schneider apo digitar 72mm L vs apo digitar 90mm N + WRS vs WRS TS panels

[UlbabrabB]

The SA 72xl is also superb in the 6x17 film format, my preferred lens on the Technorama…the only con is the huge and super expensive center filter

 

[Kipoz]

The Digitar 72L is far much better on digital sensors than a Super Angulon 72XL.
72L will easily cover 6x7 film and give you much better results than 72XL.
You should only consider a 72xl for shooting large format films like 4x5 and maybe even 5x7 or if for some reason you need an image circle of around 25cm in diameter.
If you would like to have a separate lens for medium format film then 75mm Angulons and Grandagons make a bit more sense.

Thank you for this new feedback. And do you think that the SK SA 75mm can also be used on an IQ3 100, or is it definitely better to use the SK Digitar 72mm L?

 

[daz7]

For digital sensors 72L plays in a different league. You can also use it for formats up to 6x7 with modest movements.
Analog lenses like angulons and grandagons are OK but 72L is outstanding even at large apertures. There is no competition.
Only for films larger than 6x7 you would need analog lenses becuse of their much larger image circle.

 

[Buttsc7875]

I have the IQ3 100 Trichro and the SK 72L. Just used both to shoot a very large building--1 square block. I was every bit of 200 yards away. I really wanted to pull out the 90 but the SK72L was perfect. The 72L knocked it out the park. The images was incredibly sharp. With FocusMask turn on, practically the whole screen lit up green. With a film back on my IQ3 100, I would not doubt I could produce a similarly sharp image.

 

[Smoothjazz]

If you have a 55mm lens already I would say the 72mm lens is too close to the same focal length- you would be better serves with the 90mm lens.

 

[daz7]

I'd rather have a 72L only and got rid of 55mm and 90mm lenses, it is that good. Worth every penny.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Yes, that's what I meant. The 72XL is an analogue wide-angle classic. It is great for analogue, but in digital it starts to smear because of the design and lower performance of the optics once you shift. I have all my analogue lenses in Arca so I can play with the F metric with film and digital and when you use the 72XL, because the optics were built to a different tolerance and resolution target, is unfortunately not as good as soon you shift beyond 20mm.

On film its awesome.

The 72 Digitar – what people say – is a great lens, but it has been superceded in all regards by the 60 XL, which was one of the last lenses ever developed by SK. A true masterpiece.

43 XL and 60 XL are all you need for architectural photography in MFD. Big fan of the 60XL.

"The 72 Digitar – what people say – is a great lens" - yes, it is. I regret selling mine.

 

[daz7]

You can also aim for the 60 XL which superceded it and get a 100 Apo Digitar. Both lenses extremely sharp with large ICs.

72L is better than 60XL within it's image circle.
60xl makes sense if someone needs a massive image circle, is shooting formats larger than 6x7 and needs movements of more than 10-15mm that 72L provides.
If no excessive movements are needed, then 72L beats it

 

[daz7]

72L, even in a standard version, without the floating lens, outperfoms the 60 XL within its smaller image circle by a little bit (especially for distances shorter than infinity). Here are MTF graphs for both - 60XL on the left, 72L on the right:
The only drawback of the 72L is a smaller image circle of roughly 100mm instead of 130mm+ of 60XL when stopped down.

 

[4x5Australian]

I owned a 72L in Cambo WTS mount but sold it after buying the 60XL.

Before selling the 72L, I compared the imaging delivered by the two lenses. I pointed the lenses down the quiet narrow rear lane behind my home and focused carefully on various subjects using the live view on the IQ4 at 100%. The subjects that worked best as a test were a no parking sign 20-30m away and a house perhaps another 20m beyond it. I observed the resolution from both lenses at different apertures.

The resolution from the 60XL was consistently better, and obviously so. The result was not what I expected, but it was clear and unambiguous.

Of course, this test was limited because it involved just one 72L and one 60XL and their respective Copal shutter units.

However, after reading the forum comments here, I pulled up the MTF graphs for both lenses and compared them. The MTF graphs for both lenses contain a curve for 60 l/mm, facilitating a direct comparison.

The relevant graphs for architecture and landscape photography are those for infinity, rather than the two lower sets of graphs, which are for very close distances (2.5m and 1.0m for the 60XL; 1.65m and 0.90m for the 72L).

On the 60XL graphs, 100% on the horizontal axis represents a radius of 60mm. On the 72L graphs, 100% on the horizontal axis represents a radius of 45mm. Therefore, the edge of the 72L image circle is located at 45/60 x100 = 75% on the 60XL graphs.

For infinity, the MTF curves for the 60XL are higher than those for the 72L, which is consistent with my observations.

The 60XL combines a large image circle with high resolution.

Rod

 

[daz7]

Maybe I am skewed towards a 72L, because I do not shoot landscapes and for distances within meters, the 72L is just outstanding.
Also, I do not trust lenses in which saggital curves are miles apart from the meridional ones, as typically it means heavy lateral chromatic aberrations and astigmatism and I have not yet seen a lens that performs in that respect better than its MTF would indicate.
The 72L has both meridional and sagittal lines close to each other across whole image circle, there is also practically no CA to speak of and no distortion.
That, combined with the high resolution makes a killer lens for interior, product and repro.
The 60XL could be a bit better suited for landscapes but based on the MTF that Schneider published, for my use, the 72L is close to the ideal lens.

 

[Ben730]

For me, the 72 L is a perfect lens for furniture and interior photography
and I have made thousands of art reproductions with it.
So far I haven't found a weakness, the lens always delivers the best results.

 

[rdeloe]

Maybe I am skewed towards a 72L, because I do not shoot landscapes and for distances within meters, the 72L is just outstanding.
Also, I do not trust lenses in which saggital curves are miles apart from the meridional ones, as typically it means heavy lateral chromatic aberrations and astigmatism and I have not yet seen a lens that performs in that respect better than its MTF would indicate.
The 72L has both meridional and sagittal lines close to each other across whole image circle, there is also practically no CA to speak of and no distortion.
That, combined with the high resolution makes a killer lens for interior, product and repro.
The 60XL could be a bit better suited for landscapes but based on the MTF that Schneider published, for my use, the 72L is close to the ideal lens.

I've never looked at the charts for the 72. It does look really good.