PDA

View Full Version : Alternative to the Schneider Xenotar 150mm F2.8 for 4x5?



LFLarry
18-Nov-2019, 17:47
Anyone know of a similar lens or a way to get a similar look as the very expensive Schneider Xenotar 150mm F2.8 lens? I like to do still life and I think the very narrow DOF and bokeh could work really well for my vision but I don't have thousands of dollars to invest in this lens. Any ideas would be appreciated.

-Larry

Dan Fromm
18-Nov-2019, 18:15
7"/2.8 AeroEktar. Doesn't go in shutter.

LFLarry
18-Nov-2019, 18:16
Thanks, Dan, I will go look for this lens. I am okay if it isn't in shutter because I have a Sinar Copal Shutter that I can use.


7"/2.8 AeroEktar. Doesn't go in shutter.

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
18-Nov-2019, 18:21
8" f2.9 Dallmeyer Pentac too.

LFLarry
18-Nov-2019, 18:43
Thanks Jason, that is a great tip!


8" f2.9 Dallmeyer Pentac too.

MAubrey
18-Nov-2019, 18:52
Komura 150mm f/2.8 (or 3.5)

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
18-Nov-2019, 18:54
... and don't forget about f3.5 Xenar and Tessar lenses. For 4x5 you need at least a 180mm, if not a 210mmm. A faster 16.5cm f2.7 Tessar is also out there, but hard to find and designed for 3x4, not 4x5.

LFLarry
18-Nov-2019, 18:55
Another lens that I did not know about... thank you!


Komura 150mm f/2.8 (or 3.5)

erian
18-Nov-2019, 19:11
Komura 150mm f/2.8 (or 3.5)

I think it is 152mm. Does not come up very often. Do you have any experience with it?

erian
18-Nov-2019, 19:15
Thanks, Dan, I will go look for this lens. I am okay if it isn't in shutter because I have a Sinar Copal Shutter that I can use.

Mind you that all Aero Ektars are radioactive (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TtqxJTVu0g). I think this is something you should be aware of.

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
18-Nov-2019, 20:05
I think it is 152mm. Does not come up very often. Do you have any experience with it?

I have used a 152/2.8 Komura. It was a fine lens, very similar to the Xenotar, but harder to find. I was less pleased with the 135/3.5 Komura I owned, and found it more prone to flare than my 135/3.5 Xenotar. (Note that I only owned one of each Komura lenses, so my sample may have been different from others.)

Dan Fromm
18-Nov-2019, 20:15
Mind you that all Aero Ektars are radioactive (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TtqxJTVu0g). I think this is something you should be aware of.

I believe I've directed you to "the list." If I haven't, please ask for directions.

It contains a link to a piece by Mike Briggs, a PhD physicist, that discusses how severe a radiation hazard the 7"/2.5 AE poses. Not much.

LFLarry
18-Nov-2019, 22:21
Hey Jason, that is great. Any photos you could share from the lens wide open?



I have used a 152/2.8 Komura. It was a fine lens, very similar to the Xenotar, but harder to find. I was less pleased with the 135/3.5 Komura I owned, and found it more prone to flare than my 135/3.5 Xenotar. (Note that I only owned one of each Komura lenses, so my sample may have been different from others.)

Andrew Plume
19-Nov-2019, 02:38
Hi Larry

Over on that large Auction site, there's a Scandinavian seller who specialises in such fast lenses, I'll ping you an email with his details

regards

Andrew

Corran
19-Nov-2019, 08:30
Rollei Heidosmat 150mm f/2.8 projection lens (no aperture).

The others are also good options, and don't forget the Kodak Aero Ektar also game in a 6" variety (rarer). These generally have a yellowish stain that can be removed in some part, so be aware of that for color work.

There is also a 165mm f/2.7 Tessar out there, and as for f/3.5 lenses, there is a 150mm f/3.5 Triotar (rare).

Probably some more I'm forgetting...I'm a bit of a fast ~6" lens hoarder!

EdSawyer
19-Nov-2019, 08:48
As mentioned, there's a lot of choices, depending on whether you need a shutter or not. Still, with still-life, some tilt/swing and shooting f/5.6 wide open will still result in pretty shallow DOF.

I have at least 1 spare Aero Ektar 6"/f2.5 and a couple modern 6" f/2.8 aerial lenses (no shutter, but includes aperture) I could part with for not much $.

Arne Croell
19-Nov-2019, 09:57
Meyer-Görlitz Trioplan 210mm f/3.5. Its a barrel lens, no shutter. If it's mostly the shallow DOF you're after, Meyer also made 260mm, 300mm, and 360mm f/4.5 Trioplan lenses. Both uncoated versions and coated versions exist.

Carl Zeiss Jena made coated F/3.5 Tessars in 150mm, 165mm, 210mm, 250mm, and 300mm for a short time after WWII. Both barrel versions and shuttered versions (Compur 2, Compound III, IV, V) exist, except for the 300mm which only came in barrel.

