Anyone have any experiences with this lens on a 4x5? I have found only one reference that it covers an "image diameter of 160mm" at f/16, which tells me that was made to use only 100% on axis.
thanks
Anyone have any experiences with this lens on a 4x5? I have found only one reference that it covers an "image diameter of 160mm" at f/16, which tells me that was made to use only 100% on axis.
thanks
It works great on 4x5. I have 3 of them, it covers 4x5 wide-open no problem. I don't use movements with mine much, but it's a fantastic lens, probably the best combination of speed/sharpness in a large-format lens for 4x5. Sharp as or sharper than AE and Pentac, easily fits a shutter, smaller and lighter than the other usual suspects, etc. I expect stopped-down it probably has a larger image circle than 160mm.
Ed, when people talk about coverage things get a little slippery. Slimy, even. Schneider claims that the 150/2.8 Xenotar covers 160 mm @ f/22. Not that surprising. There may be exceptions but fast double Gauss lenses typically gain little coverage when stopped down.
+1. Except I only have oneOriginally Posted by EdSawyer
.
I've posted lots of images from this lens on my old blog.
I agree that the Xenotar covers 4x5 at f2.8 just fine, but note that image circle does not grow much when stopped down. I have tried, bought, and sold dozens of speed lenses and the Xenotar is the sharpest of those I have tested. My current Xenotar has better resolution and less flare than the Cooke Opic and Speedic, Pentac, Aero-Ektar, Trioplan, Dallmeyer 2C, and Xenon lenses that I have tested. But I haven't yet tested an 16.5cm Ernostar...
This is cruel but necessary: If one spends thousands of dollars on the Xenotar f2.8, then stops down for assurance, then he has put at least $2000 into the trash. Better to get a slower lens and enjoy the savings.
.
I actually like most speed lenses closed down one stop - the bokeh smoothes up a bit. I think an AE comes fairly close to a Xenotar, as far as sharpness, but there's the whole size/weight/lack of a shutter that is a bit of a pain. There are also some modern 6" f/2.8 lenses (military aero lenses) which may be sharper, but pretty much either don't go in a shutter or are otherwise cumbersome and annoying to try to adapt. I have a couple of those, I haven't gotten around to testing them, but they are beautiful pieces of glass - they just don't play nice when it comes to practical usability (esp. hand-held). At some point I'll fab up a lensboard for them and try them on a speed or SLR.
What exactly do you mean "for assurance?" As in, for depth of field, or optimum performance? Sure, if you are just wanting a sharp lens to shoot at f/16+ it's definitely not the right choice. I have read claims that at f/5.6 it is sharper than standard plasmats but I don't really know, I've not checked. 95% of the time I've shot mine it was for handheld work and/or very shallow DOF work, and always between f/2.8 and f/8 depending.
It's a fun lens but also I didn't spend much on it. I wouldn't sell it because I won't likely find one again for as cheap as I did. For a little while they were going for stupendous amounts of money. Seems like the prices are coming down. I saw one in a newer Compur with all the accouterments sell for something like $6k a couple years ago.
Exaggerating the argument is not rational. Two stops down brings the lens to within the economical class which perform as well.You don't really know is enough.I have read claims that at f/5.6 it is sharper than standard plasmats but I don't really know
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks