Difference between Xenotar 135/3.5 and Zeiss Planar

[richardman]

Not that it matters because there is no way I would pay $3000-$4500+ for a lens (most expensive lens I still own are the Zeiss 85/2, the Summilux 50/1.4ASPH and the 30mm XPan, but that's in another lifetime). In any case, on this thread:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?44561-newly-acquired-lens-Schneider-Xenotar-135-3-5

It was casually mentioned that the Xenotar and the Planar are the same lens except for the coating, or am I mis-reading it?

In the now closed Zeiss Planar ad, two people mentioned that Xenotar are coated, so are these the same lens, or are they different?

Thanks

[Ian Greenhalgh]

Similar but different. Both are double gauss types. Originally, the Xenotar had 5 elements in a similar scheme to the CZJ Biometar and Wray Unilite:

Original 1952 Xenotar scheme:
http://www.pentaconsix.com/xenotar52.jpg

That 5-element Xenotar type was used on the Rollei TLR, which is also where the Planar was used, and that version of the Planar was also 5 elements in a similar but different configuration to the Xenotar:

http://www.pentaconsix.com/planar5.jpg

Later iterations of both the Xenotar and Planar used either 6 or 7 elements. The 6 element type being the more common and consisting of a pair of cemented doublets either side of a central stop with an outer pair of meniscii, similar to this:

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201010/3062_PA236599_1.jpg

The reference to the coating was that the particular Planar they were discussing was a late production model with the T* multi-coating and the Xenotar and earlier Planars didn't have that particular coating.

[richardman]

Got it. I thought may be I misunderstood the coating comment that way too. Thanks for confirmation.

I love looking at lens diagrams, it's like artwork by themselves.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

Glad to be of help. :)

[Dan Fromm]

Ian, see what Arne has to say about Planars: http://www.arnecroell.com/publications

I think you're not fully informed and are spreading information that is at best partially correct.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

Everything I wrote is correct. You don't expect me to write a lengthy piece all about Planars, Xenotars and all the variations thereof in answer to a simple question do you? I made my response as brief as possible and gave the OP the basic info he asked for.

[Dan Fromm]

Everything I wrote is correct. You don't expect me to write a lengthy piece all about Planars, Xenotars and all the variations thereof in answer to a simple question do you? I made my response as brief as possible and gave the OP the basic info he asked for.

To quote Dr. Croell, "Large format Planars from Carl Zeiss Oberkochen. All are 5/4 constructions as shown in fig. 1,"

I think its reasonable to expect you to think and check y'r facts before posting. I don't know why you didn't think and check, but you posted an answer that's seriously in error. The worst of it is that it will stay up and mislead people who don't read the entire thread for at least as long as this site stays up.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

you posted an answer that's seriously in error

No I didn't, and let me prove it:

Firstly, the Rollei Planar and Xenotar evolved from 5 to 6 elements:

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6103/7006354721_ac5433d07c_o.jpg

The Hasselblad Planar evolved from 6 to 7 elements:

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Zeiss_Planar_2,8-80_six_lenses/01.gif

Of course, those are MF lenses, but there are other examples.

The S-Planar 5.6/120 was produced from 1969 to 1982, not only for Rollei and Hasselblad MF cameras but also in shutter for LF technical cameras, so it is precisely what I wrote - a later iteration with 6 elements.

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Zeiss_cute_DFR_DDR_lenses/33.gif

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Zeiss_cute_DFR_DDR_lenses/28.jpg

[Dan Fromm]

I see. So large format begins at 6x6. That's not the local convention.

[BrianShaw]

Dan, I don't have time this afternoon to get a PhD in optics, so could you please let us know what information is in error. Simply alleging an error and then pointing to a whole lot of great information doesn't help either. Thanks.

[BrianShaw]

Oh... ignore. Sorry. I now see that you are quibbling about LF vs MF planar designs.

[Dan Fromm]

Oh... ignore. Sorry. I now see that you are quibbling about LF vs MF planar designs.

