Schneider Xenotar 150mm f/2.8 redesigns/versions/variations?

[duncancmt]

I've been reading up about this lens and have heard some mumblings about one or more redesigns that went on during the len's run, but nothing specific. Do you have more information about why the lens was redesigned, when, and whether there were any significant differences?

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

At some point in the 1950s Schneider used some sort of glass in the rear element which had a distinctive yellow color.
Perhaps thorium glass?
I have no idea what the impact was, other than being yellow.

[Jim Noel]

Built in radio-active filter perhaps?

[Greg]

At some point in the 1950s Schneider used some sort of glass in the rear element which had a distinctive yellow color.
Perhaps thorium glass?
I have no idea what the impact was, other than being yellow.

Years ago had a German? lens that I thought one of the lens elements was yellow-orange in color, yet the image the lens projected was very neutral in color. Turned out to be a yellow-orange lens coating.

[Pere Casals]

Short answer: Using Thoriated glass was a trend in the 1950, I guess this was a WWII technology spin off, this had the yellowing drawback, so manufacturers abandoned thoriated glass (some in the 70s) because of that, I guess, but we should think if the radiactive factor was also an issue (commercial ? , manufacturing safety ? (powders)).

At the time Thoriated glass (even containing a 30% of it) offered optical/manufacturing advantages thanks to low (chromatic) dispersion and high refractive index, allowing for less curved and thinner elements.

_______________________________________


As coatings improved, designs with a higher number of elements became suitable, offering better correction possibilities, and of course since WWII many other high performance glass types became available.


189132


Those Xenotars made around the 1950s had thoriated radiactive glass (in the rear element IIRC). Over the years Thorium's radiactivity tanned the glass to a tea color yellowing (provocating F-centers, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-center). This discoloration can be reversed by exposing the glass to UV light, for example several days of direct sun rays would reverse the discoloration to a certain extent. Some people place UV LEDs glowing inside the box.

This radiactivity is judged mostly safe and cannot be detected (over backgound radicactivity) at some 1m or 50cm. Eyepieces with Thoriated glass are not considered safe, but taking lenses are way less a danger. IMHO radiactive elements were discontinued because of the tanning effect. This radiactivity does not contaminate objects in contact, etc.

Rare earth glass was extensively used in WWII aerial photography optics, Aero-Ektars, I guess that this technology later ended in the civilian consumer market, it can be investigated how militar usage of thorium and its industry had an effect in the consumer industry.

There are many lenses of that era including radiactive glass:

https://camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/Radioactive_lenses


_________________________

Lens character:

Xenotars are similar to Zeiss Plannar design.

Beyond (high) weight/size/price xenotars are sharp but Bokeh is poor, if one wants smoothness in the Out of Focus, but the large max aperture allows to defocus more background/foreground than regular LF lenses, anyway the lens won't be as sharp wide open. To me, the Xenotar strong point it's the large aperture, if one wants that.


See here the Xenotar section: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5533/30492458690_146819ae2c_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/NsvPCo)Automatic Makiflex 150 Xenotar (https://flic.kr/p/NsvPCo) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/758/21094793586_d2bfe28e81_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/y95kcG)002 (https://flic.kr/p/y95kcG) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

I have one in a Plaubel Makiflex automatic iris mount. I use it wide open, sometimes I'll add two 4XND filters if the light is full sun. The bokeh is interesting and I like it. This camera takes 4x5/9x12 film.

[Corran]

xenotars are sharp but Bokeh is poor,

Bokeh is not poor, especially around f/4.

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/awa-1692ss.jpg

Of course bokeh is somewhat subjective. For instance, Zeiss Tessars are lauded for bokeh but I find they are typically pretty busy at wider apertures. So IMO the Xenotar has much faster usable aperture with good bokeh at those wide apertures, while the Tessar smooths out at smaller stops (hence why I think the Tessar design is really good on 8x10 since it still gives thin DOF at f/11).

[Pere Casals]

Not poor, sub-poor. Hexagons with highlighted boundaries...

https://kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

1)Poor:
189152

2)Neutral:
189153

3)Good:
189154
"Fig. 3. Good Bokeh. Here is what we want. This is great for bokeh since the edge is completely undefined. This also is the result of the same spherical aberration, but in the opposite direction, of the poor example seen in Fig. 1. This is where art and engineering start to diverge, since the better looking image is the result of an imperfection. Perfect bokeh demands a Gaussian blur circle distribution, and lenses are designed for the neutral example shown in 2.) above."


"The Xenotar draws contours around everything unsharp that contrasts, thereby ruining bokeh (see Fig.10)."
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/ , Xenotar 150 section

[Corran]

"Good bokeh" is not an objective truth (and neither is Rockwell).

Character of OOF areas also can change with aperture. The example shown on the LF article is at f/2.8, where the bokeh can be a bit busier than when stopped slightly down.

Have you used the 150mm Xenotar?

[Pere Casals]

Have you used the 150mm Xenotar?

No, and I won't, I think. In photography, there is a solid criterion about what is poor, neutral, and good bokeh. Ken explains it very clearly. One may like poor bokeh... and Triotar soap bubbles... or Aero-Ektar rings...

But what is considered a good bokeh is the lens capability to render a very smooth OOF to separate subject from background. The defocus control ring in the Nikon DC 135 and 105 is about that.

Beyond good-neutral-poor japanese artists use around a dozen adjectives to describe bokeh.

...but clearly Xenotars' bokeh is worse than Neutral, so we cannot speak about a good bokeh at all.

[Corran]

In photography, there is a solid criterion about what is poor, neutral, and good bokeh.

