If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Curious on a LF lens quality
Curious if anyone here uses any old Schneider Xenar 150mm on their 4x5? Can anyone give a good impression of it's qualities? I know it is a four element in three group design and related to the tessar design. Large_Alex |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Curious on a LF lens quality
LGLA wrote:
Curious if anyone here uses any old Schneider Xenar 150mm on their 4x5? It does not quite cover 4x5, but you might get away with it if you do not need to use movements. Can anyone give a good impression of it's qualities? I have never used one, but judging from their data, it is probably pretty good. Their Symmar-S (Plasmat) line is probably better if cost is not a problem. I do not know if they make those anymore either. I know it is a four element in three group design and related to the tessar design. Schneider say it is a Tessar. Large_Alex http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/...4,5-150mm.html -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 07:15:01 up 30 days, 13:21, 4 users, load average: 5.49, 4.45, 4.15 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Curious on a LF lens quality
"Peter" wrote in message ... On Sep 6, 10:19 am, "LGLA" wrote: Curious if anyone here uses any old Schneider Xenar 150mm on their 4x5? Can anyone give a good impression of it's qualities? I know it is a four element in three group design and related to the tessar design. Large_Alex The Tessar and the Xenar (as well as some other manufacturer's house brands) are very similar. The performance of any used lens should be evaluated by actual measurement since (for a used lens) it depends to a degree on how the lens has been handled since manufacture. For Schneider's lenses, prior to WWII, the quality control was a little uneven, so if it is an early serial number, extra attention to an actual test is a good idea. After the middle '50s, Schneider's QC seems to be notably better. Even so, 1 test is worth many expert opinions. Thanks this Xenar was manufactured between 1968 and 1970, probably 1969, seeing the serial and their chart. This lens I have just attained is in excellent condition glass-wise. NOW it feels better to me, from your statement. The primary reason that the Xenar is less widely used than it might be is coverage, not sharpness. A good Tessar or Xenar can be very sharp and contrasty. However, the coverage is significantly less than the Symmar. The Schneider web site gives 62 degrees of cover at f:16 for a Xenar (see: http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/...4,5-150mm.html You mean "angle of View at f/16"? Would that be the angle of light-cone projected at the film? Which would create an image circle of 180mm OD? Or is the 'angle of view' how the lens sees the subject compared to wide angle and telephoto? Strange they mention this lens to be recommended for medium format, when that image circle of 180mil = 7.08661417322835 inches, two inches beyond five inches of film. I should think that would be plenty for nominal 4x5 shooting! The corresponding claim for the Symmar of a similar age is 70 degrees. My experience with older Symmars is that some of them 'cover' (i.e., illuminate, with poorer quality) even more than that; this property can be useful, sometimes. If memory serves faithfully, I think Schneider at one time or another has actually claimed a little more as the coverage of the older Symmars, but not recently. Seems pretty evidentt hat little changes for corrections are made in design-to-production with little mention. I think I read the Caltar II-E has a slightly larger image circle than the Rod. Geronar. Broadly, a good 150 mm. Symmar should cover an image circle of about 180 mm. in diameter... "Should" - but that is the same that is stated for the Xenar 150mil.! ....and some might provide 60 line pairs/mm. over much of that field if your demand for contrast is reasonable. If it doesn't do better than 40 (especially in the center) either re- consider your test method or throw it back. Right-on, thanks much for the reply indeed. But I was asking about image qualities by experience, which I now know I should have mentioned. My apologies for not. Regards, Large_Alex |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Curious on a LF lens quality
On 9/7/2008 12:59 PM LGLA spake thus:
"Peter" wrote in message ... The primary reason that the Xenar is less widely used than it might be is coverage, not sharpness. A good Tessar or Xenar can be very sharp and contrasty. However, the coverage is significantly less than the Symmar. The Schneider web site gives 62 degrees of cover at f:16 for a Xenar (see: http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/...4,5-150mm.html Strange they mention this lens to be recommended for medium format, when that image circle of 180mil = 7.08661417322835 inches, two inches beyond five inches of film. I should think that would be plenty for nominal 4x5 shooting! Forget about five inches: remember that you need to cover the *diagonal* of the format, which for 4x5 is about 6.4", or 163mm. This would give just enough coverage without movements, and possibly not enough with some movements. -- Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. - Paulo Freire |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Curious on a LF lens quality
Forget about five inches: remember that you need to cover the *diagonal* of the format, which for 4x5 is about 6.4", or 163mm. This would give just enough coverage without movements, and possibly not enough with some movements. Which would leave 17 little tiny microscopic milimeters! Sheesh! But thanks for the interjection. So, I shoot mostly straight, with great sharpness and contrast. Alex -- Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. - Paulo Freire |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Curious on a LF lens quality
