So, if you take the 38mmXL and crop out the black corners, are you still wider than the 47mmXL? Thanks for sharing your findings. This is too cool.
Not really... not by much anyway. But it's an interesting observation none-the-less. As another pointed out... "illuminating" is not the same as "covering". A valid point, that is. I suppose this is only useful "in a pinch" when you don't have a 47 SA XL but do have a 38 SA XL and have some sheet film but are out of roll film... or if you want a more square-ish format with the widest lens possible perspecitve. I'm only using my 38 SA XL for 6x12cm and am not shooting 4x5. I'm sure this is only useful to a few interested parties.
And I thought my 65mm SA was super wide. The edges of the image must show what's behind the camera at 38mm!
So true... 65mm is very wide indeed. However, if you want the widest lens that covers 4x5, then buy a 47 SA XL. The 38 SA XL comes very close to "illuminating" but doesn't quite "cover". A TINY bit lost on the corners and some softening.