No


But what is considered a good bokeh is the lens capability to render a very smooth OOF to separate subject from background.

Also no.

Opinions ≠ facts. If you consider the above true for you, that's great, but that doesn't make it universally true.

Also this is irrelevant to the question. I have had a coupe of 150mm Xenotars and a 135mm and none of mine had staining on the rear element. Both my 150mm Xenotars came in silver Linhof shutters and one was factory-calibrated on a Linhof IV. Don't know what that means for specific age though.

[MAubrey]

Xenotar/Planar bokeh definitely has a particular look wide open. It can look bad, certainly. But you can also use it to your advantage if you're clever enough with your composition.

But just stopped down even half a stop and that unique look smooths out quite beautifully--cue complaints about why you'd buy a such a fast lens only to stop it down.

[Corran]

Agree - the lens is at its sweet-spot where other lenses are wide-open, if even capable.

I would say the Xenotar at f/4.5 has better bokeh than a Zeiss Tessar at f/4.5 (wide-open).

All lenses will struggle with busy backgrounds.

[interneg]

cue complaints about why you'd buy a such a fast lens only to stop it down.


Agree - the lens is at its sweet-spot where other lenses are wide-open, if even capable.


I think this is one of the aspects of more traditional lens design that gets rather ignored in this day & age of digital design to pre-determined specifications - lenses were intended to be stopped down, not used wide open & thus if you wanted better resolution, contrast etc at the wide-open aperture of a normal speed lens, you needed a lens 1-2 stops faster than that & put up with the size & weight difference. At least, that's the reason I'd buy a 135 Xenotar or Planar - to use at a 5.6-8 sort of stop. Given the razor thin depth of focus even then, thank goodness they're an aesthetic choice, not an urgent necessity for a commercial/ industrial photographer as they would have been in the days of E1 Ektachrome!

[Pere Casals]

No

Also no.

Opinions ≠ facts. If you consider the above true for you, that's great, but that doesn't make it universally true.


The good-neutral-bad bokeh description it's not an aesthetic opinion, it's a math criterion that has an aesthetic impact. It's about how OOF spots have speheric aberration overcorrected or undercorrected.

In the Xenotar case, the image you posted speaks for itself, not necessary to post a high res image.

This is a remarkably poor bokeh:

189156

This was the top-right corner of your sample:

189157

Beyond the hexagons... this bokeh is pretty disturbing, awfull and poor.

Jeroen Bruggeman describes it perfectly in the Xenotar section (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/), I fully agree with his evaluation of the Xenotar's bokeh.

I'm out, no benefit in debating the evidence.

[duncancmt]

I have had a coupe of 150mm Xenotars and a 135mm and none of mine had staining on the rear element. Both my 150mm Xenotars came in silver Linhof shutters and one was factory-calibrated on a Linhof IV. Don't know what that means for specific age though.

Do you remember the approximate (+/- 100,000) serial numbers of these lenses? Schneider has a convenient chart that maps serial number to production date: https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/age_of_lenses/

[duncancmt]

Corran, Pere Casals, thank you both for the information about the bokeh of this lens. Pere, do you have any suggestions for fast 4x5 lenses without objectionable bokeh?

[Corran]

Pere, as I mentioned, any lens will struggle with a busy background. Regardless, your aesthetic opinion is really irrelevant. If you want to start a thread on bokeh, be my guest.

duncancmt, according to those serial #s, my current Xenotar was made around 1960.

About your question above - you might want to define "fast," and you might want to define what is not objectionable. As I mentioned previously, I think the Zeiss Tessar, often lauded as having "good bokeh," has busy bokeh at wider stops. So you will need to consider what f/stop you really want to shoot at, and then take a look around at images and see what you like. There is no "right answer."

Many folks also like Heliars. I've never shot a "plain" Heliar but I have several APO Lanthar lenses, which are basically advanced Heliar designs. Great lenses, smaller / lighter than the Xenotar, but they have a different contrast to them. In use, my images tend to have lower contrast and very open shadows.

15cm APO Lanthar example:

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/civilwar-2104ss.jpg

[Pere Casals]

any suggestions for fast 4x5 lenses without objectionable bokeh?

That article concering portrait lenses https://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/ shows some personal preferences but IMHO it is an extraordinary text accumulating a large amount of wisdom, just read it well.

You have many choices, Tessars have good bokeh and this includes Commercial Ektars that are the same. Commercial Ektars are not a joke, Yousuf Karsh shot a principal share of his 8x10 work with the 14" version with well known results.

Then you have Heliars, this is supreme glass for portraiture, the Universal Heliar version has a ring that displaces the inner element to soften the image by provocating controlled spheric aberration.

Xenars are cheap and good. The Ysarex...

The Lanthar...

Cooke Portrait PS945 lens ?? Cooke is Cooke !!! Cinematographers have a debt with Cooke.


German plasmats have correct bokeh...

A choice I like is convertible Symmars converted to the longer focal.

Modern german plasmats are not bad, but Tessars have better bokeh.

_______________________________

Xenotars with 5,000,000 to 6,0000,000 serials are radiactive, beyond that marging I don't know.

[Corran]

If one wanted to make a more objective test pitting a variety of lenses against each other, shooting the same subject/background with all options would be a much more appropriate test. The subjective conclusions in the article are just that, and I note that many tests have little to no background to help evaluate the bokeh effect, such as busy foliage which can be problematic.

I believe there may be threads here somewhere doing just that.

[Pere Casals]

your aesthetic opinion

Bryan, this is my ending words about that.

