Schneider 150mm f/2.8 Xenotar

[SergeiR]

Out of curioisity - what you trying to prove?
That you don't need it? That's fine. Why everyone has to agree on this?

I have 150/3.5 and 150/2.8 and quite a few other 150mm
Tools for job. That's how it should be.

Picking up lenses for specific situations and subjects, not some universal absolute truth

[EdSawyer]

With some effort, they can be found at decent prices. I paid $700 or so for my first one, in barrel, and with an M42 focusing mount. The 2nd one I got was about $760, also in barrel but with a nice custom filter / holder thing. I bought a linhof compur 2 shutter for about $100-150 which fits the Xenotar. The third 150/2.8 I got was $175, it has some scratches on the rear element - it's still sharp, just lower contrast. I only use it for a viewing lens on a TLR.

[Greg]

Curious, rational for wanting a 150mm f2.8 Xenotar?


Bernice

Have been using a 7.0" f/2.5 BUHL projector lens a lot lately for still life close-ups. Has no iris so use it wide open. But being just a projector lens, sharpness over the whole 4x5 format leaves something to be desired.
Greg

[Jac@stafford.net]

Does the Schneider 150mm f/2.8 Xenotar have focus shift if stopped down?
.

[Corran]

I double-checked real quick and saw no focus shift on the ground glass using a 10x loupe while stopping down. If it does it is not perceivable to me. I have not felt like my focus was off in real usage when stopped down but shooting handheld with the RF usually is not conducive to looking for focus shift anyway...

[Daniel Unkefer]

6x9cm roll film, Plaubel Makiflex, 150mm F2.8 Xenotar wide-open. Camera hand-held.

According to my original Schneider literature this is a 60 degree lens covering 4x5". Image circle 160 at F22

Automatic Makiflex 150 Xenotar by Nokton48, on Flickr

[Corran]

Also, I figured I'd mention for the OP and anyone else who might've missed this - the Xenotar and some other exotic lenses are mentioned with regard to portraits using LF on the homepage here:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/

He mentions the messy out of focus rendering, but as EdSawyer and others have mentioned, stopped down just to f/4 it really cleans up.

By the way, with regard to "why" one might want one, I have to say there has been a couple instances where having an f/2.8 lens was really helpful, especially for focusing. For this image it was pitch-black and to focus a friend illuminated the motorcycle helmet with a cell-phone before getting the fire started. At f/5.6 it would've been a lot harder to see and focus. Sure perhaps it could've been done but boy it was a lot easier...

[Daniel Unkefer]

Another. 150mm F2.8 Xenotar wide-open, Plaubel Makiflex. Two 4X ND filters attached due to higher film speed.

150 Xenotar Auto Makiflex Foma by Nokton48, on Flickr

[Bernice Loui]

Might want to try using an enlarging lens 150mm or longer for close ups to 1:1. Beyond 1:1, reverse mount the enlarging lens and a shorter focal length. The results might be surprising.


Bernice

Have been using a 7.0" f/2.5 BUHL projector lens a lot lately for still life close-ups. Has no iris so use it wide open. But being just a projector lens, sharpness over the whole 4x5 format leaves something to be desired.
Greg

[Bernice Loui]

Justification and rational for a lens with f2.8 is to have that as a useful aperture. If stopping down to f4 improves the out of focus rendition, it might make more sense to consider a much lower cost f3.5 to f4.5 Xenar as these are less precious market value wise. Going up in film format size results in similar shallow depth of focus similar to a smaller film format using a lens with larger aperture.

-"Along with high weight, price, and size, lousy bokeh, and a small image circle, another drawback of the Xenotar is flare. In most circumstances one needs a lens shade or a compendium for it, which however does not entirely resolves the problem. Flare can sometimes yield a charming antique look, but as this lens’ results look modern in other ways, the combination with flare is a visual oxymoron to me. Flary images made with an uncoated Heliar or Tessar look consistently old-fashioned and therefore a lot better. In sum, the Xenotar is very special in a few good and in many bad ways. You really have to be blinded by love to keep it. My love didn’t last.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/

IMO for what every it is worth, these large aperture lenses for sheet films have become overly precious in recent years. Another example would be Kodak 6" f2.5 Aero Ektar. There were piles of these decades ago, $50 was the typical market price. In recent years they have become precious. This has been true for smaller format lenses too. Many, many opportunities to use, own and have kept these larger aperture lens from the past, none has been appealing enough to keep.

Much of what is being pointed out here, know precisely what one is getting in a lens personality (and cost) before considering ownership. Nothing more, nothing less.




Bernice.

Also, I figured I'd mention for the OP and anyone else who might've missed this - the Xenotar and some other exotic lenses are mentioned with regard to portraits using LF on the homepage here:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/

He mentions the messy out of focus rendering, but as EdSawyer and others have mentioned, stopped down just to f/4 it really cleans up.