CORRECTION: Schneider 110XL DOES cover 8x10

[pete_caluori]

Greetings,

 

A few weeks ago, I posted an image that I took with a friends 110XL

clearly showing that it does not cover 8x10. Well I'm embarassed to

say that I neglected to see that my friend had a step-up ring

permanently mounted to the lens, which resulted in severe

vignetting. I noticed this after I received numerous replies from

folks indicating their 110XL's did in fact cover 8x10.

 

The proof is in the print and since I posted an image showing that

it did not cover, I thought it only fitting that I now include one

that shows it truly does. This is quick image of my friend in his

back yard in between rain drops. It was taken with the same 110XL,

only this time the step-up ring was removed and it was taken at

f32. Sorry for my previous, inaccurate post!

 

Regards, Pete<div></div>

[thomas_diekwisch1]

Wow. That's courageous. My respect! Thanks for setting the record straight.

[david_lazarus]

Now I will sleep at night, Thank you.... :>)

[robert_a._zeichner1]

Todd, is that you in that photo?

[david_goldfarb]

Looks good! Maybe I ought to get one of those. How do the corners look that far out on the image circle? Could you (or others using the 110XL on 8x10") post a couple of center and corner detail scans?

[deardorff8x10]

Two questions-

 

Did you use a center filter (the sky looks very even)

 

Were you focused a bit close (so the lens was a bit further away)?

 

Thanks,

Michael Waldron

[pete_caluori]

There was no center filter used for this shot and yes, there does not appear to be any noticable fall off. Focus was very close to infinity, if not at infinity. I should mention, that the lens I used actually covered at f22 1/3 to f22 1/2, but I shot it at f32 just to be absolutely certain.

 

I will try and scan the upper right corner to check sharpness, but I wasn't concerned with sharpness when I took this shot, only coverage. It was a bit windy, so the trees may not have been still during the exposure. I'll try it tonight and let you know.

 

Regards, Pete

[John Crowe]

Thank-you for the post. Last night I was searching the net about this very lens and the specs and opinions seemed to point to the fact that it would not. Now I can dream about this lens on an 8x10 that I don't have or a 47mm XL on a 4x5 that I do have! I love superwide angle! Anybody out there ever compare both!

[pete_caluori]

Hi David,

 

Here are corner and center closeups, but I don't know if they'll help. This shot was taking between rain drops and it was composed and focused very quickly, with little thought given to accuracy. The goal of this excercise was purely coverage, nothing else.

 

Regards, Pete<div></div>

[pete_caluori]

And here's the center.<div></div>

[david_goldfarb]

Thanks, Pete. That is informative, even considering the goal of the shot was not corner to corner sharpness.

[lars ake vinberg]

I can certainly see a lot of falloff. The sky is a bit washed out in the uploaded image so it appears more evenly lit, but look at the lower corners and the left and right edges.

[pete_caluori]

Ake, the image I posted is not an accurate representation of the light fall off characteristics of this lens. To answer your question, the fall off is not significant. That's not to say there isn't some, but it's not accurately represented in the image I posted. I would not hesitate using this lens on 8x10 and plan on getting one.

 

Regards, Pete

[lars ake vinberg]

Pete,

 

Don't get me wrong, I do not make any connection between falloff and quality. I don't really think we have any disagreement here. But to state that there is no significant falloff might lead people to think that there will be no need for center filter shooting 8x10 color transparencies with the 110XL. I'm using a 150XL on 8x10, and will not use that lens on color trannies without CF (again).

 

B&W on the other hand is of course quite different, falloff can be quite pleasing.

 

Ake