• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / GFX 50S / Schneider 90/4.5 Apo-Componon HM on GFX 50R, f/5.6, f/8

Schneider 90/4.5 Apo-Componon HM on GFX 50R, f/5.6, f/8

October 18, 2020 JimK 3 Comments

Yesterday  I reported on the performance of this Schneider enlarging lens on a Cambo Actus-attached GFX 50R wide open. In the corners, the results were good but not great, so I repeated the test with the lens stopped down to f/5.6.

Test protocol:

  • Manual exposure, the same for all images
  • 12 meters target distance
  • ISO 100
  • f/5.6
  • Subject in the center, the upper right corner, and the upper right corner with a 5 mm fall.
  • Manual focusing.
  • Six shots at each setting, focusing anew for each shot, picking the best using the Imatest sharpness ranking utility. This method calibrates out focus curvature.
  • Developed in Lightroom
  • Sharpening set to zero.
  • White balance set to gray background on Siemens Star target
  • Adobe Color Profile
  • Minor exposure adjustments, with same adjustment applied to all images from both lenses, so corner darkening is unaffected.
  • Chromatic aberration correction turned off.
  • Everything else at default settings

MTF testing using the slanted edge follows.

Center

 

UR corner

 

UR corner, 5 mm fall

 

UR corner 5 mm rise

Although the back standard of the Actus is the one you use for rises and falls, the markings on the camera are as if you were moving the front standard. Rise means the back standard drops. Fall means it rises. Ignore the diffraction limited line. Imatest thinks this is a f/1 lens. Now we’re seeing performance that doesn’t fall off much even when we demand a 60 mm image circle which were doing in the bottom chart above.

Stopping down to f/8:

Center

 

UR corner

 

UR corner, 5 mm rise

Looks like f/8 is the sweet aperture for this lens. It also looks like there’s some room for movements.

I couldn’t get the Siemens star target to work right in the corners on this test. Sorry.

 

 

GFX 50S

← Schneider 90/4.5 Apo-Componon HM on GFX 50R Full frame fisheye on GFX 50R, Z7 →

Comments

  1. Oskar Ojala says

    November 17, 2020 at 12:41 pm

    I have one of these lenses around from when I had the time to do closeups. I consider it a very good closeup lens and since the 45 mm lens of the same series and 120 mm Schneider were also good, I think Schneider’s higher end lenses are worth using. However for longer distances I remember (and I haven’t tried recently) a slight loss of acuity, but with a rather pleasing overall look.

    Reply
  2. Dave Chew says

    November 28, 2020 at 5:56 am

    Hi Jim,
    Appreciate these tests. I’ve always wondered if this lens is the same as the “Apo-Digitar 4.5/90.” The official MTF cannot be directly compared, since the wavelengths (and weights), focus distances and diagonals are different. Also, the dimensional information is slightly different between the two. However, the MTFs are pretty similar.
    The Componon info is here: https://schneiderkreuznach.com/application/files/6915/4115/3569/1004531_Apo-Componon_4-5_90.pdf
    Apo-Digitar here:
    http://www.alpa.ch/_files/90N_MTF.pdf

    I have the 90 AD. It would be fun to compare the two some day.
    Dave

    Reply
  3. Paul R says

    November 13, 2024 at 11:22 am

    I used the 150mm version of this lens for enlarging. It was sharpest corner-to-corner at f11. Sharper in the central areas at f8.

    The Schneider engineer I spoke with said that this lens was strongly optimized for 10X enlargements, which was much bigger than I ever did. Most of my work was 1.5X to 3X. So I wasn’t using it to its best advantage.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • Štěpán Kaňa on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Štěpán Kaňa on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.