Anybody using one of those Schneider aspherics?

[Michael R 1974]

I'm trying to figure out what the big deal is versus the regular current super angulons and symmars. I get that in the overlapping focal lengths like 150mm, you get a larger image circle. Ok. But if you look at the 80mm, it has a smaller image circle than the 72mm super angulon. So I don't really get it. Do the aspherics offer any other real advantage? A few of them are way expensive. I'm confused.

[ic-racer]

If you look at the 210 Super Symmar Aspheric, it is quite a bit smaller than the Super Angulon 210 (which is long discontinued). So, you are getting improved or equal performance in a smaller package. Of course you have to pay quite a bit for that.

[Michael R 1974]

People are willing to pay twice the price for something a little smaller? Surprising. Or maybe not

[ChuckP]

Aren't the 72xl and the 80 Super about the same price new?

[Michael R 1974]

Those two are. But check out the longer focal lengths. $$$$$

Regarding the 72XL vs the 80 Super, why would one choose the 80 super?

[ljsegil]

The 80/4.5 SSXL is tiny (well, sort of, significantly smaller than the Nikkor 90/8 anyway), the 72/5.6 SAXL is a beast with a bigger image circle, about the same physical size as the 150/5.6 SSXL (same filter sizes, also a beast, until you compare them to the big brother, the 210/5.6 SSXL which doubles as a heavy weather boat anchor when not making you wish for a heavier tripod and head, but oh so sharp, all of them) all are incredibly fine lenses (but pound for pound I love the 150 and find the 72 a difficult lens to use well. The 150 almost makes me look like a competent photographer, the 80 just makes me look like a bigger photographer but not necessarily a better one, and the 72 just makes me look dumber). Hope that helps?
LJS

[Steve Hamley]

You'd choose the 80mm over the 72mm if you have to carry them on your back - out of the car or in the studio it wouldn't matter. Also, many of us are "standardized" on a filter size smaller than the 72 XL's immense 95mm filters. Carrying the 72 would also mean carrying another set of extremely expensive filters - if you use them. But it is a classic and for good reason.

I also find the SS XL series good for sunsets and sunrises because of their flare resistance.

Cheers, Steve

[johnielvis]

from what I see the super symmars are not good up close---I havn't seen any test results but schneider website says that 1/3 lifesize is the limit of the super symmar xl's with still no "visual" image deterioration.

the super angulons are the design I like--more symmetrical and apparently make very good lenses up close....I know a guy that uses one on a copy camera (super angulon)....

[Michael R 1974]

It seems like the 150 and 210 Super Symmars could be useful for 8x10 since they have gigantic image circles compared to the equivalent Apo Symmars. But looking at the specs the Super Symmars do indeed produce significantly more geometric distortion than the symmetrical APOs.

[DREW WILEY]

Super Angulon on a copy camera ... just plain nutty. You've got this backwards. The whole point of
the aspheric optics is the better correction of the Super Symmar.