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

[joshdaskew]

Hi, I am basically trying to achieve a look on the 5 x 4 format that is similar to shooting wide open on the 8 x 10 format ( 300mm @ 5.6 ). After a bit of number crunching, I figured I would need to shoot at 2.8 on a 150mm lens on the 5 x 4 format. As far as I could tell, the Schneider Xenotar 150mm 2.8 seemed the only real candidate. I know there are other faster lenses but this was the latest I could find and I am not really after a 'vintage' look.I recently bought a Schneider Xenar 150mm 3.5 as I could not afford the Xenotar and I thought that this would give me an indicator as to whether what I was searching for could be achieved.. This is quite an old lens ( I believe 1930's or so ) and was sold to me as a coated version and also 3.5.. Now on the front part of the lens it does say Schneider Xenar 150 3,5 but on the aperture part of the lens it is only labelled as 4.5. I recently had this mounted on a Linhof board to fit my Chamonix and was disappointed to see that there was really hardly any difference in drop of focus between my modern Rodenstock 150mm Sironar N @ 5.6 and this ( supposed ) 3.5. The only real difference was that the Xenar was obviously much less sharp. Oh, and it seems that it is a longer lens than a 150mm. I don't know what it would aquate to but on the rough tests that I did, I had to move a significant amount forward to get the subject in the same part of the frame and by doing that I had left out other parts of the scene... Any thoughts? The other lenses I have looked at are the Zeiss Planar 135mm 3.5 and the Xenotar 135mm 3.5. Not quite 2.8 but close.. Any idea how old all three lenses are? Are they all single coated? Ok, thanks so much. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated Kind Regards Josh

Attached is the type of look I am after... Full Body portrait with a serious drop of depth in the background... Thanks again

[Steve Hamley]

My guess is the aperture scale is off because it isn't the original shutter. Test the focal length by your 150mm Sironar-N on the camera, focus at infinity, and make a (removable) witness mark on the rail. Now mount the mystery lens, focus on infinity, and measure the difference.

There's also the Zeiss Tessars at f 2.7 or so, like the 165mm f:2.7. Lens and Repro has one just like mine except in barrel. I found of all things, it was a direct fit into a Compound #4.

None of these are likely to be coated except maybe the Xenotar. The glass can oxidize and look sort of like coating, which is what you see on my Tessar. There's also a 210mm f:3.5 Xenar that might work for you.

Oh yes, the shutter below isn't original equipment, it's from a WWII era f:5.5 Xenar, but the Tessar is wide open at f:2.7.

Cheers, Steve

[Frank Petronio]

That example shot looks a lot wider than a 150mm lens on 4x5. In fact it looks Photoshopped blur-wise, I haven't seen that kind of dramatic fall-off -- sharp at 20 feet but totally blurry at infinity -- occur naturally and I shoot wide open quite a bit.

To me, the best way to get the steep fall-off from sharp focus is to be closer to your subject, like 6 to 10 feet, usually with a little longer lens. Then the background will be pleasantly wacked.

To me, the modern 5.6 lenses look nice when shot wide open.

[joshdaskew]

Thanks Steve and Frank, much appreciated! Steve, will definitely take your advice on testing the focal length.... Should a 150mm from that period be the equivalent field of view to a current 150mm? Also, if the aperture scale is off due to not being the original, that still means that wide open should be 3.5, not 4.5, right? Its just the shutter is giving false information... If that is the case, then why isnt there much that difference between my current 150mm 5.6 and this 150mm 3.5 in terms of drop of focus? Does this change over time or should it be somewhat standardised over time? The lens looks very similar to your example ( have attached some examples ). I will attach some examples of some test shots taken when I get a chance... Do you have any examples of your lens wide open? How old is it?

Frank, that example that I gave was shot on a 300mm on a 8 x 10 camera, hence the severe drop off in the background.. This should be roughly equivalent to a 150mm standard lens @ 2.8 on the 5 x 4 format... I realise that you can get a steeper drop of focus if you are closer to the camera but to me, this is the look I really like, full body with a dramatic decrease in focus... This is the reason that I have looking into lenses that are faster than modern day 5.6 lenses...

Ok, any thoughts you have will be once again very gratefully received.. Kind Regards Josh

[Ole Tjugen]

The field of view should be the same with two 150mm lenses, but the extension at infinity focus can be very different. Tessars are unsymmetrical, and in the case of the fast f:3.5 ones very much so. My ancient 150mm f:3.5 Xenar Typ D requires about the same extesion at infinity as a symmetrical 120mm lens does - but that one is a reverse Tessar, so "normal" ones may well require much more extension.

[Daniel_Buck]

Tessar is wide open at f:2.7

interesting sounding lens, do you have any scanned photos taken with it wide open?

[thafred]

Daniel,
I have a few scanned pictures with said Tessar on my Flickr. Used on a 4x5 Speed with Rangefinder handheld: http://www.flickr.com/photos/5749381...essar165mmf27/

It´s quite soft wide open but usable IMHO, a heavy beast to schlepp around thou..

[thafred]

double post...sorry

[Dan Fromm]

Folks, the lens whose picture Josh posted is post-WWII, probably 1951, and is marked with a red triangle, which means Schneider thought they coated it.

There's a quaint theory to the effect that flange-to-film distance = focal length. This isn't always the case, and the discrepancy varies with lens design. Josh, if you don't have a nodal slide, you can always compare y'r f/3.5 Xenar's and f/5.6 Sironar N's focal length by shooting not-too-near subject with both lenses and comparing the sizes of the on-film images.

In the shot in the original post the subject (young lady) is considerably in front of the background (the buildings on each side of her). That they're out of focus shows narrow depth of field, that's all.

Josh, 135/3.5 Xenotars and Planars are all post-WWII and all are coated. Ages? That depends on when the lens was made, both were made over a considerable span.

[Sevo]

Should a 150mm from that period be the equivalent field of view to a current 150mm? Also, if the aperture scale is off due to not being the original, that still means that wide open should be 3.5, not 4.5, right? Its just the shutter is giving false information... If that is the case, then why isnt there much that difference between my current 150mm 5.6 and this 150mm 3.5 in terms of drop of focus?

Period or not is somewhat irrelevant - in any case your Xenar is the post war, coated version. Excellent lens btw., if it is similar to my 3.5/240 Xenar (which is very likely).

And the field of view should be the same - neither Schneider nor Rodenstock erred much in their specifications. If there is a considerable difference between them, you should investigate whether the shutter depth is correct - a wrong distance between the front and rear halves will alter the focal length and anything that comes with it!

Sevo