Schneider 58mm xl or Rodenstock 55mm

[jfvdenning]

Hello

I have the Schneider 58mm xl and use it on 617 but am not happy with the performance of the lens outside the 6x12 format.
Can anyone confirm if this is normal for this lens or if something is off with mine?
If you use it on 4x5 how o you rate the corner sharpness?
Also I am thinking of swapping it for the Rodenstock 55mm apo grandagon and wondered if this performs better right out to the edges?

Thanks for any help

Jason

 

[Oren Grad]

The 58mm SA XL is specified to have an image circle of 129 mm at open aperture and 166 mm at f/22, infinity focus. Even allowing for some conservatism on Schneider's part, 6x17 is beyond what the lens is intended for.

The 55mm Apo-Grandagon is specified to cover 163 mm at a working aperture of f/8-11. Again, even allowing for further gain with stopping down, that may be a stretch as well.

What are your typical working apertures? If you're stopping down to f/22 you might be able to eke out 6x17 with the 55 Apo-Grandagon or with one of the 65's. If you're working at wider apertures, you will likely need to go with the 72 XL or one of the 75's.

 

[Shashin]

I love the 55mm Rodenstock Grandagon, but it is not going to cover 6x17. I used it on a 6x12 camera. 4x5 is a stretch.

 

[Jack]

I've used both on 4x5 and found the 58SAXL to have a significantly larger working IC than spec'd, while the Rodie spec was spot on. Bottom line is essentially no movement with the 55 Rodie, and a few mm with the 58 before running out of IC -- BUT since the Rodie is also a little shorter, the net coverage is almost identical. In the end, I kept the 58SAXL, though both were superb lenses.

Here are a couple of images I made with the 58 in Zion several years back:

 

[Professional]

What is the widest lens to use for 4x5 with room for movements and for 6x17/6x12 backs?

 

[jfvdenning]

Hi Jack

Thanks for your reply, you are the first person I've found to have used both lenses on 4x5.

What did you think of the shapness of the far corners of the 58 compared to the 55 as mine are blurry past the 130mm image circle at f22 on the 58.

I have attached a crop of the far corner which would be the same position as a corner on 4x5 so I would love to know if you get similar or see a crop from the top corners of one of the images you posted.
I can then decide if I need to get my lens checked out or get the 55.View attachment 61730

Thanks

Jason

 

[Jack]

Jason,

The reason your corners are "blurry" on the 58 is why we get more illuminated IC than what Schneider actually specs. Rodenstock physically cuts their lenses off at what they consider to be the edge of usable IC with an internal baffle, and why Rodies tend to hit a pretty hard IC "edge" in the image. Schneider OTOH, specs their IC to what they think is the usable range, but does not physically limit it. This allows you to go beyond and at least have some image data instead of a hard edge.

So bottom line is most are going to perform like that though you may find a copy that holds better than average. In my case for landscape with ultra-wide, I was never too concerned about extreme corner performance, and why I settled on the SK. IF you need to know where resolution is going to fall off and know you don't want it in your image, go with the Rodie -- you'll know when you hit the edge.

As generalities, for raw resolution I'd probably give the edge to Rodie. For tonal smoothness, I'd give the edge to SK. Note the differences I'm referring to are all but academic in nature -- in most cases both manufacturers contemporary lines of lenses are going to give you image quality that is "as good as it gets" in LF.

 

[Jack]

What is the widest lens to use for 4x5 with room for movements and for 6x17/6x12 backs?

Depends on what you mean by "movements" and how much movement you mean. There is a good data sheet on lens coverage and movements on Tuan's site: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/

 

[Professional]

Thanks!

 

[jfvdenning]

Thanks Jack that helps, looks like I will be looking for a Rodenstock!

Jason,

The reason your corners are "blurry" on the 58 is why we get more illuminated IC than what Schneider actually specs. Rodenstock physically cuts their lenses off at what they consider to be the edge of usable IC with an internal baffle, and why Rodies tend to hit a pretty hard IC "edge" in the image. Schneider OTOH, specs their IC to what they think is the usable range, but does not physically limit it. This allows you to go beyond and at least have some image data instead of a hard edge.

So bottom line is most are going to perform like that though you may find a copy that holds better than average. In my case for landscape with ultra-wide, I was never too concerned about extreme corner performance, and why I settled on the SK. IF you need to know where resolution is going to fall off and know you don't want it in your image, go with the Rodie -- you'll know when you hit the edge.

As generalities, for raw resolution I'd probably give the edge to Rodie. For tonal smoothness, I'd give the edge to SK. Note the differences I'm referring to are all but academic in nature -- in most cases both manufacturers contemporary lines of lenses are going to give you image quality that is "as good as it gets" in LF.

 

[RodK]

I did some testing of both of these lenses and the penumbra on the 58mm Schneider on a roughly 18% building wall was twice that of the Rodenstock. Theoretically given the angle of coverage quoted for both lenses, and the focal length/flange focal distances, the Schneider should have a slightly larger circle. The useable image circle was better on the Rodenstock. Neither has a huge circle to work with on 4x5 but for 6x12 both could be fine. A center filter really helps the Schneider, but not as necessary on the 55mm Rodenstock.

 

[Shashin]

Having used the Rodenstock on a 6x12 camera, yes, I could get away without a CF at f/11 or smaller, but with a CF was so much better--mechanical vignetting is very sever with large apertures. Ironically, the best center filter I had was the Schneider one for the 58mm. Avoid the Heliopan CF.