Brian, LF Xenotars are all 5/4 double Gauss types. LF Planars are all 5/4 double Gauss types that look, in cross-section, somewhat like reversed LF Xenotars. For other formats the trade name Planar includes many other layouts and the trade name Xenotar includes a few other layouts. In one of his posts Ian put up a cross-section that he says is a 6/4 Planar. Fine, wonderful, but not LF. Its been all downhill from there.

Cheers,

Dan

[Ian Greenhalgh]

Brian, Dan just likes to troll me whenever possible. It's all been downhill from there.

[richardman]

Gentlemen, thank you for all the info. So LF Xenotar and Planar do look plenty alike, except that "reversed" sections, for whatever the reasons. Thank you!

[Misko]

What do reversed sections give to real life users in matter of the image? I love learning slowly about the construction of the lenses but I even more enjoy learning their image creating aspects & traits.
Basically could one differentiate shot with Planar and Xenotar of same focal length easily (that being 135mm in both cases since there is no 150mm Planar as far as I am aware as a LF rookie).
I have personally seen great comparison made on 60x60mm frame between Planar 80mm & Xenotar of same length & I personally loved Xenotar much better for the image it gave in this side by side test.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

Having used both Planar and Xenotar equipped Rolleis, I think the difference is indistinguishable. I personally think the Opton Tessar on the Ikoflex is easily as good as both of them and the TT&H Micronar on the later MPP Microflex is easily their equal too. I also really like the Mamiya 2.8/80 from the Mamiyaflex, I have a blue bot one fo my Mamiyaflex and an earlier one I have remounted to use on my Century Graphic, it just and so covers the 6x9 frame.

[Misko]

I am happy that someone who used them side by side is posting about their experiences. Thanks Ian.

[BrianShaw]

My, perhaps ignorant, understanding is that sometimes the "reversed sections" is a strategy for one company to compete with another company using the other companies design but avoiding patent infringement.

[E. von Hoegh]

'Planar' and 'Xenotar' are trade names. 'Double Gauss' is a specific design. It may be productive to bear this distinction in mind...

[Dan Fromm]

Brian, according to the VM Zeiss patented the 5/4 Biometar before WW-II but were forbidden to publish. Zeiss Oberkochen's 5 element Planars are in that family, but CZJ (DDR) continued with the Biometar name. Wray patented the very similar Unilite. It seems that many apparently similar lens layouts have been patented validly.

Since Ian has brought up MF lenses, I have an early 80/2.8 Xenotar in Compur #0. Far and away the worst lens I have, but not Schneider's fault. Its front and rear surfaces appear to have been cleaned with sandpaper, both are horribly scratched. The lens flares badly and is unsharp at all apertures. I've put the cells in another #0, where it had the same poor sharpness, so I think the spacing is correct. Thing is, it absolutely positively doesn't put good image in 2x3's corners; this is consistent with Schneider's claim that it covers 6x7. I'd swear that the differences, if any, between early and late 80/2.8 Xenotars (in #0 and #1 respectively) have been discussed and that the optics are the same, could be mistaken.

I also have an 80/2.8 Planar in #1. It has much larger front and rear elements than the Xenotar and it just covers 2x3. There are real differences between 80/2.8 Xenotars and Planars. Since I don't have larger ones, I can't say anything about differences, if any, between them.

Ian, "troll" isn't the word you were reaching for. You may have been thinking "flame." This forum's rules prohibit flaming and its moderators enforce the rules. I'm sorry that you confuse disagreement with abuse.

[Dan Fromm]

'Planar' and 'Xenotar' are trade names. 'Double Gauss' is a specific design. It may be productive to bear this distinction in mind...

Emil, there are 4, 5, 6, 7, ... element double Gauss type lenses. To add to the confusion, some German authors, e.g., H. M. Brandt, refer to what we think of as 6/4 plasmat types as double Gauss type II. Vierlinser double Gauss types are usually slow wide angle lenses, the others are usually faster narrow angle lenses. The words "double Gauss" with no more information aren't particularly informative.

