A quick comparison of three 135mm 4x5 lenses

[hsandler]

I temporarily find myself with three "normal" lenses for 4x5, and I need to decide which one or ones to keep, so I took the same "brick wall" shot with all three to see if there is any first order difference. I'm linking if this is of some use to anyone else. The lenses:

Graflex (Wollensak) Optar 135mm f4.7, circa 1953
Schneider Xenar 135mm f4.7
Rodenstock Sironar-N 135mm f5.6 circa 1970

I also have a Rodenstock Sironar 240mm f5.6, so I shot the same scene with that too.

All the lenses are pretty clean, although the Sironar-N has a fair bit of dust inside.

All were shot at f11 at a distance of about 10 feet with flash. All were shot on Ilford Delta 100 at box speed and scanned with an Epson V750 at 2400ppi at optimal scan height. I did apply unsharp mask to each scan to help show up resolution and acuity differences, but the same amount to all. (radius 1.4, amount 250). I uploaded the full frame to my flickr account at original size.

This quick test of course doesn't compare flare, coverage, bokeh, performance wide open or anything else. It's just a middling sort of setting and condition where I might use the lenses.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/hsandler/albums/72157679759008983

[loonatic45414]

Hi Howard. I've followed you for some time on Flickr, you're awesome.

All I can add is that the Graflex Optar 135mm to me was a big let-down. I always hung around 35mm and 6x6 people in the late 80's, when this weird guy I worked in the film lab with late at night started discussing LF with me. I didn't have a lot of money, so he sold me a Speed Graphic 4x5 he used to let me borrow very cheaply during his last few days working there.

Anyway, I used that camera a lot, not knowing much about movements, but it was fun. I wish he had told me that Optar was crap because years later I bought a better lens (love the Schneider btw) and I felt like all my years of previous effort was pure crap because of that lens. I wish he had told me he was giving me the lens for free or whatever & at least telling me I should upgrade it asap.

Anyway, maybe I just had a bad lens & it's not indicative of the entire series, but the astigmatism was horrible, especially more wide open.

I'd shoot that lens with a gun before I'd shoot it with a camera ever again.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

[Pere Casals]

I temporarily find myself with three "normal" lenses for 4x5, and I need to decide which one or ones to keep, so I took the same "brick wall" shot ...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/hsandler/albums/72157679759008983


Hello Howard,

First, thanks for sharing this test, very interesting...

I'd like to add that the big difference I find is exposure. Recently I learned something important from Mr Salomon: Even a brand new shutter has +/- 30% error from marked speed, an old shutter may have more. For example using 1/60 speed can deliver 1/40 or 1/80 and still fulfilling specs, and this is a full stop.

Still a shutter can deliver very repeatable speeds, so IMHO a shutter tester is a nice tool to know how owned shutters are doing for each speed.



IMHO there are some factors for this test.

>> I think that EPSON V700 to 850 range devices are a very, very good choice for LF photographer, but the 2300 to 2800 dpi (depending on axis) may not show ultimate lens performance. One cannot evaluate well 50 Lp/mm lens performance with a 50 Lp/mm measuring instrument. Still it will show relative performance for your digital workflow.


>> Film is very sharp for edges with 1:1000 contrast, but it is less sharp for 1:1.6 microcontrast textures.


>> There are no bright points (like sun) in the scene, so flare / parasite light is not evaluated.


I would keep both three, lenses are different and 135 is a very useful length for 4x5.

The Sironar-N is superb, in special if it's of the multicoated type. The Xenar is single coated but perfect for portrait, you also can have narrower DOF. And the Optar it has it's own character, and at least it has an spare shutter you may need.

Xenar and Sironar are different animals, I'd prefer having that diversity. By selling the Optar you will obtain little money at the end... If I had to keep only one I'd keep the Sironar because performance and coverage: 188 or 200 mm circle.


Regards

[Lightbender]

It looks like the Optar is acceptably sharp. But it appears to have quite a bit of barrel distortion. It may have some interesting wide open.

The Xenar appears excellent. I cannot tell much of a difference from the Sironar at these small magnifications.

[AuditorOne]

From what I can tell on my computer screen at the apertures you worked with, all these lenses look good.

I stared at the pictures until I fell asleep. Upon awakening I have decided that the Xenar looks pretty decent.

However, you should understand that my opinion in this is entirely subjective and if I fall asleep again I could be convinced to change my mind.