Bernice Loui
19-Nov-2019, 10:11
210mm f3.5 Heilar.
197583

There were a good number of 6" f2.8 lenses (Leitz Elcan, Pacific Optical, Perkin Elmer and others) made for the US military beyond the Aero Ektar.
Beyond eBay, look at the hobby astronomy want-ads. That could be another source of optics like this. There was a time when surplus lenses like these were really low cost and plentiful, those days are mostly gone now.


Bernice

Dan Fromm
19-Nov-2019, 10:39
There were a good number of 6" f2.8 lenses (Leitz Elcan, Pacific Optical, Perkin Elmer and others) made for the US military beyond the Aero Ektar.

Bernice, most of those six inch lenses were made to cover 6x6, not 4x5. The Elcan exception that covers 4x5 is the C-180, which can be recognized by its serial number (180-xxxx). Very uncommon.

erian
19-Nov-2019, 13:12
I believe I've directed you to "the list." If I haven't, please ask for directions.

It contains a link to a piece by Mike Briggs, a PhD physicist, that discusses how severe a radiation hazard the 7"/2.5 AE poses. Not much.

I have read it and both, the article and the video I linked agree with each other.

Mike says

"My very-approximate calculations show that a few hours exposure close to an Aero-Ektar causes a smaller additional radiation dose than a trans-Atlantic plane flight. However, a one-year long close exposure would cause a significant radiation dose, one that would be several times higher than the naturally occurring dose. Clearly, you should not store Aero-Ektars under your bed!".

Garglon measures ~1.7 μSv close to the ground glass and ~0.5 μSv 10 cm away from it.

Mike does not explain what methods did he use to measure the radiation but assuming that one does not stay constantly next to the ground glass then few hours of Aero Ektar usage probably will give lower dosage than 6 hours lasting transatlantic flight during which the radiation levels are around 0.5-0.7 μSv.

I think it is also fairly evident that Aero Ektar does not have some granite or banana level radioactivity. It has some punch, especially next to it (it saturated the Radex dosimeter) and it should be used with caution and respect.

I am not in position to say if somebody should or should not use Aero Ektars but I think it was evident that OP was not aware of this issue and I think it is fair to disclose this information.

LFLarry
19-Nov-2019, 17:52
Wow... good info... After hearing about the Aero Ektar radiation, that makes me a little concerned about this lens.



Rollei Heidosmat 150mm f/2.8 projection lens (no aperture).

The others are also good options, and don't forget the Kodak Aero Ektar also game in a 6" variety (rarer). These generally have a yellowish stain that can be removed in some part, so be aware of that for color work.

There is also a 165mm f/2.7 Tessar out there, and as for f/3.5 lenses, there is a 150mm f/3.5 Triotar (rare).

Probably some more I'm forgetting...I'm a bit of a fast ~6" lens hoarder!

Corran
19-Nov-2019, 18:21
Read the previous posts about radiation.

It is not an issue for any reasonable usage. Don't grind it up and eat it, and don't store it under your pillow, otherwise it's fine.

Mine is on my 4x5 Speed Graphic right now and it is sitting about 15 feet from me. Not worried in the slightest.

Greg
19-Nov-2019, 18:29
The 152/2.8 Komura is gem to be had if you can acquire one at a reasonable price. I've used both and actually prefer it over the Schneider Xenotar... but honesty found both optics to be just a pleasure to use.

erian
19-Nov-2019, 19:12
Wow... good info... After hearing about the Aero Ektar radiation, that makes me a little concerned about this lens.

I think that Aero Ektar is optically a very interesting lens if you can afford it.

My personal understanding is that it is a fairly strong radiation source at very close distance (I would not recommend to put it close to your intimate parts) but the intensity falls off rapidly with the distance.

By being able to afford it I mean that can you store it in a such way that it does not affect the people surrounding you? Your family, your neighbors, your guest. Do you have a distant spot where the radiation does not change the intensity of the background radiation for the people getting randomly nearby?

You just have to consider the safe distance from the lens and check if you can allocate such area for it.

Carsten Wolff
20-Nov-2019, 13:31
Komura 150mm f/2.8 (or 3.5)
I'd second that. The Komura 152mm f3.5 came in a few versions and is very good; but I'd go longer. For portraits, try the 10" 4.5 Wollensak Tele
254/4.5 = 158/2.8 ;)

Greg
20-Nov-2019, 14:27
I'd second that. The Komura 152mm f3.5 came in a few versions and is very good; but I'd go longer. For portraits, try the 10" 4.5 Wollensak Tele
254/4.5 = 158/2.8 ;)

I have use my 12 inch f/4.5 Wollensak Velostigmat for 4x5 portraits with great results. Only catch is that it covers 8x10 so there's a lot of light bouncing off the inside of the bellows. When I first used it on my 4x5 Sinar without a bellows lenshood, printing the resulting negatives required a lot of burning in of the edges of the print.