[E. von Hoegh]

Emil, there are 4, 5, 6, 7, ... element double Gauss type lenses. To add to the confusion, some German authors, e.g., H. M. Brandt, refer to what we think of as 6/4 plasmat types as double Gauss type II. Vierlinser double Gauss types are usually slow wide angle lenses, the others are usually faster narrow angle lenses. The words "double Gauss" with no more information aren't particularly informative.
Yes there are, and it's a bit of a atretch to call some of the dG types. The original Planar was designed by Rudolph in the late 1890s, IIRC, and was a truly symmetrical six-element Gauss type intended for process and engraving work, again IIRC. There was a Gauss telescope objective, and also a microscope lens - the telescope objective at least was calculated by Gauss himself. As for the Plasmat being a Gauss type II, that seems a bit of a stretch as well.
But my statement still holds true - trade names and design types are not the same, and all the tetrapyloctomy in the universe won't change that.

[Dan Fromm]

trade names and design types are not the same

I thought everyone knew that.

[Corran]

So does anyone have the cross-sections for the lenses in question - the 135mm Xenotar and Planar (and any variations therein)?

I've wondered this as well - for whatever reason, it seems that the 135mm Planar will sometimes fetch much more than the Schneider Xenotar on the used market. Mostly I would attribute that to some mystical lust some people have for all things Zeiss, especially with a T* engraving.

I have three Xenotars - a newer 80mm f/2.8 in Compur #1 on my 2x3 Century, a 135mm f/3.5 in Compur #1 in my Polaroid 900 4x5, and a 150mm f/2.8 "Linhof-Select" in Compur #2 usually on my Linhof MT. They honestly all render a little differently. The 135/3.5 is my least favorite but I think that's partly due to poor RF calibration on the 900 for most of its life (fixed recently). The 80/2.8 and 150/2.8 though are crazy sharp but still super-smooth in background rendition, with the 150mm probably smoother overall, I think due to aperture and FL equivalencies. I've never used any Planar lens but I've seen many photos from Rolleiflex cameras equipped with them and they seem to render beautifully, maybe even better than the Xenotars, hence my curiosity on this topic as well.

[richardman]

This is my test with the Xenotar 135/3.5 on a Chamonix F1 Acros 100. Some people object to the bokeh. I toned it down at post here (sorry, bad me).


http://richardmanphoto.com/PICS/20131201-Scanned-191.jpg

[Ian Greenhalgh]

So does anyone have the cross-sections for the lenses in question - the 135mm Xenotar and Planar (and any variations therein)?

Cameraeccentric has a Linhof/Zeiss catalogue that includes the schema for the Planar:

http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/zeiss_5.html

http://www.cameraeccentric.com/img/info/zeiss_5/zeiss_5_05.jpg

I couldn't find a Xenotar schema for the 3.5/135, but the 3.5/75 for Rolleiflex probably matches it fairly closely:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7YCYTkFybJY/Ss8rhkO6MwI/AAAAAAAAAX0/sCIKP4fzZm4/s320/Blogxeno28+copia.jpg


I've wondered this as well - for whatever reason, it seems that the 135mm Planar will sometimes fetch much more than the Schneider Xenotar on the used market. Mostly I would attribute that to some mystical lust some people have for all things Zeiss, especially with a T* engraving.

I would agree, the difference in price is probably due to the mythos carried by the names 'Zeiss' and 'Planar' and that T* marking.

[richardman]

Wow! So it does look similar with the sections reversed! Thanks

[Bernice Loui]

This image reminds me of the Zeiss 100mm f3.5 Planar CF T* for Hasselblad, never did like the Bokeh or out of focus rendition of that lens (owned it for about 20 years and never liked this aspect of that lens). The pentagon shaped iris of that lens did not help as it resulted in OOF pentagons in more than a few images.

Bernice



This is my test with the Xenotar 135/3.5 on a Chamonix F1 Acros 100. Some people object to the bokeh. I toned it down at post here (sorry, bad me).


http://richardmanphoto.com/PICS/20131201-Scanned-191.jpg

[Corran]

Thanks Ian. Interesting indeed.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

You're welcome Corran.

