Schneider Super-Angulon 50/2.8 PQS

[dergiman]

Hi,
i am contemplating buying a Schneider Super-Angulon 50/2.8 PQS lens for my Hy6 camera. There are different versions of this lens (MF, AF and AFD). Who has some experience with this lens? How is it? Do you mind posting a few images taken with this lens (i could only find images of the lens itself)?

Philipp

[Graham Mitchell]

I hope people post some, but I remember there are some images in this thread: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4730

[rolleiflexpages]

Well, basically any of the three versions of this lens is excellent. The optical formula has not changed dramatically (AF/AFD are identical and MF slightly different). You can find some MTF graphs on my web pages (MF and AF versions).
I am using the AF version and the only downside can be some light fall-of in the corners of the image, which is inherent to the lens design so I was told by the manufacturer. Whether you can see this or not depends of course on the type of image. This is only noticeable if you use the full 6x6 frame (film back). With a digital back such as the Leaf AFi-II 7 no light fall-of can be noted as the lens coverage is not used 100 percent. For critical work and even performance including the corners the scheduled AF Flektogon 35mm would be the better choice, if you can wait for another year. Some examples, which in no way do justice to the lens, can be found on my web pages. Hope this helps.
Pascal

[dergiman]

I hope people post some, but I remember there are some images in this thread: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4730

really bad thread, only found one image in the first 60 pages. but there are way too many good images taken with the zeiss 110. now i am looking for 2 lenses instead of just one. 

[EricWHiss]

I'm curious to see some images too.  I've read that the newer AF version has less distortion than the older non- AF version (not that either had much).

[dergiman]

I'm curious to see some images too.  I've read that the newer AF version has less distortion than the older non- AF version (not that either had much).

thanks, this is very valueable information for me!

[Gigi]

So does that mean there were three versions of this lens? Oh dear...

[bradleygibson]

AF/AFD are NOT identical actually. AT least the very front element is NOT the same.

Really?  Like Pascal, I was under the impression that the optical formula was unchanged.  I don't see a difference in the front elements from images I've seen...  What are you seeing?

[EricWHiss]

Brad,
A more general question is if all AFD lenses were changed or not.  You probably remember the debates going on when the Hy6 was introduced.  Some have maintained that the optics were updated for digital (all colors focused on the same plane, while film has different depths depending on color) and that the manufacturing tolerances were tightened.   Honestly I don't remember how that played out.  But I do know for sure that there are some optical differences between the AF and non AF version since I saw in a book somewhere the different MTF and distortion curves with the differences primarily lower distortion on the AF version.  I can't lay my hands on it now but I think Pascal's rolleiflexpages have some of this and also the cross section of the optic elements for each lens. 
Eric

[bradleygibson]

Hi, Eric,

Yes, I remember the debates.  I certainly don't have the authoritative scoop on the difference between an AF vs an AFD lens, but I did speak with several folks from Sinar, Leaf and F&H in person, probing for specific answers.  Here is what I have been told:

The AFD lenses (Super-Angulon 50mm f/2.8, Xenotar 80mm f/2.8 and Tele-Xenar 180mm f/2.8) are optically unchanged, have improved internal flocking, are manufactured to tighter mechanical tolerances, and are verified to deliver at least 60lp/mm, whereas previous lenses were verified to deliver at least 40lp/mm. (Sources: Sinar, F&H)

Additional observations:
* I don't recall clearly if the AFD Tele-Xenar 150mm f/4 is also unchanged optically, but I'm 95% sure it is also unchanged.
* What changes might have been made to the planned AFD Makro-Planar oops, Apogon 120mm f/4 are completely unknown to me.
* The upcoming AFD Flektogon 35mm f/3.5 obviously has no predecessor to match.
* What is meant by "60lp/mm" (what part of the image circle, at what aperture, at what scale, what contrast) has never been specified, to me at least.
* No photographer I have ever asked who has seen both AF and AFD lens results (myself included) has ever said they could see a difference.
* I have never been told that the AFD's are better at bringing all colors into focus at the same plane
* I have never been told that the AFD's "compensate" for filter glass in front of digital sensors (whatever that means)
* I have never seen an AFD MTF.
* I have been told that the AFD's deliver "better image quality" by F&H and now recently by DHW, but specifics have not been provided.
* There is a clear difference with many of the AF and non-AF versions.  A whole set of Rollei manual and AF lens specifications were posted over on photo.net some time back (click "show details" to see which lens each graph represents)--these confirm optical formula differences between manual and AF versions of the Tele-Xenar 180mm.  AF would place additional constraints on a lens design so I have no trouble believing this to be true across the board with manual vs. AF designs.