:)

[Bob Salomon]

I temporarily find myself with three "normal" lenses for 4x5, and I need to decide which one or ones to keep, so I took the same "brick wall" shot with all three to see if there is any first order difference. I'm linking if this is of some use to anyone else. The lenses:

Graflex (Wollensak) Optar 135mm f4.7, circa 1953
Schneider Xenar 135mm f4.7
Rodenstock Sironar-N 135mm f5.6 circa 1970

I also have a Rodenstock Sironar 240mm f5.6, so I shot the same scene with that too.

All the lenses are pretty clean, although the Sironar-N has a fair bit of dust inside.

All were shot at f11 at a distance of about 10 feet with flash. All were shot on Ilford Delta 100 at box speed and scanned with an Epson V750 at 2400ppi at optimal scan height. I did apply unsharp mask to each scan to help show up resolution and acuity differences, but the same amount to all. (radius 1.4, amount 250). I uploaded the full frame to my flickr account at original size.

This quick test of course doesn't compare flare, coverage, bokeh, performance wide open or anything else. It's just a middling sort of setting and condition where I might use the lenses.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/hsandler/albums/72157679759008983

Except optimal performance is at f22. Not 11!

[Bob Salomon]

Hello Howard,

First, thanks for sharing this test, very interesting...

I'd like to add that the big difference I find is exposure. Recently I learned something important from Mr Salomon: Even a brand new shutter has +/- 30% error from marked speed, an old shutter may have more. For example using 1/60 speed can deliver 1/40 or 1/80 and still fulfilling specs, and this is a full stop.

Still a shutter can deliver very repeatable speeds, so IMHO a shutter tester is a nice tool to know how owned shutters are doing for each speed.



IMHO there are some factors for this test.

>> I think that EPSON V700 to 850 range devices are a very, very good choice for LF photographer, but the 2300 to 2800 dpi (depending on axis) may not show ultimate lens performance. One cannot evaluate well 50 Lp/mm lens performance with a 50 Lp/mm measuring instrument. Still it will show relative performance for your digital workflow.


>> Film is very sharp for edges with 1:1000 contrast, but it is less sharp for 1:1.6 microcontrast textures.


>> There are no bright points (like sun) in the scene, so flare / parasite light is not evaluated.


I would keep both three, lenses are different and 135 is a very useful length for 4x5.

The Sironar-N is superb, in special if it's of the multicoated type. The Xenar is single coated but perfect for portrait, you also can have narrower DOF. And the Optar it has it's own character, and at least it has an spare shutter you may need.

Xenar and Sironar are different animals, I'd prefer having that diversity. By selling the Optar you will obtain little money at the end... If I had to keep only one I'd keep the Sironar because performance and coverage: 188 or 200 mm circle.


Regards
Since they are all 135mm lenses at the same f stop and distance they all have the same depth of field if you are using the same magnification and circle of confusion.
What will not be the same is the area of coverage of the lenses.

[ic-racer]

A quick comparison of three 135mm 4x5 lenses

What is your conclusion?

[Pere Casals]

Since they are all 135mm lenses at the same f stop and distance they all have the same depth of field if you are using the same magnification and circle of confusion.
What will not be the same is the area of coverage of the lenses.

Hello Bob,

I was referring to the max aperture, Xenotar is f/4.7 instead 5.6, at 3m this is 45cm DOF vs 54cm, with circle of confusion of 0.1mm. But you are right... coverage is way better with the Sironar...

Regards

[hsandler]

I used f11 so differences would show up, and it's an aperture I sometimes use. At f22 the chances are they would all look good in a scan at 2400 ppi.

I decided to sell the Optar when I sell my Speed Graphic. I have some useful accessories for it, like the Wollensak sunshade that couples to the aperture lever, and a flash cable with a connector for the bipost flash terminal, which may help increase the value of the package. I hqve put the Xenar on a (new to me) Crown graphic and calibrated the rangefinder to it (oy! Took 5 hours!) but hqve not used it yet. I tried the Sironar-N 135mm on a Toyo view camera in a studio since my first post, and it worked well, although I mainly shot with the longer 240mm lens. Sample of the Sironar 135mm below at low res, shot at f11. But I don't really have the opportunity to shoot in a studio often, qnd my heart leans to Graphics, so I may end up with just one large format camera and then I will have to decide which lens to keep.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2846/33519360294_59ee8dd469_z_d.jpg

[Pere Casals]

I used f11 so differences would show up, and it's an aperture I sometimes use. At f22 the chances are they would all look good in a scan at 2400 ppi.

