Schneider 47mm f/5.6 Variants Questions

[Doppler9000]

There were multiple versions of this lens over time. Can someone summarize the evolution of the lenses, with regard to design, coatings, etc., from the Super Angulon from the early-mid 1970’s, with a Compur shutter through the last-generation Digitar?

 

[4x5Australian]

An adequate answer to this question would reference the successive technical catalogues from Schneider. It would be a lengthy undertaking.

Even a summary answer might well involve more length and detail than you are looking for.

Are you wanting to know if a particular older lens provides similar imaging to a newer lens?

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I think its a bit of an expansive ask - who should spend that time?

Just get the latest or a last-gen non-digitar labelled one, its a widely available lens and not expensive; - differences most likely relate to introduction of coatings, better production processes in grinding the elements and setting them, different glass types and maybe a smaller design change over the years, if anything, regarding the elements. Typically, resolution and lens quality improved over time.

What's the use of such an overview in the first place given its not a sought after lens and the latest and greatest are not really too expensive? The digitar is more like 1.5-2k and the non digitiar, same lens, a level below price-wise? The super angulon 47 XL non-digitar is 166mm IC, ie enough barely for 4x5 and useful for these interior shots of opera houses etc. and or on an Alpa for 6x9 film with shift.

For digital purposes the 47 has been superceded by the 43 XL and it most likely has just a smaller "sharp rated" IC.

@Alkibiades will be familiar with the variants at the end of SK's production run and especially the variants which are the same despite having a "digitar" label on it.

 

[rdeloe]

Schneider-Kreuznach has a very logical and consistent serial number system for its lenses. Higher numbers are reliably newer, and you can find charts that map out serial number ranges to years. Here, right from the source, is the whole range from 1919 to 2008: https://schneiderkreuznach.com/en/industrial-optics/knowledge-hub/manufacturing-dates-of-lenses

The really old 47mm Super-Angulon lenses were f/8.

I'm seeing Super-Angulon 47mm f/5.6 copies that have the writing on the beauty ring (front of the cell). like this one, which was manufactured ~1973.



The modern ones have the writing around the side of the front barrel. There seem to be two versions. One is labelled XL-120 and has front and rear barrels with very different shapes than the second one, which is just labelled Multicoating. The S-A Multicoating version and the APO-Digitar version have the same shape rear cell. The XL-120 has a much larger image circle.

Based on the lens data Schneider published, it does look like the "Multicoating" S-A and the APO-Digitar are the exact same lens, perhaps barring slight changes in coatings.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I think the patterns over time are a concentration of image circle - meaning higher res on a smaller area given digital format, different coatings and better overall processes in manufacturing over time. For such a non sought after lens it makes sense to get the last non-digitar, ie the MC SA 47 XL

 

[rdeloe]

 

[rdeloe]

One last thing to keep in mind is that the center filter for this lens comes in different sizes for the various versions.

This old data sheet says you need a II for the older 47/5.6, but with a 49mm thread.


The new data sheet shows the XL needs a IIIC with 67mm, while the APO-Digitar (and thus the S-A 47 non-XL) needs a II with 52mm thread. Sellers on eBay often don't make it clear what they are selling.

 

[Doppler9000]

An adequate answer to this question would reference the successive technical catalogues from Schneider. It would be a lengthy undertaking.

Even a summary answer might well involve more length and detail than you are looking for.

Are you wanting to know if a particular older lens provides similar imaging to a newer lens?

Yes, sorry, I was way too broad. Basically, the question is’ what lens variant is the “sweet spot” between price and performance’. It looks like Paul may have answered it.

 

[Doppler9000]

I think its a bit of an expansive ask - who should spend that time?

Thank you for generously volunteering! ; )

 

[Paul Spinnler]

The last non-digitar labelled lens is the same as the digitar lens, some say process control and manufacturing were improved, but in terms of price performance you should be good; its the staple lens that was sold alongside grandagons for the early Alpa SWA cameras.

6x9 with shift - sharp enough and nice.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Thank you for generously volunteering! ; )

4x5 and Rob and Alkibiades are on top of that stuff very much (so kudos to the colleagues), but the digitar disucssion is well-known around SK aficionados; for some, but not all lenses, the digitar was a re-labelling in case SK deemed the lenses still good enough for the back-in-the day chips, e.g. P20 et al.

The Apo Symmar 100 vs. Apo Digitar 100 is the other candidate where not much is lost if you go for the last MC Apo Symmar variant, ie non-digitar, but same, same.

 

[Doppler9000]

One last thing to keep in mind is that the center filter for this lens comes in different sizes for the various versions.

This old data sheet says you need a II for the older 47/5.6, but with a 49mm thread.
View attachment 218584

The new data sheet shows the XL needs a IIIC with 67mm, while the APO-Digitar (and thus the S-A 47 non-XL) needs a II with 52mm thread. Sellers on eBay often don't make it clear what they are selling.

View attachment 218585

Thanks, Rob!