I like that image, I don't see anything wrong with the bokeh. I do prefer a smoother bokeh but that example isn't unpleasing to my eyes.

[richardman]

I fixed the bokeh a bit at post processing. I think right now, it looks pretty good to me. I also purposefully tested the lens in that area precisely I know it will be some of the "worst case scenario" bokeh-wise speaking.

[Misko]

Wow! So it does look similar with the sections reversed! Thanks

What happens if you turn Xenotar other way around? would it shoot like Planar? :)

[genotypewriter]

[QUOTE=richardman;1085079]This is my test with the Xenotar 135/3.5 on a Chamonix F1 Acros 100. Some people object to the bokeh. I toned it down at post here (sorry, bad me).

It would be quite a challenge to find fast high resolution lenses that show smooth bokeh in an image that is so high in contrast.

[EdSawyer]

If you stop the lens down one stop or so, the bokeh will smooth out somewhat. This is true of basically all lenses, not just Xenotars/planars.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

On small and medium format, my favourite lenses for bokeh are Sonnars, due to the smoothness. What would the closest be in rendering on large format?

[rdenney]

This is my test with the Xenotar 135/3.5 on a Chamonix F1 Acros 100. Some people object to the bokeh. I toned it down at post here (sorry, bad me).


http://richardmanphoto.com/PICS/20131201-Scanned-191.jpg

Yes, I was going to add that the Xenotars in my experience (which are for medium format, lest Dan turn his torch in my direction), are neither known for nor do they produce smooth bokeh.

I have an 80mm Biometar (also for MF) and it is...okay. And I have a 120mm Biometar (also MF) which is quixotic. (Both are CZJ make, and follow the original--and only--Biometar layout.) In some combinations of aperture and subject distance, the bokeh is quite smooth, but occasionally it looks like your picture. (Of course, whether bokeh is good or bad is subjective--some people prefer this sort of busy bokeh). I've always considered double-gauss bokeh to be rather busy. But at f/2.8, the quantity of blur is likely to overcome the quality of blur. The double-gauss designs have the advantage of being fairly sharp at high apertures (per Kingslake), in return for their more limited coverage, large size, and busy bokeh.

(By the way, Dan, Ian did mention that the medium-format lenses he showed were Rollei TLR lenses, so your complaint was not that it was false, but rather that it was irrelevant to the OP's question. But if we considered that a sin worth deleting posts, we'd have to erase half the forum.)

Rick "who's never been prepared to afford an f/2.8 lens for large format" Denney

[Dan Fromm]

Rick "who's never been prepared to afford an f/2.8 lens for large format", you haven't shopped in the right places. My 6"/1.9 Super Six (Dallmeyer lens, covers 4x5) cost $70 delivered from England. My 200/2.0 S.F.O.M. (covers 4x5) cost $200 delivered from France.

On the other hand, you've displayed excellent common sense. There really aren't shutters for these lenses, at least shutters with high enough speeds to allow them to be used near wide open very often. I was never able to shoot either, don't miss them and am glad to have the money they brought. I still have a couple of fast shorter lenses that I can use on a 2x3 Speed Graphic (4"/2.0 TTH Anastigmat, 100/2.5 Uran-27, 95/2.8 Saphir) and hardly ever hit situations where I can use either near wide open. Stopped down they're no better than slower, smaller and much lighter 4" or so lenses in shutter. Please don't remind me about ND filters, I bought some ages ago to use on fast lenses on cine cameras. But the cine cameras had variable slit width shutters so I didn't have to use the NDs.

[Misko]

Because of those not fast enough shutters I am sad that we are not left with enough slow speed films these days. Adox seems like the only option and fact that some people rate Foma 100 at 25 or 32 ISO and then it's not a problem to use ƒ2-ƒ3 lenses wide open on normal sunny day.

[Bernice Loui]

Cine lenses have a long history of producing smooth Bokeh under extreme contrast and flare conditions at full aperture and stopped down. Most if not all are Gauss designs currently made by Cooke, Schneider, Panavision, Zeiss and others. The prime lenses are usually a color matched set and are sold as in sets.. cost run in mid five to six figures in USD.

