Xenar 150mm 3,5? Why is it similar to my modern Rodenstock 150mm 5.6?

[Steve Hamley]

Daniel,

here's an informal portrait of my dad. Thafred's comments are right on, soft wide open, heavy for it's size, and coverage isn't great as expected. However, this is a wide open lens. There's as not much reason to shoot it at f:8 or f:11 versus other Tessars.

Cheers, Steve

[joshdaskew]

Thanks to everyone for the responses, much appreciated! Am going to get up in the morning and take a shot each with the two lenses. Will place a central object in the middle of the groundglass and try have this basically in the same position for both shots ie same height, roughly same angle etc etc.. Then I will go with what Steve and Dan said and try and get an idea of what the focal length is.. The fact that it is a different focal length doesn't really bother me, its the fact that I thought it would have a narrower depth of field than it does.. Dan, what is a nodal slide? Also, with your reference to my reference picture, isn't that the point, that it is shot with an extremely narrow depth of field? In this case, on an 8 x 10 camera, 300mm lens @ 5.6? Not so much to do with what focal length the lens is? Ok, hopefully will have some reference pictures for you guys tomorrow. Thanks again to everyone who contributed. Kind Regards Josh

[J. Patric Dahlen]

The shutter is much older than the lens, and it isn't sure it allows larger openings than 4,5 (or maybe around 5,6 since the aperture scale isn't calculated for this lens).

[joshdaskew]

Have attached another example, just in case I wasn't clear before... This image has a pretty severe drop of depth to it. For a full body portrait ( well he is sitting but you get the point ) from his face being in focus and then the items at the back of the truck being completely out of focus... So I think for both examples it is just using an aperture that provides this extremely shallow depth of field, for whatever the relevant format.. Thanks again Josh

[joshdaskew]

Hi J. Patric Dahlen, This is what a rough test seems to confirm but will take a few test shots and post them.. Look forward to hearing your thoughts. Regards Josh

[BennehBoy]

Josh, bit of a tangent, but who are the photos by that you are posting?

[joshdaskew]

Ben, Checked out your site, awesome photos there! The urban motion series is awesome! What did you shoot these on? Digital and then cropped in for some? So, the photos are by a photographer named Richard Renaldi. He shoots 810 and his prints are truly amazing.. I saw on your flickr site that you have a 810 portrait on there.. Very cool... What lens did you use? Did you shoot wide open (5.6). A little bit out of my league I am afraid, hence trying to find a cheaper option around it... As you can see by this post, not having the most success...

[BennehBoy]

Ah yeah I know Richard Renaldi's work, I just haven't seen the 2 images you posted until now.

I don't really take notes when shooting (I need to change that), but I think the 8x10 portrait on my flickr was shot at f/8, I shot it with a Schneider 300/5.6 Symmar.

It's bleeding expensive to shoot, but there's nothing like that big GG.

The parkour photography is a mix of Rollei 6008i (portraits), And Canon 5D/1DMKII. You can see some more here if you're interested -> http://flickr.com/gp/bennehboy/gu0QW9

[Frank Petronio]

Here are two from a few years ago when I used 8x10 with a 1970-80s 300/5.6 Xenar.

Damn that example photos feels a lot wider to me.

Just because the lens is marked 150mm doesn't mean it isn't 152.87mm or 147.89mm you know....

[Steve Hamley]

A little bit out of my league I am afraid, hence trying to find a cheaper option around it... As you can see by this post, not having the most success...

Josh,

I've explored the same option, and I'm not sure that you can easily replicate the 8x10 look on 4x5. Theoretically you should be able to, but in practice it doesn't seem to be as simple. Also, lenses fast enough to do this on 4x5 will not be cheap as they're rare. I lucked into my Zeiss Tessar, but the Lens and Repro lens is $750.

So why not get a good Kodak 2D for $250-300, and a lens for $50 or so? You can shoot Arista EDU and other films to help control the costs. This route would be cheaper than a Xenotar or the Tessar at L&R.

Cheers, Steve