Well I suppose that IS true (thanks, you actually made me feel better about it)
Well I suppose that IS true (thanks, you actually made me feel better about it)
No good photos with the 4x5 yet. But I do have a question. Is my 135mm f4.7 xenar lens soft around the edges? Noticed this in several shots. Searching leads me to believe that it is.
My website Flickr
"There is little or no ‘reality’ in the blacks, grays and whites of either the informational or expressive black-and-white image" -Ansel Adams
What aperture were you shooting at?
I have one of those. It's not so bad stopped down. The best that can be said for it wide open is that it's really easy to focus and compose.
All shots were f16 or smaller. I think that one was at f16. Wanted to stop the snow so didn't go smaller. Same thing with this one although less apparent. I think the top left corner is soft:Originally Posted by Roger Cole
You are right, it is easy to focus.
My website Flickr
"There is little or no ‘reality’ in the blacks, grays and whites of either the informational or expressive black-and-white image" -Ansel Adams
Xenar = Tessar. Known for only moderate coverage.
There's a reason why other lens designs were produced after the Tessar was created in 1902.
They are really great for portraits and close work, because the circle of coverage gets larger as we focus closer - and because many have circular apertures - and because they open so wide.
Back in the day, a 4-element lens was pretty sophisticated. Many 35mm SLR cameras came with 50mm Tessar type lenses. Over time, they were largely replaced by lens designs consisting of 6 or more elements: better correction, wider coverage.
We still see Tessars and modified Tessars in long Large Format lenses. When made with modest apertures, they are small lenses, which is important when the focal length is long. For example, the Fujinon C lenses: a modified Tessar design. Compact, sharp, small, and light.
Same with Nikkor M. The 200mm is a favorite because it is so small, light, and sharp. Nobody ever touts it for having huge coverage, so it's not a favorite for architecture or landscape - but for "general" use, it's wonderful.
Last edited by Ken Lee; 17-Mar-2011 at 04:58.
And I'm not really prone to carefully examining the very corners of my negatives with a loupe. Typically the important bits are located away from the corners. IOW, this might or might not matter. While I happened to get mine with the camera when I was getting into LF years ago, and it's my least used lens, that's more because of the lack of coverage with movements and the fact that I more often prefer the wider 90mm or the longer 203 Ektar I also have than any problem with the corner sharpness. IOW, for me it's sharp enough but lacks coverage for movements and is in a focal length I rarely get that excited about - but when I don't need much coverage and the focal length works, I don't hesitate to use it.
Thank you, Jon.
Thank you, Leon.
it's ok, Briand, as I told you before, this happens a lot!!!
My apologizes Nana, I did post a apology the other day but for some reason it hasn't gone in. I think you work is fabulous, I love the 47mm lens, do yo always use a center filter ? I look forward to seeing more of your work
Cheers Brian
I always use a center filter on this lens, I'm not a big fan of vignetting and tihs lens has a 2 f-stops vignetting, wich is a lot.
Film: Ektar 100 4x5
Shot this a few weeks ago shortly after snow storm in Sandy Hook. This is the only picture I took that day.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks