View Single Post
  #10  
Old November 13th 08, 01:05 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
John J
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Curious on a LF lens quality

Airbus wrote:
All true and pertinent, but a XENAR typically opens to f/3.5, compared to f/5.6
for a comparable Symmar, and is corrected for use at or near full aperture.


All the 4x5 format Xenars I know are f/4.5 or f/4.7 (two MF intended
lenses are 3.5). Did I miss some f/3.5 Xenars? Xeontars were faster but
they were MF lenses.

Near-full aperture is a chancy term because all Schneider LF lenses are
best stopped down three or four stops. So it could be as easily said
that the Xenars are corrected for near-mid aperture, just like the rest.

I disagree that they were corrected for near-full aperture. They were
made fast enough and relatively less expensive; that is what made their
market.

That's why thes lenses became known as "press lenses" because they could be
used handheld. Like the Planars and Xenotars used in medium format, the Xenars
were fast, contrasty lenses for 4x5 format.


They are not contrasty wide-open. The press of the time could care less
about wide-open sharpness.

I have used all of the
aforementioned lenses extensively, and I admit I have greater trust in the
Symmars, and I usually shoot at f/22, but I have always been amazed by the
Xenar and Xenotar's performance at f/3.5 - f/4!


The 135mm f/3.5 Planar is the only fast LF lens I've used that is sharp
wide open. But sharp is over-rated for LF.

====== Now to ramble (in part because I suspect 'airbus' is a
philosophical kinda person =========


Don't expect grain-sniffing sharp images with a Xenar wide-open on a
Xenar. BUT! Sharpness is way over-rated! Back in the day before MTF
charts, even before tests against military aerial targets, LF
photographers sought qualities other than sharpness, for example how the
lenses rendered their 'defects' to achieve 'glow', and what we call
today 'bokeh', and how flare might fill shadows (lower contrast).

Line/Pair Per Millimeter (lp/mm) for LF is just an expensive distraction
unless you are doing reconnaissance work.

If the lens is coated, and if it covers 4x5 evenly-enough for the kind
of movements you anticipate - GO FOR IT.