So there's all the data I have--I would love to sit down with one of the lens designers and just get this answer settled.

My subjective take:  This question has been asked many, many times and hasn't been answered by the manufacturer for 3+ years.  I can only believe that the difference isn't really very large.  On the other hand, with a 5.2 micron back coming online soon, perhaps we will soon be able to see a difference between an AF and AFD (assuming an AFi-II 12 gets made), but I think not--they'll continue to be indistinguishable.

[bradleygibson]

let me show you something. By the way, I own 50mm AFD, 80mm AFD and 180mm AFD and a Leaf AFi7.    AFD<> AF.

Hi, Xinchenc,

What are we supposed to be seeing?  (If it's the color difference of the glass, that's just how the images were lit and shot.)  Otherwise, the front elements continue to look the same to me.

[bradleygibson]

Could it be that it is internally the Schneider AFD Tele-Xenar 150mm f/4, but Schneider does not allow DHW to use Schneider brand?

Yes, I think that could very well be the case.

While I imagine it's expensive to continue licensing the names, if the 150 is indeed an "Apogon" now, like the 120, it would certainly imply a relationship between the designs--ie. either one or both designs have changed-- but designing new optical formulae is really expensive-- perhaps Apogon is being used as a "house brand" name for a variety of well-known designs.

FYI, I believe Flektogon is a Zeiss Jena (East German) name--perhaps it was cheaper to get that name back when they started work on the 35mm (particularly with the former Jenoptik connection, it may have been).

For assembly, traditionally, my understanding with Rollei is many designs were delivered as elements from Zeiss or Schneider and assembled under license by Rollei to Zeiss/Schneider standards.  This makes sense as I would think that it would be hard to apply Rollei's HFT coating to elements that were already assembled.

[bradleygibson]

I don't think one can meaningfully compare different focal lengths and/or different optical designs and attribute observed gains to the 'benefits' (if any) of AFD...

I think one has to do ideally, a blind comparison of an AF 180 and an AFD 180, or an AF 50 and an AFD 50, etc.; same lens, same light, same subject, same media to reach meaningful conclusions.

I'm not saying the benefits aren't there; I'm just saying one needs to do an apples-to-apples comparison to really be able to say whether it's the lens design or whether it's due to magic of AFD.

I think the Apogons will turn out to be "true" Schneider or Zeiss--it's just too expensive to run out and design a new lens formula...  Maybe they went and did it, but I'd be shocked.  Despite the EL stuff, remember these guys are pretty serious about image quality.  I think that the lenses still Makro-Planars and Tele-Xenars, just branded with the house label.

You might try sending DHW an e-mail--they may be able to answer that question for you definitively.

Anyway, it's been wonderful chatting about optics this evening, but it is time for me to go to bed...

Good night, xinchenc!

[EricWHiss]

Hi, Eric,
Yes, I remember the debates.  I certainly don't have the authoritative scoop on the difference between an AF vs an AFD lens, but I did speak with several folks from Sinar, Leaf and F&H in person, probing for specific answers.  Here is what I have been told:

The AFD lenses (Super-Angulon 50mm f/2.8, Xenotar 80mm f/2.8 and Tele-Xenar 180mm f/2. are optically unchanged, have improved internal flocking, are manufactured to tighter mechanical tolerances, and are verified to deliver at least 60lp/mm, whereas previous lenses were verified to deliver at least 40lp/mm. (Sources: Sinar, F&H)

* What is meant by "60lp/mm" (what part of the image circle, at what aperture, at what scale, what contrast) has never been specified, to me at least.

As an aside ....  I have this feeling that behind the company walls of not just Rollei/DHW or Schneider but many of these companies, there are engineers and scientists who have this information and could easily field these types of questions, but we, collectively as a group of photographers and enthusiasts, are left to divine this ourselves.    

I've used my 528c microstep back shooting line charts to test the performance of some of the Rollei lenses.  Since I don't know how the micro-step data is assembled in the processing, nor the time to really spend on it, I'm not 100% sure but it appears that a lot of the older schneider lenses are doing way way better than 60lp/mm already.  The 150mm apo macro looked to be in excess of 120lp/mm and in fact was out resolving the microstep sensor.     Long story short - I'll bet the 60lp/mm quoted is a figure used as a minimum all the way out to the corner and at a very high contrast percentage.