Schneider Cine Xenar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bGGbfe6uvQ


Cooke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5e_2mZn9mo


Panavision/Canon:
http://vimeo.com/33414318


Zeiss, Canon, Rokinon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73rxg-yxTr4


Bernice



[QUOTE=richardman;1085079]This is my test with the Xenotar 135/3.5 on a Chamonix F1 Acros 100. Some people object to the bokeh. I toned it down at post here (sorry, bad me).

It would be quite a challenge to find fast high resolution lenses that show smooth bokeh in an image that is so high in contrast.

[Bernice Loui]

Modern LF lenses missed out due to what I believe is the everything in sharp focus stopped down to no less than f22, high contrast, hard hitting image idealogy (I believe in this early one, after a few years doing LF, I gave up on it and moved to vintage lenses for this reason and others). During the peak of the film and LF era, lens manufactures could have designed and produced large aperture lenses that produced nice smooth Bokeh. Copal and others could have made large opening shutters as required. But since the way most if not all LF work produced during that time was everything sharp with great DOF, this avenue of lens design was not traveled during the peak of LF image making history.


Bernice

[rdenney]

This is my test with the Xenotar 135/3.5 on a Chamonix F1 Acros 100. Some people object to the bokeh. I toned it down at post here (sorry, bad me).

It would be quite a challenge to find fast high resolution lenses that show smooth bokeh in an image that is so high in contrast.

In medium format, the 180mm f/2.8 CZJ Sonnar would do just that. But it won't cover 4x5 (without surgery, at least). I wish there were some vintage Sonnar designs in the large-format world.

Rick "wide, smooth brush" Denney

[Ian Greenhalgh]

I too wish there were some LF Sonnars, in the small format world, Sonnars are my favourite lenses. You can pry my CZJ 1.5/50 and my Jupiter-3 copy of it from my cold, dead fingers.

I wonder why Zeiss never bothered with a LF Sonnar?

[Bernice Loui]

Linhof Technika 4x5 Carl Zeiss Sonnar 5,6/250 mm. Image circle of 190mm

This was part of the three lens set of 75mm Biogon, 135mm Planar, 250mm Sonnar for 4x5.



Bernice





In medium format, the 180mm f/2.8 CZJ Sonnar would do just that. But it won't cover 4x5 (without surgery, at least). I wish there were some vintage Sonnar designs in the large-format world.

Rick "wide, smooth brush" Denney

[rdenney]

Speaking of that 180/2.8 Sonnar, I have one with a dodgy aperture that I've been pondering as a project to mount in front of my Sinar shutter. It won't fully cover 4x5, but would work fine for 6x9. Used outdoors, one would still need slow film and maybe an 8x ND filter (of which I have one). That might be workable in sunlight--and certainly in shade.

I have a 200mm Pentax lens for my 67, but I still ponder ways to adapt the 180 Sonnar to that camera, too. I saw one once on ebay, but didn't pursue it, and have been kicking myself. That lens has made the prettiest portraits of any lens I own, but I have to use it on 6x6 with dodgy cameras or 645 where the focal length is just a hair long.

A large-format Sonnar would have been easy, peasy. The original Sonnar was a 50/1.5 for the Contax, but wouldn't work for SLRs at the "normal" focal length. But they would be heavy suckers--the original Sonnar design included a really thick hunk of glass.

http://www.commiecameras.com/ddr/p6/lenses/images/s180con.gif

Rick "who'd need a supplemental support to hang this from a Sinar standard" Denney

[Jac@stafford.net]

There is the Zeiss Sonnar 250mm F/5.6 for 4x5.

Linhof even had a cam for it on the Super Technika, I think.

[rdenney]

Linhof Technika 4x5 Carl Zeiss Sonnar 5,6/250 mm. Image circle of 190mm

Hmmm. May have to keep a lookout. But it's too slow--obviously intended to be a "telephoto" option for the Technika.

Rick "suspecting these don't grow on trees" Denney

Edit: Found an old post by Ellis Vener on this lens, and danged if I wasn't one of the respondents. The memory is the second thing to go...