 

[rdeloe]

The Apo Symmar 100 vs. Apo Digitar 100 is the other candidate where not much is lost if you go for the last MC Apo Symmar variant, ie non-digitar, but same, same.

The late APO-Symmar 100/5.6 is a little gem. It is not exactly the same as the APO-Digitar 100/5.6. Comparing the copies I have, my APO-Symmar 100/5.6 does better on large shifts, but my APO-Digitar 100/5.6 does better at close distances.

Interestingly, the older Symmar-S 100/5.6 is decent too. It's worth getting the APO-Symmar 100 because that lens is better, but I was astonished by how good the older Symmar-S was -- a bit less contrast and detail, and not quite as good on large shifts, but still quite strong. The Componon-S 100/5.6 is also surprisingly good because, it's been suggested by colleagues over at LFF, it's based on the Symmar-S design.

 

[John Leathwick]

I just read this thread after coming home from a session at the local marina which I use as a test site for lenses - my subject being an S-K Digitar 47/5.6.

By way of background, I've previously used Mamiya RZ lenses on my GFX 100s/F-Universalis, but finding them too heavy prompted me to look for lighter options. I was very hopeful that a non-XL version of the Super Angulon 47/5.6 would provide a lighter alternative to the RZ 50 ULD that I'd been using. About 12 months ago I bought one but returned it after finding that it displayed quite marked curvature of the focus plane. I could get the centre or edges of the frame in focus, but not both at the same time.

After learning a bit more about the effects of not getting the separation between the front and rear cells correctly set up for a digital sensor with a cover glass, I tried again, this time buying a Digitar 47mm in an S-K electronic shutter that I rehoused into an S-K B-0 shutter. With just the single 0.05mm shim that I had on hand, it has worked out very well, although with the Arca-Swiss rotafoot, the rear element sits within the lens opening, meaning that shifts are limited to around +/- 8 mm.

Today's test was prompted by the arrival of a magnetic bayonet mount that is much thinner than the A-S rotafoot, allowing the lens to be shifted effectively without restriction. My initial testing indicates that I can use around 10-12.5mm of rear shift before resolution declines to an unacceptable degree. I'm hopeful that further adjustment of the intercell distances might eek out a further improvement, which I will do once I receive some more shims.

I am unsure how this lens that is labelled as a Digitar differs, if at all, from the later ApoDigitars - the serial number on mine is 14 676 777, indicating that it was manufactured in 1998.

While this info is not comprehensive in terms of a full time series, it may give you some points in time that are of practical use.

-John

 

[Doppler9000]

I just read this thread after coming home from a session at the local marina which I use as a test site for lenses - my subject being an S-K Digitar 47/5.6.

By way of background, I've previously used Mamiya RZ lenses on my GFX 100s/F-Universalis, but finding them too heavy prompted me to look for lighter options. I was very hopeful that a non-XL version of the Super Angulon 47/5.6 would provide a lighter alternative to the RZ 50 ULD that I'd been using. About 12 months ago I bought one but returned it after finding that it displayed quite marked curvature of the focus plane. I could get the centre or edges of the frame in focus, but not both at the same time.

After learning a bit more about the effects of not getting the separation between the front and rear cells correctly set up for a digital sensor with a cover glass, I tried again, this time buying a Digitar 47mm in an S-K electronic shutter that I rehoused into an S-K B-0 shutter. With just the single 0.05mm shim that I had on hand, it has worked out very well, although with the Arca-Swiss rotafoot, the rear element sits within the lens opening, meaning that shifts are limited to around +/- 8 mm.

Today's test was prompted by the arrival of a magnetic bayonet mount that is much thinner than the A-S rotafoot, allowing the lens to be shifted effectively without restriction. My initial testing indicates that I can use around 10-12.5mm of rear shift before resolution declines to an unacceptable degree. I'm hopeful that further adjustment of the intercell distances might eek out a further improvement, which I will do once I receive some more shims.

I am unsure how this lens that is labelled as a Digitar differs, if at all, from the later ApoDigitars - the serial number on mine is 14 676 777, indicating that it was manufactured in 1998.

While this info is not comprehensive in terms of a full time series, it may give you some points in time that are of practical use.

-John

John - thank you so much for taking the time to respond in such detail.

Looking forward to seeing how additional adjustment works out.

 

[4x5Australian]

The Apo-Digitar 5.6/47 XL-100° is based on the earlier Super-Angulon 5.6/47 (non-XL), not the later Super-Angulon 5.6/47 XL-120°.

Therefore, if you are looking for a low-cost alternative to the Apo-Digitar 5.6/47 XL-100° for digital use, get a Super-Angulon 5.6/47 (non-XL).

The Super-Angulon 5.6/47 was produced from 1966 to about 1997.

The Super-Angulon 5.6/47 XL-120° was produced from 1994 to late 2002 or so.

