Schneider xenar 105mm 3.5

[neilt3]

You haven't looked very hard and you haven't used the list described here: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...mainly)-lenses

Since you can't feed yourself, the information you want is here: https://www.schneideroptics.com/info...3,5-100mm.html

O.P's asking about a 105mm lens , not the 100mm you've linked to.
The one I linked to was the 105mm f/4.5 though , not the 105mm f/3.5 that the O.P asked about .

The 105mm f/3.5 the O.P isn't a typo , do a search on ebay and you'll see them for sale .
Intended for 6x9cm coverage though , not 5"x4" .

Doesn't seem to be much information out there on this lens , regardless of who's doing the feeding of the information ( right or wrong ) .

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Schneider claimed that the 10.5cm f3.5 Xenar had a 4 5/16" (~110mm) "circle of sharp definition at small stop," barely enough for 2x3, let alone 4x5.



From http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/...hneider_2.html

[Dan Fromm]

Thanks for the correction.

This link, not in the list, http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/linhof_3.html reports a 105/3.5 Xenar on the 2x3 Super Technika. The VM lists a variety of f/3.5 Xenars starting before WW II, says the 105 was the last to be discontinued. The 105s were all for 2x3, not 4x5.

Jason, I think your page from Cameraeccentric is from a pre-WW II catalog. I strongly suspect, can't prove 'cos I don't have Thiele's Schneider book, that the 105/3.5 Xenars sold on 2x3 Technikas were later designs with slightly greater coverage.

[ottluuk]

A major source of confusion seems to be that these vintage Xenars usually don't have a visually distinctive limit to their usable image circle. The image goes progressively more soft, then fuzzy and distorted as you move further from the center – before it goes totally dark. You may be able to get a usable image well beyond the manufacturer's stated coverage – just depends on your definition of 'usable'.

If you play within Schneider's claimed specs, you'll get sharp, straight negatives that can stand a fair amount of enlargement. Outside those guidelines, it's better to do your own experiments (but don't expect a free lunch).

For 4x5, the already mentioned 135/4.7 Xenar works well enough with modest movements. Shorter than that really needs a wide angle design IMHO.

[lis boa]

You haven't looked very hard and you haven't used the list described here: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...mainly)-lenses

Since you can't feed yourself, the information you want is here: https://www.schneideroptics.com/info...3,5-100mm.html

It would appear that you can't feed me either. The lens i referred to was a 105mm 3.5 but I see you've been corrected already.

[lis boa]

Thanks to all - I let it go as it clearly wasn't designed for 4x5. Though i knew that already I was happy to use it for portraits as long as it was a case of fading and softness at the edges rather than (black) vignetting. i let it go in the end. Thanks for your responses.

[lis boa]

My mistake , I didn't spot the different aperture .
It's strange that is missing from this list ( https://www.schneideroptics.com/info..._lenses/xenar/ ) at Schneider .

I did a search on ebay and there's plenty of the lens your asking about on there .
Strange that there's not much information of it on the net .
Seems to of also been available with an M42 mount for 35mm , probably for use on bellows as there seems to be refrances on using it for macro .

Still seems to be of use for just 6x9cm though , maybe an earlier version of the f/4.5 and they just restricted the aperture to improve I.Q leaving the same coverage ?

Would 135mm be to long for you ?
I tend to use my Xenar 135mm f/4.7 on a Crown Graphic and like the results . The stated recomended coverage is for 90x120mm but even with a bit of forward tilt coverage seems fine . The lens is stopped down a bit as I tend to shoot landscape more .
I have quite a few lenses to choose from but this one suits a lot of what I do .

Thanks a lot for your response. I shoot a lot of environmental portraits and i occasionally find things a bit tight and then need to reach for a wider lens. I already have a 135 6.3 and a 150 3.5. I was also attracted by the maximum aperture. I have found it rather difficult to see the GG at the small apertures on some lenses. I am now looking for a 135 3.5 for low light shooting.

Thanks again

[Mark Sampson]

lis boa, you might look up the work of Arnold Newman. He is generally credited with introducing the 'environmental portrait' and often used wide-angle lenses with great success. He did talk about technique some times- I don't have a reference here, but I believe that he often used a 90mm lens on 4x5.

[lis boa]

lis boa, you might look up the work of Arnold Newman. He is generally credited with introducing the 'environmental portrait' and often used wide-angle lenses with great success. He did talk about technique some times- I don't have a reference here, but I believe that he often used a 90mm lens on 4x5.

Thank you very much for the pointer. Exemplary wide angle portrait work. I think it is a challenging genre and his execution shows what striking portraits are possible -he even uses distortion effectively in some of his photos. Thanks again.

[Corran]

Newman's portrait of Stravinsky is one of my favorite portraits ever made. Good point.