[LargeFormat] 90mm Schneider Super Angulon f8

[Clive Warren]

At 14:57 21/02/02 -0800, Charles Thorsten wrote:
>snip
>Hi Clive,
>
>Focusing is not a problem.  I use the lens mostly outdoors
>and the ground glass is plenty bright enough.  The images
>I make with the 90f/8 SA are in no way "objectionable".
>I probably wouldn't notice anything if I didn't compare it
>with the others.  It's more like a lack of contrast, or a lack
>of edge definition.  My lens is probably about 20 years old
>and has multicoating.  It's not a problem with flare.
>
>I rented a Rodenstock 90f/6.8 Grandagon a while ago for
>comparison, and the Rodenstock was noticeably crisper.
>I haven't compared it to any other 90f/8 SA's though.  That's
>why I wanted your opinion...to see if it's a well-regarded
>lens and if I just have a slightly "off" sample.  I acquired it used
>about three years ago so I'm not sure of the lens' history.
>
>-Charlie

There must be plenty of other people on the list who use the 90mm f8 SA - 
how about some feedback from other peops out there who use the lens?

Charlie, my guess is that you should find it hard to tell the difference 
between the Rodenstock and the Schneider 90mm lenses. The Grandagon is a 
more modern lens so should perform better - but it'll be hard to see!  I 
guess we eventually come down on one side of the fence or the other - I 
prefer Schneider lenses generally , however have lost count of the number 
of Schneider lenses I have seen where the internal black paint has mottled. 
There again I have seen relatively modern (in LF terms) Rodenstock lenses 
separating and use a 150mm Sironar a lot.......

All I know for sure is that you should be a happy man with your 90mm f8 SA 
- it might be worth having the collimation checked by your local friendly 
repair shop. Shouldn't cost much. It may also be worthwhile checking the 
distance between the front and rear sets of glass with the data on the 
Schneider web site. Could be that the shutter is at fault in terms of front 
and rear abutting surfaces not being parallel or simply that the spacing is 
incorrect.

Cheers,
             Clive