The Super-Angulon XL series for large format film was a major innovation by Schneider - never matched by Rodenstock - that enlarged the angles of view and resultant image circles to the maximum possible. The revised optical configuration included an enlarged rear element with a deepened internal curvature. The XL series lenses were favoured by architectural photographers for the extreme movements they provided.

However, these enlarged XL image circles were not required for the much smaller digital sensors that became available in the late 1990s and, indeed, were counter-productive to the increased resolution requirements of digital sensors.

Accordingly, for its digital wide-angle design, SK used its previous generation design, the Super-Angulon 5.6/47.
In the 1995 SK technical brochure for film lenses, the field of view (FOV) is given as 92° at f/5.6 and 105° at f/22.

The 5.6/47mm lens for digital use was introduced in 1998 as the Digitar 5.6/47, written on the barrel in a digital font style. In 2004, the name was changed to Apo-Digitar 5.6/47 XL-100° using the later font style. To date I'm unaware of any changes to the optics.

The SK 2004 technical sheet for digital lenses gives the FOV as 92° at f5.6 and 100° at f/11, which is likely a match for the Super-Angulon 5.6/47.

However, SK may have adjusted the optical parameters slightly for the digital lens, as the values for the effective focal length and Flange Focal Distance (FFD) vary slightly:

Super-Angulon 5.6/47 (105°): Effective focal length = 47.5mm. Flange Focal Distance (infinity, Copal 0) = 52.2mm.

Apo-Digitar 5.6/47 XL-100°: Effective focal length = 47.6mm. Flange Focal Distance (infinity, Copal 0) = 52.0mm*

(* FFD with Copal 0 was derived by subtracting 0.3mm from the value given for the FFD with SK ES (52.3mm), as per the 0.3mm difference shown in the subsequent 2012-06 update for the FFD values given for Copal 0 and SK ES for the 28XL, 43XL, 60XL and 120 Asph.).

Improvements in its production measurement techniques would lead us to expect that individual units of the Apo-Digitar version will likely show less variation from the optical ideal than units from the Super-Angulon version.

Contrary to common belief, SK continued production of the Apo-Digitar 5.6/47 XL-100° until at least 2015, after production of the 28XL had ceased and well into the production period of the 43XL, 60XL and 120 Aspheric, all of which were discontinued in early 2016. Here is serial number 15,225,458: Schneider Apo Digitar 47mm XL Lens in Arca Swiss R mount – pexo.uk

Rod

 

[dchew]

@4x5Australian :
Rod, thank you for taking the time to write that. It is very much appreciated.
Dave

 

[rdeloe]

Contrary to common belief, SK continued production of the Apo-Digitar 5.6/47 XL-100° until at least 2015, after production of the 28XL had ceased and well into the production period of the 43XL, 60XL and 120 Aspheric, all of which were discontinued in early 2016. Here is serial number 15,225,458: Schneider Apo Digitar 47mm XL Lens in Arca Swiss R mount – pexo.uk

This is terrific. Thanks Rod.

It's interesting that the Pexo one you found is labelled XL-100. I thought XL would have been reserved for the enlarged image circle versions. But here they're using it on the 100 degree version.

I was also interested to see that you had some documentation that showed slight differences between the Super-Angulon and the APO-Digitar versions. The data sheets I have (which don't have the angle of view on them) show identical optical parameters.

 

[4x5Australian]

This is terrific. Thanks Rod.

It's interesting that the Pexo one you found is labelled XL-100. I thought XL would have been reserved for the enlarged image circle versions. But here they're using it on the 100 degree version.

I was also interested to see that you had some documentation that showed slight differences between the Super-Angulon and the APO-Digitar versions. The data sheets I have (which don't have the angle of view on them) show identical optical parameters.

View attachment 218592

Thanks, Rob.

Re the XL-100° designation: To my knowledge, all post-digital font style Apo-Digitar 47mm lenses have that exact designation. 100° certainly qualifies for XL (eXtra Large IC) status in the realm of digital lenses. The 60 XL is 90°.

Re the different optical parameters for the Super-Angulon 5.6/47: I'm quoting the values shown in the table on the 4-page three-language SK Super-Angulon technical brochure (see below) dated December 1995.

. The same values appear in the colour 1995 technical brochure.

Goes to show: SK has tinkered with the optical formula over time. What is the date on the datasheet you've shown?

Rod

 

[rdeloe]

The sheets I have in my collection are the plain style that are undated (as far as I can tell). I don't have a copy of the 4-page three-language 1995 SK Super-Angulon technical data sheet.

I do wonder sometimes if the differences we're picking up across documents are tinkering with the optical formulas (which is entirely possible) or just typos and/or the Marketing department not talking to Engineering.

It's quite possible that there are changes that aren't even recorded in available documents. I used to use Olympus OM lenses and Olympus was constantly mucking around with coatings but not being clear about what they were doing. This provided endless opportunities for people to argue on the Internet about whether a particular model was or wasn't multi-coated. Unlike Schneider, Olympus used a chaotic numbering system, which didn't help in establishing when lenses were made.