This is Neutral:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=189153&d=1553460207

Once you know what is a neutral bokeh, you have to be able evaluate if your lens is this side:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=189152&d=1553460181

...or in this side:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=189154&d=1553460232



This is the basics about bokeh: understanding if a glass is neutral or not, and if not neutral then it's about realizing in what side the lens is, softer or harsher background than neutral, which is under or overcorrection in the OOF.

Once this is learned then one may learn the refinements... me, I'm trying to learn those refinements.

[Corran]

My objection is that you are/were calling one "good" and the other "bad" as objective truths. They are not.

Personally, what you called "good" bokeh, I find boring. I prefer what you are calling "neutral" over that.

You are also not considering the effect of the background, and you are not acknowledging the change in bokeh based on aperture. This is very important. Speaking of which, some Xenotars come in Copal 3 shutters which will have very different bokeh than ones in Compur.

It's a complex subject and can not be boiled down to one singular component, which you are overly apt to do.

I invite you to do a comprehensive test of various lenses with a static subject/background and post it here to discuss bokeh.

[duncancmt]

duncancmt, according to those serial #s, my current Xenotar was made around 1960.

About your question above - you might want to define "fast," and you might want to define what is not objectionable.

Thanks for the information!

I really enjoy bokehlicious f/4 or wider selective focus images. I guess I could move up to 8x10 and shoot at f/8 to get the same effect. (Unless my math is wrong?)


Tessars have good bokeh and this includes Commercial Ektars that are the same. Commercial Ektars are not a joke, Yousuf Karsh shot a principal share of his 8x10 work with the 14" version with well known results.

Then you have Heliars, this is supreme glass for portraiture, the Universal Heliar version has a ring that displaces the inner element to soften the image by provocating controlled spheric aberration.

Xenars are cheap and good. The Ysarex...

The Lanthar...

Cooke Portrait PS945 lens ?? Cooke is Cooke !!! Cinematographers have a debt with Cooke.


German plasmats have correct bokeh...

A choice I like is convertible Symmars converted to the longer focal.

Modern german plasmats are not bad, but Tessars have better bokeh.


So generally tessar or heliar derivatives. I've read a bunch of the threads on the Cooke XVa. Its design is related to the convertible symmars, right? Do you have an opinion on the bokeh on that one?

[duncancmt]

I believe there may be threads here somewhere doing just that.


I invite you to do a comprehensive test of various lenses with a static subject/background and post it here to discuss bokeh.

That sounds very elucidating! Do you have a link? Thanks!

[Corran]

Commercial Ektars are f/6.3, so a bit slower than you want. Lots of other Tessars are f/4.5 though, but are not very good at f/4.5 in terms of general sharpness and as I mentioned earlier I think the out of focus rendering is also poor at those stops, especially in the periphery.

Another option is a 15cm f/3.5 Meyer-Gorlitz Trioplan. Many people dislike the Trioplan lenses for the bokeh, some love them. In the right setting, they can look neutral. Here's a photo I posted in the forum recently. (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?149969-My-Grandfather-s-Woodshop&p=1485719&viewfull=1#post1485719)

8x10 certainly makes very thin DOF images easier. I think the best images I've gotten with a Tessar are on 8x10, with a 12" f/4.5 Gundlach Radar, shot at f/8 or so. It's also humongous and heavy, and 8x10 brings its own challenges and costs. For 4x5, there's lots of options. Really gotta look around at some images and see what you like, and then try them out.

[Dan Fromm]

About bokum, there's no disputing tastes. I greatly dislike the way out-of-focus highlights look in Bryan's examples, but that doesn't mean that they don't serve his purposes. They're not mine, but that doesn't mean he's wrong or that there's anything wrong with them.

So why don't we just stop wrangling about hokum, good, bad and indifferent?

[Corran]

That sounds very elucidating! Do you have a link? Thanks!

Not off-hand, you might search around the forum and see what you can find. I also would highly encourage you to browse the Portrait image sharing threads if you are looking for lens ideas.

I don't take portraits all that often but I have shot some with nearly every ~150mm lens I have, and I have a lot. Even a bog-standard Symmar can give great results. As Dan notes above, opinions are opinions, and we don't know yours.

I could post a ton of examples with various lenses, but they would have the same flaw as the aforementioned article - different subjects, backgrounds, lighting, films, etc. so comparisons are indirect at best.

[Pere Casals]

My objection is that you are/were calling one "good" and the other "bad" as objective truths. They are not.


This is about semantics, Bokeh is japanese, meaning defocus, but from the way they use the word it should be translated "defocus smoothness".

It is this "smoothness" which is poor, neutral or good. We could say low-neutral-high, but all literature says poor-neutral-good "smoothness".

"Defocus Smoothness" is objective, and Neutral is a very well defined reference point.




My objection is that you are/were calling one "good" and the other "bad" as objective truths. They are not.

Personally, what you called "good" bokeh, I find boring. I prefer what you are calling "neutral" over that.


It's not what I call good or bad, but what all literature calls good or bad bokeh.

Not only Ken Rockwell... This amazing article by Jeroen Bruggeman ( https://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/ ) says "Bokeh" 55 times, using always good-poor, meaning good-poor smoothness.
... and all good literature uses same semantics.


Of course there are many lenses with a good reputation based in a "bad" bokeh (low defocus smoothness), Aero-Ektar to say one. Aero-Ektars have a very "poor Bokeh", but those harsh rings can be exploited.


Also it's for sure that most portraiture Pros want "good bokeh" for most of his work, because they want to bring attention to the subject and not to the background, the smoother the background the less distracting, in that sense harsh (or bad) bokeh is often pejorative, in special between japanese artists.

