90XL "v" 80XL "v" 110XL

[gerard_bynre]

Great lens though it is, I've been asking too much of my Rodenstock Apo

Sironar S 150mm for too long now. I'm interested in the Schneider Super

Angulon 90XL versus the Super Symmar XL's. All great in their ways, but

my reservations:

 

The Super Angulon is by all accounts superb, but the Filter Size is a

real pain, and it's slower, bigger, and according to the Schneider Web-

site not quite in the same sharpness league as the Super Symmar's.

 

The Super Symmar 80XL has a modest image circle, and I fear it will

make everything look "wide Angle". (What is it equivalent to on 35mm,

something like 22mm ?)

 

The S.S. 110XL seems great, but may not be wide enough for those tight

corners, and is it too close to the 150mm ?

 

One thread says the S.A. has less fall-off, another says it has more

fall-off ??? And what about the thread from last year that said the

Symmars were very soft wide open ?

 

I've searched the threads, finding contradictory opinion everywhere.

Unfortunately because of my location I don't have the option of

renting, except at great expense, and I would have to travel to see

these lenses. I shoot a lot outdoors including some architecture, but

I'm after more mundane then dramatic landscapes. I want a lens that can

provide me with something the 150mm cannot do, but I don't want that

fit-it-all-in wide angle look. Any opinions ?

[dan_smith]

Just what is it you have been asking of the 150 Apo Sironar S that makes you say it is "too much"? Sounds as if you are shooting 4x5, not any of the larger formats. Also sounds as if you may be looking for something you won't find in the newer lenses compared to what you have. What is it you are actually looking for?

[michael_briggs2]

I think Gerard is saying that he has been using only one lens, a 150 mm one, and that he now feels the need for a wider lens. I will also guess that he is using the 4x5 format.

 

For 4x5, I would tend to advise against the 90 mm SA-XL as having more coverage than needed and being large, heavy and taking very large filters. I have used the 90 mm f8 Nikkor-SW, which has less coverage, and never ran out of coverage. I think the place of the 90 mm SA-XL is larger formats and perhaps for some people strongly oriented towards architecture photography.

 

The 110 mm SS-XL is my second most used lens and makes a very fine moderate wide-angle. However, it is rather close in focal length to 150 mm, so for those with a 150 mm lens as their primary lens, I suggest going a bit wider, to either 90 or 80 mm. I suggest a 90 mm wide-coverage lens other than the SA-XL. If for someone reason you particularly want a new lens from Schneider, there is the new Super-Angulon 90mm f6.8 Classic. Then there are the Rodenstock Grandagon-N, Nikkor-SW and Fuji-SW lenses.

 

Unless size/weight are very strong considerations, I would go for a 90 mm (other than the SA-XL) over the 80 mm SS-XL because the 80 mm may be too big of a focal length step from 150 mm and because of the better coverage and light falloff of the 90 mm lenses (of the models that I have mentioned above). If a Super-Angulon lens and a Super-Symmar-XL lens were made in the same focal length, the SA would have better falloff. The SA (and the other 90 mm models mentioned) use an optical trick to improve the evenness of illumination. The illumination data published by Schneider shows the Super-Symmar-XL models do not do this. For the 110 mm SS-XL used with 4x5 films, few photographers will find a need for a center filter.

[glenn_kroeger]

A 90mm f/8 Nikkor would be a very sharp, lightweight and inexpensive purchase to find your bearings.... later, you might decide you wanted wider, or faster, and could easily recoup most of your money. Much less expensive than makeing a mistake on the choice of an XL.

[ling_z]

For one lens to accompany with your 150mm, 90mm is the best choice. However, if you budget allows, what not get both 80XL and 110XL? I used to have a 90mm f4.5 Nikkor, which is really a nice one. Sold it last year, and bought an 80XL and a 110XL to cover the short end, and never regret. 110XL is so wonderful, and now it's my most used lens. True, some 80XL samples might have soft wide open problem before, but mine should be a good one. It is very sharp @f16~22.

[david_bradley1]

For what it's worth, I've got a Apo Sironar S 135mm (love it!) and an 80XL (love it!), and I feel there is much too big a gap between the two of them. When shooting 35mm my favorite focal length is 24mm, so I thought the 80XL would also be a favorite, but for some reason it feels VERY wide. When shooting in landscape more (i.e. wide rather than tall) te 80XL has the same vertical field of fiew as a 20mm lens rather than a 24mm, which is probably the source of my mistake. My recommendation would be to go with a 90mm. Like a previous poster said, you can get one of them at a good price on eBay fairly readily and resell it and little to no loss if you don't like it.