[Jac@stafford.net]

Here ya go, Rick. (http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-LINHOF-SONNAR-250MM-F5-6-4x5-VIEW-CAMERA-LENS-WITH-CAM-AND-BOARD-/291029550898?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item43c2b68732)

Should you buy it, I can help with a set of Linhof slip-on filters specifically for that lens.

[rdenney]

Here ya go, Rick. (http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-LINHOF-SONNAR-250MM-F5-6-4x5-VIEW-CAMERA-LENS-WITH-CAM-AND-BOARD-/291029550898?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item43c2b68732)

Should you buy it, I can help with a set of Linhof slip-on filters specifically for that lens.

No, I think I'm going to let this stunning opportunity pass on by.

Rick "too expensive at half the price" Denney

[Ian Greenhalgh]

That is rather expensive. :(

Shame the 2.8/180 doesn't have the coverage for 4x5, they are common and fairly cheap.

I guess the reason why the Pentac 2.9/8" and Aero Ektar 2.5/7" are sought after is they represent two of only a very small number f options for a fast 4x5 lens.

[MDR]

If you want fast Ernemann build some Ernostar LF lenses. The Sonnar is based on the Ernostar design.

[Arne Croell]

As has been pointed out by several people, there was the 250mm f/5.6 Sonnar for Linhof. They also made the equivalent Sonnar for the Baby Technika, a 180mm f/4.8. The latter covers 140mm wide open, so it is quite close to 4x5 coverage and stopped down does cover 4x5. Zeiss also tried a few more Sonnar prototypes for LF, such as a 250mm f/4, or a 300mm f/4 (that one for 8x10). You can find the information on LF Sonnars on pages 13-17 of my recent article on Zeiss Oberkochen LF lenses: http://www.arnecroell.com/zeissoberkochen.pdf

[Bernice Loui]

The Sonnar is a Tessar variant.. consider this for a moment.

There are longer focal lengths lenses with large aperture available for 4x5 sheet film and larger. Most of them were made for military aero-recon. Kodak made a 305mm f2.5 Aero Ektar, it is HUGE and heavy comes in a Fairchild K38 shutter and easily covers 8x10. Others have been made by Perkin Elmer, Pacific Optical, Diffraction Optics, Bausch & Lomb and others. In the past, many of these HUGE lenses were sought after by hobbyist astronomers to be made into refractor telescopes. Most of these are a serious problem to use as a view camera lens due to their size, weight and...

Video of the Fairchild K38 shutter, there is enough power in the shutter blades to instantly slice off a finger..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJ_db1cg6ao


Bernice

[Corran]

Video of the Fairchild K38 shutter, there is enough power in the shutter blades to instantly slice off a finger..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJ_db1cg6ao

That is awesome!

[Dan Fromm]

The Sonnar is a Tessar variant.. consider this for a moment.

Look again. Triplet. So what? Sonnars pass light and form images. What more could anyone want?


There are longer focal lengths lenses with large aperture available for 4x5 sheet film and larger. Most of them were made for military aero-recon. Kodak made a 305mm f2.5 Aero Ektar, it is HUGE and heavy comes in a Fairchild K38 shutter and easily covers 8x10. Others have been made by Perkin Elmer, Pacific Optical, Diffraction Optics, Bausch & Lomb and others

Not all. Post 37 in this thread mentions Dallmeyer's Super Six. The longest Super Six is 8"/2.0. Not a lens for aerial cameras, nor is the 250 Sonnar mentioned in this thread. Post 37 also mentions a 200/2.0 S.F.O.M, definitely a lens for an aerial camera. Your list of makers of lenses for aerial cameras is much too US-centric and it misses many makers. See the USAF data sheets at http://archive.org/details/USAF_lens_datasheets for a longer, still incomplete, list of makers, not all in the US. For some Soviet aerial camera lenses, see the 1963 GOI catalog, download it from http://www.lallement.com/pictures/files.htm. For some Elcan aerial camera lenses, see elcan lenses.pdf, download it from http://sdrv.ms/1eNSw9n.