[Corran]

Pere, I usually avoid using the word bokeh, preferring out-of-focus rendering. I used it here in this thread following its usage by others, but my comments about personal preference are still relevant. You're right, you are focused on semantics and love to argue them. Perhaps put me back on ignore.

My final point - I welcome you to compare the out-of-focus rendering on these two images, and I ask, which is busier or more distracting? (http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/o3ex2.jpg)

[Mark Crabtree]

OMG! Boke war! Run for the hills. Stop your lenses down. We need a diffraction from this horrible situation.

Oh, the humanity.

[paulbarden]

Bokeh is not poor, especially around f/4.

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/awa-1692ss.jpg

Of course bokeh is somewhat subjective. For instance, Zeiss Tessars are lauded for bokeh but I find they are typically pretty busy at wider apertures. So IMO the Xenotar has much faster usable aperture with good bokeh at those wide apertures, while the Tessar smooths out at smaller stops (hence why I think the Tessar design is really good on 8x10 since it still gives thin DOF at f/11).

Honestly, I find this to be truly awful bokeh. Very distracting, busy OOF. Not nearly enough separation of subject from background.

[Corran]

Okay. I simply disagree, especially wrt separation.

[Roger Thoms]

Doesn’t the shape of the iris also have an affect on bokeh?

Roger

[Pere Casals]

Doesn’t the shape of the iris also have an affect on bokeh?

Roger

Of course...

If iris is a pentagon then you see pentagons instead discs in the OOF bright spots, and this has also an effect in the OOF nature, even a heart shape can me used in the iris or in the entrance:

189239

Another factor is how spheric aberration gets corrected in the OOF: neutral, under or over, the highlighted rings in the discs are provocated by that, overcorrection deivers nice bubbles but also a harsh OOF would be rendered:

189240

Another factor is circular/swirly bokeh, this is provocated if the entrance/exit pupils trim the aperture pupil in the image off-center:

189241

And there are other factors which I don't know/understand...

... but a "good bokeh" in the smoothness sense is often wanted for portraiture, this is just the counter of the bubbles/rings in the second example.

Of course the "good" OOF rendering for our image may not be the good (smooth) bokeh. There is some confusion about that...

_______________________

Japanese artists have a dozen adjectives to describe bokeh. They have a refined aesthetic culture about that. IMHO westeners may learn a lot from them, me at least.


https://web.archive.org/web/20081230172508/https://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml
https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/files/bokehrankings5.pdf

[Jim Galli]

Back to some of the OP's questions. When I came to work at a test laboratory for the gov't in the desert, I inherited about 8 150mm Xenotar's that were mounted in a proprietary hardened housing for use on cine cameras that we ran mostly at 100 frames per second, but occasionally up to 360 fps. They were famous for their shapness at f4 - f5 - ish, which you need at those speeds. Angle of coverage was quite small as we were looking at half frame cine Kodak 35mm chrome films. So we used the very sweet spot. For our purposes a 127mm f4.7 Kodak Ektar would have done about as well for a pittance of the cost. But uncle sam like Xenotar's. There is legend that some ranges like White Sands got their grubby's on 210mm Xenotar's. We saw a few at auction 20 years ago but couldn't afford to ever get one.

When we finished our move to digital cine's the Xenotar's sat on a shelf for a while and finally, it broke my heart to send them off to "re-app" where I'm quite sure someone bought a pallet of junk and found those in a box at the bottom of a yard box. I kept one for old time sake. #9021664 But I plan to retire soon and that one will go the way of the Do - Do's soon. When we sent all the cold war legends off to re-app the folks there scan stuff carefully for radioactive anything. Alarms went off! The world nearly came to an end, the SWAT team suited up in their tyvek storm-troopers suits and they promptly sent the aberrant lenses back to us! Banish those horrid lenses to hell! But to my surprise, it wasn't the Xenotar's, it was some high dollar cine Wollensak's that were the offenders.

So the stories of hot Xenotar's are over-rated. The one I kept has the Schneider pink-orange and yellow coatings very similar to what I see in G-Claron's and even more so in Repro-Claron's.

As to bokeh, first of all, ignore Dan, but beyond that, don't get me started. It's like a dago and wine. We know what we like. Foolish to even try to dissuade. And define, that's for aristocrats. The Japanese started with un-corked Kodak achromatic menisci.

[EdSawyer]

Jim, great stories, thanks for sharing. Those must have been some of the Xenotars from White Sands or wherever that were on Ebay a few years ago. Probably you used them in Photo-sonics cameras if I had to guess.

There were I think 5 210mm xenotars made, the only one that has changed hands a couple of times publicly has gone from a ~$2500 lens to an ~$8k lens the two times it was sold.

Schneider themselves stated the Xenotar was at it's optimal aperture by f/4, in their own literature. That's where I shoot mine, generally... though nailing focus at that aperture can be challenging.

Of the xenotars that I have, I don't think any of them show the typical radioactive browning that you see on the Aero Ektars.

-Ed

[Jim Galli]

Jim, great stories, thanks for sharing. Those must have been some of the Xenotars from White Sands or wherever that were on Ebay a few years ago. Probably you used them in Photo-sonics cameras if I had to guess.

There were I think 5 210mm xenotars made, the only one that has changed hands a couple of times publicly has gone from a ~$2500 lens to an ~$8k lens the two times it was sold.

Schneider themselves stated the Xenotar was at it's optimal aperture by f/4, in their own literature. That's where I shoot mine, generally... though nailing focus at that aperture can be challenging.

Of the xenotars that I have, I don't think any of them show the typical radioactive browning that you see on the Aero Ektars.

