Schneider 110mm Super Symmar XL on 6x9greenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread
I am seriously considering purchasing a Schneider 110mm Super Symmar XL to use with the 6x7 or 6x9 format. My intention is to use this lens on an Arca 6x9 F-line camera. I know that the image circle is certainly over-kill for this small format, but image high resolution is my goal. I welcome constructive comments and opinions regarding this lens selection on a roll film format. Are their any pit falls other than price with this combination??? Thanks for your input. Bob P.
-- Robert Pellegrino (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 06, 2000
I use this lens with my Arca 6x9 and am very satisfied!!! Have no other 110 mm lens to compare it too, but I don't think you will be disappointed.
Pitfalls: Buying in US instead overseas and trying to screw on a 67mm filter instead of 67EW (or spacer ring).
-- Andreas Carl (email@example.com), August 06, 2000.
A less expensive solution that would still give you plenty of coverage would be a 120mm Apo-Symmar. It has an image circle of 179mm. But, this lens would not work well for 4x5.
-- neil poulsen (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 07, 2000.
You could get excellent resolution at much lower cost with a conventional plasmat design, e.g., 100 mm Apo-Symmar, 105 mm Nikkor-W, 100 m Apo-Sironar N. The Super-Symmar XL 110 mm has far more coverage than you could possibly use (288 mm). As an example, the 100 mm Apo-Symmar covers 145 mm and would allow lens displacements of 31 and 26 mm for 6x9. Some might find these displacements restrictive, in which case the 110 XL might make sense. The 105 mm Nikkor-W has a bit more coverage than the 100 mm lens, with a listed image circle of 155 mm. The need for coverage depends on your style and what type of photography you do.
Within their lesser coverage, the more conventional lenses give excellent resolution. Using the 100 mm Apo-Symmar as an example again, the MTF curves at f22 are extremely good out to a diameter of about 116 mm: http://www.schneideroptics.com/large/Datasheets/aposym/aposym5,6-100/aposym5,6-100p2.htm Out to this radius in mm, the f22 MTF curves of the 100 mm Apo-Symmar and of the Super-Symmar 110 XL are VERY similar. See http://www.schneideroptics.com/large/super_symmar/110xl/mtf2.html Of course, 116 mm diameter is only 40% of the coverage of the XL, which is a crucial difference for larger formats.
-- Michael Briggs (MichaelBriggs@earthlink.net), August 07, 2000.
I would go with the 120 Apo-Symmar. In the center of the field, it is as good or better than the 110XL. I use the 110XL on 4x5, but it is large and relatively heavy and its advantages are lost on the smaller format. Save your money for the new 80XL coming out next year, which will be an ideal moderate-wide lens for 6x7/6x9.
-- Glenn C. Kroeger (email@example.com), August 07, 2000.
Robert, IMHO try the 100mm Apo Symmar for 6x7 / 6x9. The lens is superb as far as sharpness, colour reproduction, etc, etc. I use one on a Silvestri and the results are stunning!! I also own the 110XL for my Ebony. This lens is THE best for LF!! But is definitely overkill for roll film use. In the UK a 110 xl will set you back approx #900 (stirling) the 100mm costs a shade over #300 !! If you must have the XL for roll film then I second the advice to wait for the 80XL later this year (hopefully !!) Regards Paul
-- paul owen (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 07, 2000.
Thanks for all of you input folks. I think that I'm still leaning towards the 110XL for a couple of reasons. 1) Because this lens has the potential to be used with several larger film formats. I currently only have the 6x9, but I'm not ruling out going larger in the future. 2) I think or at least hope that this lens would maintain a higher level of optical performance when movements and close focusing are simultaneously applied. I will certainly welcome feedback on this issue because, my beginners view camera reasoning could be way off base. Thanks again.
-- Robert Pellegrino (email@example.com), August 12, 2000.