Macro-Symmar HM 180mm 5.6 on 8x10

[tim_atherton2]

Anyone using the above for a WA lens on 8x10?

 

thoughts?

[lars ake vinberg]

Unless I'm mistaken, image circle is 375 mm at 1:1, or 187.5 mm at infinity. It won't cover 8x10.

 

Would have been great if it did, though.

[tim_atherton2]

according to the schneider specs it will give 37mm (1 1/2") of rise at f22 focussed at infinity for 8x10 - or is that a mistake?

 

http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/large_format_lenses/macro-symmar/chart.htm

[armin_seeholzer]

Hi Tim

 

At 1:1 you get 44mm shift poss. so you can use it at 1:1the diagonal of 8x10 is 312.5mm and the lens has 375mm at 1:1!

And Schneider is almost very conservative with the coverage!

[tim_atherton2]

Armin, yet Schneider says: "lens displacements in mm vertical/horizontal at f/22, with lens focused at infinity for these image sizes: 8x10 44mm/37mm" ?

[armin_seeholzer]

Hi Tim

 

It is stated 44/37 in my brochure from Schneider to!

[michael_alpert1]

I use the 120 Macro with 4x5 and medium format, so I cannot answer your question about the 180 from personal experience. In my reading of the Schneider pdf file for the 180mm, the document says that the image circle for the lens is 375mm at infinity, the circle at 1:1 is 717mm, which makes sense since it should be about double the infinity diameter. However, the circles at 1:2 and 2:1 both seem to be larger than 717mm, which does not make sense!

 

I suspect that the image quality of the 180mm towards the edge of the circle is not very good, so the lens will not be very successful for 8x10 at infinity (Being designed for macro work is the whole point of a macro lens; no one would purchase this lens for anything other than close-up work. I do not think it will serve you well as a general WA lens). My 120mm is very sharp when used in the macro range, and I am sure the 180mm is too. The more important question in that range has to do with depth of field, or lack thereof, even when the lens is used at the smallest engraved aperture.

[walter_glover]

Tim,

 

Just yesterday I printed an 8x10 neg shot with this lens. It is

wonderfully sharp across the field and coverage was not an

issue. Having said that I would point out that I ONLY use this

lens in the near to 1:1 range (and on 8x10 that can be more

frequent than one at first imagines).

 

There is a space in my double darks location case that the lens

conveniently fits in and I have it standing-by at all times.

 

I have long covetted the Rodenstock 300mm Makro as used by

Francois Gillet but availability, price, bellows draw and lack of

need have made this nothing more than a pipe-dream. The

180mm is compact, light, requires similar bellows draw at 1:1 to

my standard lens at infinity - plus it only uses little filters.

 

I also use it on 4x5 and roll film formats and experience no

peripheral deterioration even with great shifts applied. Clearly I

love it.

 

As an aside I would add that I was caught one day and had to

use its sibling lens the 120mm Makro for an infinity shot and

although the image circle only just covered 4x5 the corner to

corner sharpness was as good as if not better than the 120,,

Super-Angulon I had at the time. But I digress. Sorry.

 

WG