-Ed

Yes, the Ektars look like "weak coffee brown". Yes, Photosonic 4E's. Maybe I'll tell the little green men there'll be no more daylight trips unless they can find me that 210mm Xenotar. Also there was a legend that the resolution numbers were secret. Makes a good story.

[Daniel Unkefer]

My Xenotar is from that Ebay Photosonic selloff. I was lucky to get one with good glass. No color to speak of in the glass. I like to shoot mine wide open, as I really think that was intended to be the point of it. A super speed lens, pushing the envelope.

[Pere Casals]

Yes, Photosonic 4E's.

Jim, now it's clear how your shutter was inspired: Photosonics !!!

This is a rotating prism in conjunction with a disc shutter.

I use the single blade version of the Galli shutter for pinhole... and learning the two blades operation.

It should be mentioned that the 4C sports 2500 FPS. In the Inception movie (Nolan) the cinematographer (Pfister) used a top notch Phantom digital camera and the Photosonics film camera for the falling car scene high-speed work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_4qc-JYZPo

Only the Photosonics footage was good.

[Greg]

When we finished our move to digital cine's the Xenotar's sat on a shelf for a while and finally, it broke my heart to send them off to "re-app" where I'm quite sure someone bought a pallet of junk and found those in a box at the bottom of a yard box.

My first boss in the late 1970s was in the Armed Forces in the early 1970s. He was part of a photo unit that tested prototype lenses. Told me that very, very few of them ended up in their warehouse (actually more like ware"room"). The rest were listed/documented in detail, since most of them didn't have serial numbers on them, and then once a year taken out to a parking lot. They then had a bulldozer run it's tracks over them. Told me a steamroller was requested, but never sent. Evidently bulldozers were a lot more common than steamrollers.

[Jim Galli]

Jim, now it's clear how your shutter was inspired: Photosonics !!!

This is a rotating prism in conjunction with a disc shutter.

I use the single blade version of the Galli shutter for pinhole... and learning the two blades operation.

It should be mentioned that the 4C sports 2500 FPS. In the Inception movie (Nolan) the cinematographer (Pfister) used a top notch Phantom digital camera and the Photosonics film camera for the falling car scene high-speed work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_4qc-JYZPo

Only the Photosonics footage was good.

Uh-Oh! I'm found out. Top Gun (like it or not) 1986 used photosonics 4ml's in the cockpits pulling 35mm film. Our 4E's (we had 4ML for backups) were pin registered with pull down forks to pull the next frame in. Think about that sequence. The registration pins holding the film to a platen that had a vacuum pump for flatness, the pins retract out of the film, the forks find the next frames perfs, pull it down, and the registration pins go back in. Now think about that 360 times in a second. That mechanism was awesome! When the post WWII generation of machinists that built those were dead, they can't be duplicated. Computer CNC machines cannot build those. That's how we won the cold war.

4B and 4C were the rotating prism cameras. Those had no registration, the film was flying through the gate unhindered and the prism built the frame as the film is moving past. That's how they could do 1000 fps. Not as crisp. Our 4E's could produce an image like a Nikon at 360 fps.

OK, sorry to the OP, I now return you to the thread about Xenotar's.

[Peter De Smidt]

A gentleman I met was responsible for Mercury Marines's high speed cameras for analyzing propellers. I forget the fps, but it was crazy high.

[EdSawyer]

These stories are great! Keep sharing, Jim and Others.

Here's the story on one of the 210 xenotars: Arlen Elkins bought it in 2004-2005 on ebay for $1000-ish. He used it for a while, on a betterlight scanning back. He then later sold it for $8200-ish on ebay, to Fatali (the wanker). Fatali, being the wanker he is, had it put in a #5 shutter and nearly immediately flipped it to some other sucker for about $15k.

1st ebay sale: https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/have-you-ever-used-a-xenotar-210mm-f2-8.118258/

https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/updated-information-on-210mm-f-2-8-schneider-xenotar.238526/

2nd ebay sale: https://www.ebay.com/itm/221702192984

3rd ebay sale: https://www.ebay.com/itm/183225694475

Jim you were part of these threads so I am sure you remember.

There was another one that was sold on ebay for $1200-ish to lens and repro, that had minor separation, which supposedly was fixed, then it was flipped by lens and repro in NYC for about $3k, around the same time period (2005). I haven't seen any others crop up before or since.

I have pics from the auction(s) that I can post if anyone is interested.

Also here's another gov't(?) document that mentions the 210 xenotar:

https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journalArticle/Download?fullDOI=10.1117%2F12.7971342

-Ed

[Jim Galli]

These stories are great! Keep sharing, Jim and Others.

Here's the story on one of the 210 xenotars: Arlen Elkins bought it in 2004-2005 on ebay for $1000-ish. He used it for a while, on a betterlight scanning back. He then later sold it for $8200-ish on ebay, to Fatali (the wanker). Fatali, being the wanker he is, had it put in a #5 shutter and nearly immediately flipped it to some other sucker for about $15k.

1st ebay sale: https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/have-you-ever-used-a-xenotar-210mm-f2-8.118258/

https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/updated-information-on-210mm-f-2-8-schneider-xenotar.238526/

2nd ebay sale: https://www.ebay.com/itm/221702192984

3rd ebay sale: https://www.ebay.com/itm/183225694475

Jim you were part of these threads so I am sure you remember.

There was another one that was sold on ebay for $1200-ish to lens and repro, that had minor separation, which supposedly was fixed, then it was flipped by lens and repro in NYC for about $3k, around the same time period (2005). I haven't seen any others crop up before or since.

