope this helps.

 

Bob

[robert_cardon]

Although my name is not Frank, I'll give some comments on the 72XL. Pete is right on the money, the coverage is a real big deal, especially for buildings and large subjects where you want to control perspective. I've seen Pete's shots with the 72XL and can guarantee you that they couldn't have been done on a 75. THe bigger front element makes for more expensive filters, but then LF ain't cheap to begin with. Minor issue if you're a wide angle lover who wants coverage.

 

Regarding contrast, I find it hard to beleive that the Nikons are going to add a paper grade of contrast to a B&W neg, even 1/2 grade. And maybe I'm missing something, I thought contrast cuts both ways and there are times you want to minimize contrast. Isn't there something called N-1?

 

Robert

[james_driscoll2]

The 72mm XL, is an amazing lens (as the previous posts stated!!!)

coverage is a greatly increased over the 75mm lens-the 72mm will cover

5x7 with a small amount of movement. I always preferred the contrast

of Schneider lenses anyway, so that isn't an issue with me.

 

The XL series is pretty much the most state of the art glass for the

view camera user IMHO. I would have not been able to get some shots

for a lot of my architectural cleints if it had not been for the 72mm

lens.

 

t

[tedharris]

For starters I can tell you that I have used the 75 mm 5.6 SA for a number of

years and have never had the inclination or the need to switch to the 72 mm

XL. I find that the 75 mm conforms to the sharpness, resolution and contrast

performance that I expect from Schneider and Rodenstock lenses.

 

I am a bit confused by the contreat discussion above. If I follow (and it is too

early in the morning to be sure I am following) th epoint is that Nikkors have

more contrast than Schneiders. My experience is exactly the opposite, a full

stop difference in tact. I have done side-by-sde comparisons with several

normal focal length Nikkors and they all are less contrasty than their German

cousins.

[michael_kravit]

The 72XL is an excellent lens. I have owned one since 1999. It is sharp, has lots of coverage (covers 5x7) and has excellent contrast. In fact, it is more contrasty than any Nikkor lens I have owned.

 

I highly recommend it.

 

Mike

[john_kiefer]

I just bought a 72 XL about three weeks ago. I'm very glad I did. The extra bit of coverage over the 75mm was important to me.

[ray_tan]

Hi All,

 

Thank you All for your valuable advice!! Sorry that I am only replying now.

 

I am saving up for this lens right now and it will be quite a hefty load on me.

 

Once again, Thank you very much!

 

Ray