110 Super Symmar

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread

Thinking of rep

-- Yaakov Asher Sinclair (sinclair@actcom.co.il), May 26, 2002


Yaakob: ??????

-- Julio Fernandez (gluemax@sympatico.ca), May 26, 2002.

Yaakob: ?????? yes?

-- Julio Fernandez (gluemax@sympatico.ca), May 26, 2002.

Sorry about the blurb. Still getting the hang of AvantGo. I 'aven't figured it out yet! Anyway - Thinking of getting rid of Super Angulon 90XL for an Super Symmar 110XL. The SA 90XL is massive and doesn't seem to be as sharp as my other lenses (Sinaron 75, Nikon 150, Sironar S210 and Nikon 300 M) I wanted to know if the forum thinks that 110 is too close to 150. Maybe there's a 90MM lens that's a better choice i.e. good all round - table top and landscape - and not too massive. Thanks in advance.

-- Yaakov Asher Sinclair (sinclair@actcom.co.il), May 26, 2002.

It all depends upon your needs really. If you feel that the 90mm is just right, then it's the 90mm that is right for you. On the other hand the 110 isn't that much different from the 90mm. It's like comparing a 24mm lens with a 28mm lens for 35mm cameras.
There are lots of threads about the 110mm that you can find in the "lenses" subdepartment at the bottom of the forum main page. Most of the comments and reviews about the lens says that the 110 is an excellent lens.

-- Björn Nilsson (b.w.nilsson@telia.com), May 26, 2002.

Yaakob, OK. There are worshipers (or myth makers) that swear by the 110 SS. According to Schneider's own data it is undoubtedly a good lens but not one that deserves all the hype, except for one thing: it's small. The SA 90 5,6 looks better in some respects, higher contrast off image center, better image quality near the edges. With the SSXL You will gain however in portability. Whereas the SSXL is gigantic, the 110 by comparison is tiny. Hope this answers your question. PS: Were you thinking of getting the REPresentative's name? REPlacing? REPairing? REPly? REPute? You to know, we to guess? You to save time telegraphing, we to spend it freely REPlying? Courtesy my friend costs little.

-- Julio Fernandez (gluemax@sympatico.ca), May 26, 2002.

I'm suprised you don't find the 90XL to be that sharp. My 90/8 SA is quite sharp so I would have thought the XL would be sharp. If you do not need a large image circle get the 90/8 lens. A couple of friends of mine have the 110 and it is a very nice lens and would be a good choice if you can give up some angle of view going from 90 to 110, not a lot but perhaps enough if you are in tight quarters.

-- Jeffrey Scott (jscott@datavoice.net), May 26, 2002.

Hi Yaakov.

No one has answered your question yet. I have the 110xl and a 150 Rodenstock as well. For my needs, they are not at all too close. I find that the jump from 110 to 150 is ideal for my landscape needs. The 110xl is quite sharp and contrasty and will not disappoint you in any way. I hike up to 13 miles in a day with my LF gear, so the 110 is particularly well-suited to my needs. Hope this helps.

-- Doug Meek (doug.meek@cardinal.com), May 28, 2002.

There is a world between a 90 and a 110. The 110 is approximately the equivalent of a 35mm on SF and the 90 of a 28mm. In fact I had once seen that the image surface produced by the 90 is twice that of the 110. As it has been said already, 110 is a standard, moderate wide-angle size, very useful, and 90 is getting on the wide side. You might need both.

-- Paul Schilliger (pschilliger@smile.ch), May 28, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