80 SS Xl and 110 SS XL for architecture?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread
Yes, It's me asking another question about architecture...
I am evaluating my lenses that I currently have, and I feel that my current 90mm lens (f6.8 Caltar) is not quite up to the task of architectural photography. I currently use it, but I do sometimes run out of coverage. The same goes for the 75mm lens that I currently have, except I run out of coverage a lot more with that one (no suprise there).
I am thinking about using a 110mm Super Symmar XL and the 80mm SS XL to replace the 90mm and the 75mm lenses.
There is at least one benefit to these lenses, they use the same center filter (which I already have, because I have the 58mm SA XL). This would allow me to standardize all my wide angle lenses on one filtration system.
I know the SS lenses have slightly less angle of view compared to the Super Angulon lenses, but other than that compromise, I am not sure if there are any other reasons that this might be a good idea.
Anyone out there using the Super Symmar XL's as the basis of an architectural system?
My other option is to get a 72mm SA, and a 90mm f5.6 SA, and then maybe a 120mm SA.
I'd appreciate any comments you may have, Pro or Con.
-- Michael Mutmansky (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 29, 2002
I was faced with the same choice not long ago--I opted for the 110- SSXL & the 72-SAXL. Coverage is better in the 72 than the 80, and I got scared off by reports that the 80 was softer than I'd like. You might have to get the center filter if you go with the 72 since you are likely to use extreme movements. I've found it handy a few times for architectural subjects, not so much for landscapes. The 72 is a big lens: 95mm filter size & weighs twice as much as the 80XL.
The 110XL is an excellent lens, by the way. I don't own the center filter for that one and so far haven't missed it. I chose it over the 120SA based solely on the weight difference, since I backpack it occasionally. Coverage is advertised to be the same between the two.
-- Tom Westbrook (email@example.com), May 02, 2002.
The 110 is a great lens for any purpose! Sharp and contrasty with loads of coverage on 4X5. The 80 has less coverage than the 90s and more than the 75s. If you want to minimize the number of lenses you own then it seems a good compromise. So far I've not run into a problem with the 80 and 110 combo. I just got through with a month long job of various in-process and finished work photos, both interior and exterior. I used the 58 the most (mostly inside), the 110 second (mostly outside) and the 80 third, a few shots with a 180. I did -not- have a need for more coverage at its angle of view than the 80 gave me. Your 72,90 and 120 sounds good. Either set would work fine. I guess in a perfect world we'd have every focal length we wanted - and someone to pay for them and carry them for us ; >).
-- Henry Ambrose (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 02, 2002.
I agree with Tom. In fact, I also purchased the 110XL and the 72XL, and for the same reasons. However, I didn't get rid of my 90. In Architectural photography, especially where interiors are concerned, I've found having as many W.A. lenses as practical is useful for the differences in perspective relationships as well as the sometimes confining spaces. For the W.A. end of the spectrum I have the 72mmXL SA,90mm Grandagon, 110mmXL SS and a 135mm Sironar S. They've given me a great deal of flexibility. I haven't found any need to go wider than 72mm though others might.
-- Gary Jones (email@example.com), May 03, 2002.
Hey Gary, How do you like having both the 90 and 110? I guess its obvious that you need them or you wouldn't have them both, but how do you find using them? I think they're very close together.
-- Henry Ambrose (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 05, 2002.
90 and 110? As a matter of fact, I had once calculated that the image surface taken with the 110 is 50% of that taken with the 90 mm., so they are not that close; it was my concern that getting a 80 to replace my 90 would make quite a gap to the 110 and maybe be too close to the 65 mm. Any experience?
-- Paul Schilliger (email@example.com), May 05, 2002.
So, it sounds like the 110 may be a good substitiute for the old 120 SA, but that the general opinion is that the 'traditional' 90mm and 75 might be a better arrangement than the 80mm at that range.
This makes sense, as more lenses will generally 'cover' the tasks better than fewer lenses.
I neglected to mention that I have the 80mm already; I bought it last year to replace the 90 and 75 when out in the field (backpacking). So, I am going get the 110 and then see how the 80 fits in with that lens. I might have to get a 90 f5.6 if the gap is too big.
Either way, I'll be selling my current 75 and 90, as I don't think either gives sufficient coverage for this work.
Thanks for the comments,
-- Michael Mutmansky (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 06, 2002.