90mm question

[mikep]

I just recieved 4 chromes back from the lab, RDP III . I tested a

newly aquired Angulon 90, To me they seem a little soft, especially

next to the 210mm symmetrigon i also used as reference. I am using a

Toyo 45cf, with binocular hood. Is focus on these lenses (90) that

much harder than a 210? the 210 being razor sharp. I also did some

tmax100 alongside these. still need to develope those. any input you

can give will be greatly appreciated.

 

mike

[garry edwards]

In my own experience, the Angulon 90 is mediocre at best, and also has poor coverage, compared to the Super Angulon 90

[mikep]

Garry, appreciate the quik response, I got the coverage thing under control, using front rise and tilt, but the softness......

 

mike

[david_goldfarb]

I have a 90mm Angulon, and I wouldn't call it mediocre at all, but coverage is not as great as a Super Angulon or other lenses. It may be there is some sample variation. Mine is a Linhof selected sample, and Kerry Thalmann in his recent retrospective of Schneider lenses for _View Camera_ magazine suggests that the Linhof Angulons are consistently better in his experience. In any case, you should be using it stopped down (I usually have used it around f:16-22) for best results, and check for focus shift as you stop down.

[michael_meyer]

i don't use an angulon or super angulon, but a little 90mm raptar

sits in my bag. it is a lot like the angulon (basically a knock off).

 

i find that in the center the lens is pretty sharp, especially

stopped down. if i start doing any movements that push the

bounds of its coverage, then the lens looks less sharp. but never

unuseably so. this lens is not your lens though.

 

so why share?

 

because any lens will be less sharp towards the edges of its

coverage. with the minimal coverage of the angulon or my raptar

the sharpnes will drop off with movements. if the movements you

used were too much you may have been using less sharp parts

of your lens' projected image.

 

and as an answer to your last question, the wider the lens the

more difficult it will be to focus in that the depth of field it has will

make the exact focus a touch harder to find. but i wouldn't say

that i find a 90 difficult to focus.

 

-m

[sjmurray]

Mike, I recently purchased an Angulon 90mm too. Upon testing I found it to be sharp in the middle, like when using a 6x7 roll film back. With full 4x5 I found the corners to be too soft for my standards, at all f-stops. As a result, I just bought a used Rodenstock Grandagon 90mm. For me it is "live and learn." I now have to sell the Angulon back on ebay. I think it was originally made for 90x120 mm format, which is slightly smaller than 4x5. Good sharpness in that range. Good luck whatever you decide to do.

[z_z1]

I have an SA 90 and find it quite sharp. But I too stop it down to f22 most of the time.

[brian_caldwell]

The old Angulon design is a bit like an "inside-out" Dagor, and it is very similar to the convertible Protar which has 4 cemented elements per cell. Although very compact, the design suffers from a fairly large amount of astigmatism and field curvature which render it somewhat marginal for 4x5 work in a 90mm focal length. It was probably good by 1930 standards, but is a little soft (at least off-axis) by today's standards. The 4-element topogon/metrogon type is nearly as compact but has much better field correction out to 90-100 degrees.

 

Brian

[ole_tjugen]

Looking at all the lens tests on the net, hte conclusion seems to be that some Angulons are soft, some are adequate, and some are great. Depending on subject and film type, even the soft ones can be great - as long as you don't expect razor-sharp images. I still haven't tested mine, so I don't know what category that falls in, but as I will mostly use it for B&W IR, it isn't all that critical.