There is a sample to sample variation, and a used lens can even lack the trimming shims...

Anyway at f/22 it happens that good 4x5 lenses are diffraction limited, so all may resolve near the same. IMHO a multicoated Sironar may favor microcontrast, so fine textures may have an slight better depiction, particularly when bright light sources are in the scene. Perhaps for portrait one may prefer a softer look... Anyway a softer look is easy to obtain in post. With PS it's straight. In the darkroom one can expose paper with "soft focus" effect, this is slightly defocusing the enlarging lens in the middle of the exposure. It is not the same than a Soft Focus lens, but it softens the portrait... this is something I'm still investigating...

A V700 scan at 2400dpi has way less than 2400dpi optical resolving power, with V700 you need higher dpi to obtain such a resolving power. IMHO no flatbed is to notice much difference, perhaps the Cezanne may notice something if you scan a 35mm strip of the 4x5 negative, but near nothing if scanning all negative in one time.

In the darkroom, to notice something you may need a very good enlarging lens, a well aligned enlarger, big paper and a refinated technique.




...and then I will have to decide which lens to keep.




When you decide... IMHO the factors you can consider are (beyond the look you see...) the technical excellence of the Sironar vs the /4.7 Speed of the Xenar.

The Sironar offers a way larger circle of image allowing more movements, and this is way enough to decide. Then you have the multicoating advantage.

Single coated or uncoated are a theoric technical drawback that it can also be an artistic resource... and the /4.7 can be useful if you seek a narrower DOF for portrait. Also bokeh nature may be different for you.

[Geoffrey Poulton]

I found myself preferring the Schneider Xenar 135mm f4.7

I did have the feeling that the focusing was better on this lens, but it just might have been that the tessar was up to the job!

[neil poulsen]

None of them!

In my opinion, a 135mm lens is the least desirable focal length of any lens for a 4x5 camera. It has relatively little room for movements, and at best, it's a wanabe "wide" angle lens.

On the other hand, it's next door neighbor, a 120mm SW is an excellent, moderate wide angle lens. Its sufficiently wide and different enough from a 150mm lens, and it has TONS of movement. By bother with 135mm, if one can have a 120mm or a 121mm SW for a reasonable price.

[djdister]

I think shooting all of them at near wide open, like f/5.6 would have been more interesting to see things like how out of focus areas look, possible distortion, etc.

[rdenney]

None of them!

In my opinion, a 135mm lens is the least desirable focal length of any lens for a 4x5 camera. It has relatively little room for movements, and at best, it's a wanabe "wide" angle lens.

On the other hand, it's next door neighbor, a 120mm SW is an excellent, moderate wide angle lens. Its sufficiently wide and different enough from a 150mm lens, and it has TONS of movement. By bother with 135mm, if one can have a 120mm or a 121mm SW for a reasonable price.

For me, a 135 would be a normal lens for a folding camera with few or no movements.

For any camera I use with movements, I had a 121 SA before I had a 150, and I’ve never used a 135. But it’s a beast and won’t fit in any folder.

Rick “not thinking of a 135 as wide angle” Denney

[BrianShaw]

“Wannabe wide angle”.

Absolutely! I’ve been using 135s for 40 or more years. I once thought of it as a wannabe normal, though.

[rfesk]

135mm is my most used focal length. I rarely need very much in the way of movements.

[AuditorOne]

Why bother with 135mm, if one can have a 120mm or a 121mm SW for a reasonable price.
Because I like the FOV???

I have always considered my 135 as a normal lens with a bit more freedom to work.

A 210 is a bit like skinny jeans, no freedom at all to move.

The 150 is like a well fit pair of dress pants. Comfortable but not something you really want to work in.

The 135 is like an old, comfy pair of coveralls. You can do just about any type of work you want with that comfortable 135. You can build the house, run the plumbing, wire it and then put in the deck out back. :D

[esearing]

I liked the optar image best then xenar - don't know why. I had used a Xenar for my primary 135 for years, until I bought a nearly new symmar which had better contrast. 135 is most used in my bag too and fits my vision like a 40mm does for 135.
The optar seems to have some film bowing and the xenar seems to have more exposure.

A side by side contact print might be better than individual scans.