I have pics from the auction(s) that I can post if anyone is interested.

Also here's another gov't(?) document that mentions the 210 xenotar:

https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journalArticle/Download?fullDOI=10.1117%2F12.7971342

-Ed

Fascinating! And yes, what a wanker. A correct shutter installation would have been a Compound 4 or 5 which already had the metric threads and spacing correct for the original Schneider barrel it replaced. $15,000 lens, you can do it properly.

I did not see the ebay sales on these, some as late at 2018. Just as well, because, like a beautiful woman, you can only look, you can't have. The serial no. on the ebay lens places it solidly in 1960.

[Daniel Unkefer]

Yes I myself had a bad experience with Fatali, he is a total wanker! But I got my $$$ back through Ebay although it was a stressful experience.

Like my 150mm Xenotar but have never seen a 210!

[Hugo Zhang]

I did some 11x14 portraits with my Xenotar 460mm a few months ago and it was brutally sharp. It definitely has its own look.

[Jim Galli]

I did some 11x14 portraits with my Xenotar 460mm a few months ago and it was brutally sharp. It definitely has its own look.

Hugo, what is the max aperture on the 460mm? Anyone know when, how many and for whom those were made?

[Pere Casals]

Xenotar 460mm a few months ago and it was brutally sharp. It definitely has its own look.

If it is the Aero-Xenotar 460mm f/4.5 , then it has to be brutally sharp as it is an aerial lens

[Dan Fromm]

it has to be brutally sharp as it is an aerial lens

This is not guaranteed. For proof, see the resolution charts in the GOI catalog. Also see resolution tables in the USAF data sheets. Understand that in both sources resolution reported is at full aperture.

[Hugo Zhang]

Yes, it is the Aero-Xenotar 460mm f/4.5.

[Pere Casals]

This is not guaranteed. For proof, see the resolution charts in the GOI catalog. Also see resolution tables in the USAF data sheets. Understand that in both sources resolution reported is at full aperture.

Dan, you are right, it is not guaranteed, while most aerial lenses are extra sharp some have other priorities, but the Aero-Xenotar it is of the sharp kind. Often aerial lenses had an extra accurate manufacturing compared to general purpose taking lenses.

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...]They then had a bulldozer run it's tracks over them. Told me a steamroller was requested, but never sent. Evidently bulldozers were a lot more common than steamrollers.

I was among the last occupational troops in France when De Gaulle kicked us out. Yep, we were to destroy all non-inventoried stuff, hazardous munitions, etc and big-ass bulldozers were the ticket. They also buried the trash after destruction. I volunteered to dispose hand grenades thinking it would be fun but discovered that call was a joke. Darn.

[Dan Fromm]

Where were you in FR? I ask because I spent '70 in Matcomeur, which had been in Orleans.

[Jac@stafford.net]

So how does the Planar 135mm ƒ3.5 for 4x5 compare to the Xenotar at ƒ3.5?

[Pere Casals]

So how does the Planar 135mm ƒ3.5 for 4x5 compare to the Xenotar at ƒ3.5?

You may find a review of the planar here: http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm 180mm circle at f/? , the Xenotar has 153mm at f/16

This Zeiss has T* multicoating, no LF Xenotar has multicoating, I guess.

Very similar character, Paul Rudolph invented the Planar and the Tessar at Zeiss, those designs are the Xenotar and the Xenar at Schneider with slight modifications.

IMHO what is interesting is the Planar vs Tessar comparisson. I feel the Planar desing is better suited for landscape because the potential slight advantage in IQ, but this depends also on coatings because the higher group count of the Planar may deliver more flare, and the Xenotar case is single coated. ...and at "usual" landscape apertures (well stopped) optical difference may be low.

In the other side the Tessar/Xenar has an smoother Out of Focus, so many would prefer that for portraiture. Those Graflex sporting a Xenar made always an excellent job

[EdSawyer]

Hugo, post a pic of the Aero Xenotar if you can. I am guessing it must have a different optical formula than the 135/150/210 xenotars - probably a tessar/dialyte or something if I had to guess.

The latest T* planar 135 is supposed to be a spectacular lens. I'd love to have one but have been making do with a 135/3.5 Xenotar instead (about 1/10 the price of the late-model planar). That said, the 135 xenotar is no slouch, I think it's as sharp if not sharper than the 150. Arne Croell and Christopher Perez did some empirical testing of these lenses a while ago, their results are still out there online, and worth reading if you are into those sort of things.

https://www.arnecroell.com/lenstests.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20070220002353/http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html (using an archived version since the current version has wacky formatting...)

[Daniel Unkefer]

I have the 135mm Zeiss T* Planar-S on my Hasselblad Bellows, it is a stellar performer. And it IS hand handholdable with Bellows.

Focuses to 1:1 :)

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1479/26357036875_872fbda984_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Ga5GNg)001 (https://flic.kr/p/Ga5GNg) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

[Pere Casals]

I have the 135mm Zeiss T* Planar-S

Ok, but this is not the 135mm LF lens that Jac was mentioning.

[Daniel Unkefer]

OK but I'd wager it's the same glass. But, whatever.........

[Pere Casals]

OK but I'd wager it's the same glass.

It isn't... one is a MF lens and the other one is a LF lens, beyond aperture circles are way different.

[Bob Salomon]

OK but I'd wager it's the same glass. But, whatever.........

One is corrected for mf macro photography. The other is not!

Just like neither is the same as the 135mm planar for 35mm Cameras.

[Hugo Zhang]

Hugo, post a pic of the Aero Xenotar if you can. I am guessing it must have a different optical formula than the 135/150/210 xenotars - probably a tessar/dialyte or something if I had to guess.