See the VM, second edition, file 008ljm.pdf, "Military Optical Ordinance," pages 79 - 81 for a discussion of how usable lenses from aerial cameras aren't. The idea that they're basically doorstops isn't new.

With, however, the rise of ancient, now called alternative, processes some of those monstrosities are turning out to be surprisingly usable. See this recent discussion here http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?108859-Mammoth-Wet-Plate-Trailer-Camera. Its hard to see what the lens in the video it links clearly to but it sure looks like a long fast aerial camera lens. Coupla years ago I gave a 36"/8 B&H monstrosity to a forum member who told me he was going to use it for wet plate.

For most of us, though, the majority of fast lenses from aerial cameras are, as you pointed out, doorstops. Some, not all, shorter ones for cameras that shot 6x6 or thereabouts on 70 mm or thereabouts film are usable, but they're for MF, not LF.

[Misko]

If you want fast Ernemann build some Ernostar LF lenses. The Sonnar is based on the Ernostar design.

I've just started Ernostar discussion few days ago in the Lenses part of the forum and here are two photo examples of that amazing design!
Wide open Ernemann Ernostar Anastigmat 18cm f2.7: http://www.flickr.com/photos/milosgazdic/10414764645/
and
Stepped down to f16 Ernemann Ernostar Anastigmat 18cm f2.7: http://www.flickr.com/photos/milosgazdic/10203758323/

(If someone could explain me how to properly link photos from Flickr to the forum I would be thankful)

[David A. Goldfarb]

Just checking to see what I have conveniently scanned with the Zeiss 135/3.5 Planar--

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2551/3861775971_09ff36c944_o.jpg
f:4, Fuji RMS, Linhof 4x5" Tech V with 6x7cm back

105976
f:4, TXP/Acufine, Linhof 4x5" Tech V

[E. von Hoegh]

Look again. Triplet. So what? Sonnars pass light and form images. What more could anyone want?


The original Sonnar was an f:4.5, designed by Bertele, and made by Contessa-Nettel for their folding cameras. I had one, until I actually disassembled it I thought it was a Tessar under a different name - the second 'element' was actually a cemented triplet, and it behaved like a Tessar with better corners at wide apertures. When Zeiss bought out Contessa-Nettel, they used the name on a somewhat similar design of Bertele's, a fast lens for the Contax and so a legend was born...

[Ian Greenhalgh]

The Sonnar is a triplet derivative in the same way that the Heliar and Hektor are triplet derivatives - a front positive group, a centre negative group and a rear positive group. The Tessar also fits this pattern but was derived from the Unar and Protar.

http://www.cookeoptics.com/imgs/cooke-cooketriplet-text-history/cooketriplet-text.png

Heliar - replaces the front and rear elements with cemented pairs:
http://dacnard.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/50-2-heliar.jpg

Hektor - replaces all three elements with cemented pairs:
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201212/1806_Hektor_schema_1.jpg

Thambar/Hektor -replaces the centre element with a cemented pair:
http://taunusreiter.de/Cameras/hektor-a.jpg

[Ian Greenhalgh]

The Sonnar's lineage is through the Ernostar types, the original basic Ernostar was a triplet with an extra front element:
http://taunusreiter.de/Cameras/ernostar-basic.jpg

The Ernostar design went through several changes, the f2 of 1924 replaced the second element with a cemented triplet:
http://taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Ernostar_f1.8.jpg

The f2 Sonnar of 1931 is a revision of the f2 Ernostar where the rear two elements are combined into a cemented pair:
http://taunusreiter.de/Cameras/sonnar2.0.jpg

The f1.5 Sonnar came a year later in 1932 and had a rear cemented triplet replacing the cemented pair:
http://taunusreiter.de/Cameras/sonnar1.5.jpg

The main thing that strikes me is how brilliant and elegant a design the original triplet was. It has full correction of the main aberrations with only 3 elements and no cemented pairs, the Tessar uses it's rear cemented pair to correct achromatism, the triplet manages the same correction without any expensive to manufacture cemented pairs and imho, is the true foundation of modern optics.