[EricWHiss]

I don't think one can meaningfully compare different focal lengths and/or different optical designs and attribute observed gains to the 'benefits' (if any) of AFD...

I think one has to do ideally, a blind comparison of an AF 180 and an AFD 180, or an AF 50 and an AFD 50, etc.; same lens, same light, same subject, same media to reach meaningful conclusions.

I'm not saying the benefits aren't there; I'm just saying one needs to do an apples-to-apples comparison to really be able to say whether it's the lens design or whether it's due to magic of AFD.

I think the Apogons will turn out to be "true" Schneider or Zeiss--it's just too expensive to run out and design a new lens formula...  Maybe they went and did it, but I'd be shocked.  Despite the EL stuff, remember these guys are pretty serious about image quality.  I think that the lenses still Makro-Planars and Tele-Xenars, just branded with the house label.

You might try sending DHW an e-mail--they may be able to answer that question for you definitively.

Anyway, it's been wonderful chatting about optics this evening, but it is time for me to go to bed...

Good night, xinchenc!

I'd be happy to do some testing particularly on the 50mm f/2.8 because this is one of the few lenses that I don't have much experience with.  Just send them to me and I'll take care of it.   

[bradleygibson]

As an aside ....  I have this feeling that behind the company walls of not just Rollei/DHW or Schneider but many of these companies, there are engineers and scientists who have this information and could easily field these types of questions, but we, collectively as a group of photographers and enthusiasts, are left to divine this ourselves.    

I've used my 528c microstep back shooting line charts to test the performance of some of the Rollei lenses.  Since I don't know how the micro-step data is assembled in the processing, nor the time to really spend on it, I'm not 100% sure but it appears that a lot of the older schneider lenses are doing way way better than 60lp/mm already.  The 150mm apo macro looked to be in excess of 120lp/mm and in fact was out resolving the microstep sensor.     Long story short - I'll bet the 60lp/mm quoted is a figure used as a minimum all the way out to the corner and at a very high contrast percentage.

I think you're absolutely right on this.  Kornelius Fleischer/Mueller formerly of Zeiss had done some extreme work with some Zeiss lenses a number of years ago, using an $8000 Sachtler tripod and an insane fluid damping head to achieve over 200 lp/mm with a particular Zeiss lens.  Ordinarily I would scoff at such a claim, but he really did know his stuff, so I do take him at his word.  Incidentally, I saw once that he worked for Leica now, presumably with their S2 glass program...

As for the 'back room engineers' knowing this stuff, again, I think you are right on the mark.  I'm sure they must.

I also agree--60lp/mm I think is a pretty conservative figure that most any of these lenses (probably except the f/2 lenses and the Tele-Tessars) are well above, all the way to the corner.  It would explain why no one seems to be able to point to actual examples citing clear performance differences between the AF and AFD lenses.

I'd be happy to do some testing particularly on the 50mm f/2.8 because this is one of the few lenses that I don't have much experience with.  Just send them to me and I'll take care of it.  

Consider it done!  As you know I'm taking delivery of an AFD 50/2.8 next week.  As I am still searching for my AFi-II 10 camera, I have nothing yet to test it on, so I'd be happy to send it on to you to a) make sure it's OK and b) to do a bit of comparison.  Particularly with the microstep back you have, I think if there's a difference to be seen, you've got the equipment to suss it out.  Should be fun!

I would also love to post the results so people can see how the AFD looks at 88MP; Not sure if you can get your hands on an AF 50, but maybe some rainy weekend this winter I'll fly down to SF and we an do a "Managing Megapixels" Rollei style...

[TonHendriks]

I have the 50 mm/2.8 lens. It is a very sharp lens, much better than the 50 mm Hasselblad lens for the H series. There is some distortion, but now you can adjust it in Lightroom 3.

[bradleygibson]

Sadly, the AFD 50 I received was defective (poor optics).  I'll have to keep looking.

[rolleiflexpages]

Sorry to hear that. Why don't you get yourself a new one instead? You can get it directly from the manufacturer, DHW Fototechnik, in Braunschweig. Contact details are on my web page if you do not have them at hand.
Pascal

[StingerNikon]

Schneider Super-Angulon 50/2.8 PQS MF scanned with Minolta Multi Pro, Fuji Velvia 100



100% size scan (4800DPI) (50 Mb file)