The latest T* planar 135 is supposed to be a spectacular lens. I'd love to have one but have been making do with a 135/3.5 Xenotar instead (about 1/10 the price of the late-model planar). That said, the 135 xenotar is no slouch, I think it's as sharp if not sharper than the 150. Arne Croell and Christopher Perez did some empirical testing of these lenses a while ago, their results are still out there online, and worth reading if you are into those sort of things.

https://www.arnecroell.com/lenstests.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20070220002353/http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html (using an archived version since the current version has wacky formatting...)

Ed,

I don't know how good the digitally scanned image will show, but here is the link to my website:

http://www.hugozhangphotography.com/people

There are two pictures showing one man in full body length in each picture with beach as background. I forgot to bring my Packard shutter box, so I used lens cap with one second exposure at f/32. In my 11x14 contact prints, I can easily see each facial hair, quite different from pictures of Heliar lens.

[Corran]

So how does the Planar 135mm ƒ3.5 for 4x5 compare to the Xenotar at ƒ3.5?

The Planar has two versions. The newer model has a larger front element / filter thread.

I looked a long time and could never find any real comparison. I always wanted a Planar to try against my Xenotar. Most anecdotal evidence said, the Xenotar and (older) Planar were virtually the same in performance.

I do have a 100mm Planar though. I did notice that, compared to my Xenotar, it has slightly warm color. Not full-on browning of the glass like discussed earlier, but just a very light warm tint. Perhaps like an 81a filter. The overall sharpness/rendering did seem identical to my Xenotar.

My Xenotar is on a Polaroid 900 4x5 conversion. I used to shoot portraits and other stuff handheld. The 135mm is a little wide for portraits depending on the style, but a great performer as one would expect. I think the design was stretched to its limit with the 150mm f/2.8, but the 135mm is more reasonable and tame. Here's a really old scan:

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/0208ss.jpg

[Bernice Loui]

MIL data sheet for a 3" f2.8 Schneider, could be a Xenotar?

189355


Bernice

[Bernice Loui]

Previously owned and used Hasselblad's Zeiss Planar offerings of 80mm, 100mm, 120mm Macro, 135mm Macro. While "sharp" for 6x6, 120 roll film, none of them ended up being a keeper due to the pentagon iris which resulted in Pentagon shaped iris influenced out of focus areas.

The Gauss Lens Formulation has become one of the most common for large aperture camera lenses for a host of reasons. They can be excellent to Ug...


Going off topic, this is a Canon 85mm f1.2L image taken at f1.2 on a Canon mirrorless digital. Note the out of focus rendition. This is lens is an Aspheric vacation of Gauss lens formulation.
189356


Bernice

[Dan Fromm]

MIL data sheet for a 3" f2.8 Schneider, could be a Xenotar?

Bernice

Bernice, it is a Xenotar. You have p. 2-40, which shows performance. You don't have p. 2-39, which identifies the lens and lists its characteristics. The list has a link to a set of USAF lens datasheets on my OneDrive.

A propos of diaphragms and their effects on out-of-focus highlights, older Compur shutters have lotsa diaphragm blades and cells can be swapped into them. No need to keep them in the shutter they were delivered in.

Bryan, I have 80/2.8 Xenotar and Planar. The Xenotar doesn't cover 2x3, the Planar does. Same basic design, 5/4 double Gauss, but the prescriptions are different.

[Bernice Loui]

Thanks for the added info Dan, suspected that was a Xenotar.

For what ever reason, Hasselblad chose their Compur and later Prontor shutters with five iris blades resulting that influence for their Planar's out of focus rendition. That was one of the Hasselblad lens and system deal breakers.

BTW, that Canon 85mm f1.2L has a roundish iris.

Indeed the older Compur shutters DO have nice round iris, except most avoid older Compur shutters like the plague as they can be temperamental, problem with reliability and complexity. Yet they are the favored shutter due to the rounder iris. Rounder iris is also found on a number of older shutters like Ilex, Compound (these can be really GOOD), Prontor. Then came the Copal shutter (they work-reliable) and LF lens optimization for f22 era where iris shape became less significant for the everything in focus folks.



Bernice



Bernice, it is a Xenotar. You have p. 2-40, which shows performance. You don't have p. 2-39, which identifies the lens and lists its characteristics. The list has a link to a set of USAF lens datasheets on my OneDrive.

A propos of diaphragms and their effects on out-of-focus highlights, older Compur shutters have lotsa diaphragm blades and cells can be swapped into them. No need to keep them in the shutter they were delivered in.

Bryan, I have 80/2.8 Xenotar and Planar. The Xenotar doesn't cover 2x3, the Planar does. Same basic design, 5/4 double Gauss, but the prescriptions are different.

[Corran]

Bryan, I have 80/2.8 Xenotar and Planar. The Xenotar doesn't cover 2x3, the Planar does. Same basic design, 5/4 double Gauss, but the prescriptions are different.

Dan, I know we've talked about this before, but when you say your 80mm Xenotar doesn't cover, do you mean, it has black corners, or just has loss of resolution?

I have used my 80mm Xenotar on 2x3 (well, 56x84 roll film) and it "covers" for my purposes. No hard vignetting, and resolution seems fine enough to me (not measured though).

[Dan Fromm]

Loss of resolution, Bryan. That aside, the wretched thing is unusable. It has the desirable cleaned with coarse sandpaper look, is soft and flary. Stopping down doesn't help at all.