"Peter" wrote in message ... On Sep 7, 9:59 pm, "LGLA" wrote: "Peter" wrote in message ... On Sep 6, 10:19 am, "LGLA" wrote: .... Thanks this Xenar was manufactured between 1968 and 1970, probably 1969, seeing the serial and their chart. This lens I have just attained is in excellent condition glass-wise. NOW it feels better to me, from your statement. ... Testing is still a worthwhile investment. Yes, the seller says this particular lens has a tested image circle of 195mil, and he has used it on an 8x10 Deardorff. And that it was his favorite on the 4x5, because of the sharpness and contrast. And that he's been shooting LF for 45+ years. You mean "angle of View at f/16"? Would that be the angle of light-cone projected at the film? Which would create an image circle of 180mm OD? Or is the 'angle of view' how the lens sees the subject compared to wide angle and telephoto? I mean the angle of view as seen from the 'center' of the lens. It is not a comparison with other lenses; it is a property of the lens. OK so as much angle as goes into the front of the lens, it's center. Strange they mention this lens to be recommended for medium format, when that image circle of 180mil = 7.08661417322835 inches, two inches beyond five inches of film. I should think that would be plenty for nominal 4x5 shooting! Schneider has over the last 50+ years sometimes touted the wonderful possibilities that their lenses might provide and sometimes taken a more cautious view. In fairness both the market and the management changes over such intervals. The current approach seems to be a little conservative and somewhat technical. Plenty is not quite the right word. Adequate might be a better adjective. As noted elsewhere it is enough for small corrections when focused at infinity. For copy work, it is a bit more generous. As I learned in another post/reply in this thread. The corresponding claim for the Symmar of a similar age is 70 degrees. My experience with older Symmars is that some of them 'cover' (i.e., illuminate, with poorer quality) even more than that; this property can be useful, sometimes. If memory serves faithfully, I think Schneider at one time or another has actually claimed a little more as the coverage of the older Symmars, but not recently. Seems pretty evidentt hat little changes for corrections are made in design-to-production with little mention. I think I read the Caltar II-E has a slightly larger image circle than the Rod. Geronar. Broadly, a good 150 mm. Symmar should cover an image circle of about 180 mm. in diameter... "Should" - but that is the same that is stated for the Xenar 150mil.! Oops! I meant to type Xenar, not Symmar in that place. A Symmar will cover a little over 200 mm and optimistically 210 to 215mm. ...and some might provide 60 line pairs/mm. over much of that field if your demand for contrast is reasonable. If it doesn't do better than 40 (especially in the center) either re- consider your test method or throw it back. Right-on, thanks much for the reply indeed. But I was asking about image qualities by experience, which I now know I should have mentioned. My apologies for not. Regards, Large_Alex Sorry for the confusing typo! And thanks for the reply. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Curious on a LF lens quality
In article ,
LGLA wrote: "Peter" wrote in message ... On Sep 7, 9:59 pm, "LGLA" wrote: "Peter" wrote in message ... On Sep 6, 10:19 am, "LGLA" wrote: ... Thanks this Xenar was manufactured between 1968 and 1970, probably 1969, seeing the serial and their chart. This lens I have just attained is in excellent condition glass-wise. NOW it feels better to me, from your statement. ... Testing is still a worthwhile investment. Yes, the seller says this particular lens has a tested image circle of 195mil, and he has used it on an 8x10 Deardorff. And that it was his favorite on the 4x5, 195mm is not sufficient to cover 8x10. And a short Tessar-formula lens is just not a great normal lens for 4x5. That's the bottom line as I see it. Once you get to 200 or 210mm Tessar formula lenses will cover 4x5 with room for reasonable movements. A Commercial Ektar or Nikkor-M is probably a better choice than a Xenar -- for a long time, Xenars were cheap press lenses, and they've never been Schneider's top of the line. -- Thor Lancelot Simon "Even experienced UNIX users occasionally enter rm *.* at the UNIX prompt only to realize too late that they have removed the wrong segment of the directory structure." - Microsoft WSS whitepaper |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Curious on a LF lens quality
"Thor Lancelot Simon" wrote in message ... Yes, the seller says this particular lens has a tested image circle of 195mil, and he has used it on an 8x10 Deardorff. And that it was his favorite on the 4x5, 195mm is not sufficient to cover 8x10. And a short Tessar-formula lens is just not a great normal lens for 4x5. That's the bottom line as I see it. I think he meant certain focuses/focussings where the lens is further from the film plane, the image circle increases in size? Isn't this how macro is done in LF? Once you get to 200 or 210mm Tessar formula lenses will cover 4x5 with room for reasonable movements. A Commercial Ektar or Nikkor-M is probably a better choice than a Xenar -- for a long time, Xenars were cheap press lenses, and they've never been Schneider's top of the line. Thank you for that info, I am no expert. -- Thor Lancelot Simon "Even experienced UNIX users occasionally enter rm *.* at the UNIX prompt only to realize too late that they have removed the wrong segment of the directory structure." - Microsoft WSS whitepaper Alex |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Curious on a LF lens quality
Thor Lancelot Simon wrote (in part):
"Even experienced UNIX users occasionally enter rm *.* at the UNIX prompt only to realize too late that they have removed the wrong segment of the directory structure." - Microsoft WSS whitepaper "That is why UNIX users frequently do backups so that when they realize too late that they entered rm *.* it is a simple matter to recover the lost files." - JDBeyer DKRM silverpaper I have never met a Windows user who does backups on a regular basis, although I have heard that some exist. -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 17:25:01 up 40 days, 23:31, 4 users, load average: 4.55, 4.55, 4.37 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Just curious | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 31 | October 25th 05 07:09 AM |
I'm curious | Inaccessible | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | February 3rd 05 04:30 PM |
Curious | nick c | 35mm Photo Equipment | 116 | December 13th 04 06:41 AM |
CURIOUS ABOUT THE 20D !!! | Annika1980 | Digital Photography | 9 | October 2nd 04 01:54 AM |
CURIOUS ABOUT THE 20D !!! | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | October 1st 04 03:39 PM |