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 one .
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.
Bookmarks