[Corran]

Ah, that stinks. I've seen some loss of resolution as a "swirly" look on the periphery of the image circle (for instance, if pushing a Tessar past its useful IC, or some of my Dagor-type lenses pushed past spec but not stopped down far enough to tame). I don't seem to get that with the Xenotar at typical shooting apertures (f/22). Mine is in a Compur #1 shutter and has a 49mm filter thread. How about yours? Just curious. My serial # indicates manufacture date of 1965. It came to me on a 2x3 Century Graphic.

[EdSawyer]

Just to be pendantic: there's actually about 5 discrete versions of the 135/3.5 LF planar lens. The large/small filter sizes are the major breakdown, but there were 2 runs of the 67mm T* version, and I think 3 variants of the earlier version. The later version was significantly better optically (which is why it's so expensive, among other reasons like fetishism. Sadly it mostly comes in a 5-blade shutter I think, it's been a while since I looked into those extensively. One could probably swap into a Compur 1 though.).

Also empirical testing of the Rolleiflex TLR Planar vs. Xenotar favors the Planar for sharpness/resolution/contrast. The Xenotar is no slouch, but the planar is just a bit "better".

the 85/1.2L is a nice lens, I have one - you can see the typical "onion" bokeh in the specular highlight, an artifact of the aspherical element(s) in the lens. That said, it can have some very smooth and nice OOF rendering characteristics. Great portrait lens for 35mm, no doubt.

Hugo, thanks for the link, will have a look at your site again.

Bryan that's a nice 135 shot. I use mine on a crown graphic, (it even folds up inside!), it's a great handheld environmental portrait rig.

-Ed

[Mark Sampson]

I had an 80/2.8 Xenotar in a Compur shutter. I ran a comparison test on 4x5 for coverage (against a 75/4 Nikkor-SW). All my photos are still packed after moving last week, so can't post those photos now. But I sold that lens here, so anyone interested might search the archives for that ad; it showed the compared contact proofs.

[Corran]

Thanks for the additional info Ed, I was not aware of those variations.

I remember at one time seeing a couple late-model Planars sell on eBay for ridiculous money. I think they are down to just crazy now. A couple years ago I had the opportunity to buy one from an estate for $900 but I had to send a check blind to someone executing the estate. Seemed fishy but the way he was talking indicated he really didn't know about the lens. So I think it was legit, but was a bit too risky for my taste, so I passed. Probably should've done it.

My Xenotar was put into a shutter by someone else, in a kinda funky way. It folds up into my Polaroid 900, but the rangefinder on that camera is a bit finnicky and doesn't like to stay in sync. Every time I use it I have to tweak it just a little. But that's certainly an easier task than changing a Graphic's RF! I also greatly enjoy the combined VF/RF. Anyway, thanks...I've really gotta try to use that camera more now that I think about it.

Edit: Mark, unfortunately the server crash or whatever from a few years ago ate all the images posted through the forum software, so your old FS post has no images:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?67279-FS-Schneider-80-2-8-Xenotar

[Mark Sampson]

Too bad. Perhaps when I get the archive out of the boxes I'll scan the contact proofs (I saw them last month while packing) and post them here for fun.
Of course this thread makes me want a fast 135 to put on my Speed Graphic... although that won't happen.

[Pere Casals]

I had an 80/2.8 Xenotar in a Compur shutter. I ran a comparison test on 4x5 for coverage (against a 75/4 Nikkor-SW).

Mark, the 80/2.8 Xenotar has a 91mm circle, isn't it? The SW has 200mm...

[Jac@stafford.net]

An aside: my earlier 135mm Planar is the only lens I have that folds into the Super Technika V 4x5 when closed, but so close it will not fit with a lens cap on. It is in the proper Linhof recessed board.

Good information about the Xenotar. Thanks to all who contributed.

[Mark Sampson]

Pere; yes, the 80/2.8 makes a nice circular image on 4x5. I made the comparison shots to show potential buyers its image circle. My 75mm was the closest focal length I had. I'd gotten the 80 in a 'box of stuff' and I wanted to see what it would do. Agreeing with Dan Fromm's comment, I doubt it would have covered 6x7 @f/22. But when I find the proof sheet we'll all know.

[Pere Casals]

makes a nice circular image on 4x5.

A nice periscope ! periscope shots are beautiful, often boundary is amazing...

[Corran]

I doubt it would have covered 6x7 @f/22.

I assume you mean 6x9. I reviewed some of my images and there certainly is a slight loss of resolution in the corners of 6x9 images when enlarged to an extreme degree (10x or more), though generally it looks more like a lack of DOF - perhaps field curvature. I do wish it'd stop down a little more - movements for DOF are difficult on my 2x3 Century with the 80mm lens.

For most of the time I've had it, I've shot it on 6x7. Only when I picked up a 6x9 back did I try it on that, and found that it worked perfectly for my purposes. Generally I don't print larger than 13x19 or so from 6x9 negs. I bounce back and forth using the 80mm vs. a new Nikkor-M 105mm I picked up recently, as well as an APO Lanthar I have (the best, by far, in performance...obviously).

My fav 90mm Xenotar shot I've made. I made a couple prints of this to 16x20:

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/80xenofogss.jpg

[Dan Fromm]

Bryan, lack of fine detail in the corners and towards the edges really helps. It sometimes happens that lack of sharpness out there doesn't hurt the image much, if at all.

Cheers,

Dan

When I was working I rotated 8x10 color prints made from 2x3 and, sometimes, 6x6, Ektachromes on my desk. One of my favorites was from a 6x6 tranny that was sharp nowhere. Lousy lens, not poor technique. I still like it very much. Sharpness is somewhat overrated.

[Corran]

Agree, Dan! :)