[thomas_diekwisch1]

After much pondering about the same I went for the 90XL. I know the 80 and the 110 are sharper. I might get a 110XL at one point just because of it and to use it as an extreme wide angle for 8x10. Why then the 90? In comparison to the 150mm, the 110 is not wide enough for me and 80 is a weird compromise. Per analogy, in 35mm, if I want a wide angle, I want a 28mm. Can't deal with 35mm nor with 24mm. On the other end, I love the extremes, thus I have a 65mm and a 47mm for my 4x5. But I am happy with the 90XL. Just the right focal length for me. And movements without end. And some extreme architectural perspectives only feasible with the 90XL. And the 4x5 format by itself provides more than plenty of sharpness. Just a non-standard opinion, but your question might point you in the same direction at the end.

[walter_glover]

Gerard,

 

I opted out of the 80mm SSXL based on image circle and that

maximum aperture focus issue - it may have been one of my

posts from last year that you refer to.

 

I have a 72mm SAXL which is a must for interior architecture (for

me - others will differ) I also have the 110mm SSXL which tends

to be more my wide-angle for 4x5 black & white but is not wide

enough for many architectural purposes. I also have a 90mm

Apo-Grandagon 1:4.5 which I absolutely adore. It is good choice

for some exterior architecture and for my personal work it is an

ideal focal length when I shoot 6x12 black & white where the

110mm doesn't give quite enough 'height' in the scene. I believe

in having whatever might be needed so I'm catered from 35mm

Apo-Grandagon to 450mm Nikkor-M but if I had to rationalise a

'desert island' kit for ease of transport I definitely think I would

include the 90mm because it is something of an all-rounder and

my other choice would be the 210mm which is another

all-rounder for longer purposes. (I realise you didn't ask about

longer lenses but I just thought that it put the 90mm into

relationship to something else.)

 

WG

[gerard_bynre]

Thanks for the useful responses, and appologies for not clarifying that it is 4 x 5 that I'm shooting. The consensus seems to be that 90mm is the preferrable focal length, and that the S.A. 90 XL is maybe not the most appealing 90mm out there. I was interested in the XL lenses because they seem to have bigger image circles then otherwise equivalent lenses, but I guess the S.A. 90 XL is bigger, heavier, and slower then the Nikon and Rodenstock lenses. In Europe, where I'm based, there is no real difference in price between them. I'm avoiding the slower lenses because I'm often working with limited available light, and focusing can be genuinely difficult with an F.8 lens. Thanks.

[bruce watson]

I've got the Rodenstock Apo Sironar S 150mm that you have. Superb lens. I also went through the same process that you are going through, but in reverse. I bought the 110mm SS-XL first, hoping that I wouldn't need the "normal" lens.

 

What I found was that I like to space my 4x5 lenses by about 15 degrees. That is, the film sees, along the 5 inch dimension, about a 60 degree field with the 110mm. You get 45 degrees from the 150mm, and 30 degrees occurs around 240mm, where I bought a Fujinon-A 240. If I were to go wider, I would want a 75 degree angle of view, which points me to the 72mm SA-XL.

 

The message here is that the angle of view is not straight line proportional to the focal length.

 

From a field perspective, I find that I use the three lenses (60, 45, 30 degrees) about equally. The 110mm is quite versatile - it does nice landscapes without that "trying to fit it all in" feel that you dislike. It works for some architecture too. I highly recommend it, and feel like there is a good chance you'll think that the 90mm is too wide for what you want. For what it's worth.

[gerard_bynre]

Hogarth,

Thanks for your opinions. You have somehow read my

(changing) mind since my previous post. I re-read all the

opinions and realised that while there was a lot of support for

Nikon / Rodenstock 90mm lenses, anyone who had a SS 110

XL seemed to think it was great. Also, yesterday I tried out a

Super Angulon 90XL and found it to have incredible coverage,

but I alo found that the 90mm angle of view was wider then I

expected, and feels quite "wide angle". So now I'm thinking that

although the 110 mm might not be as flexible as the 90mm, it's

angle of view might actually feel more naturalistic, AND it has

that nice affordable 67mm filter size, as opposed to the

nightmarish 95mm filter size of the Super angulon, or the nearly

as costly 82mm filter size of the Nikon and Rodenstock. I'm now

drifting towards the SS 110 XL.

[ling_z]

110XL would be a great choice. Make sure to buy a larger filter with a step up ring for your 110XL, otherwise, the front element could touch the filter (the gap is scarily small!).