Xenar 135mm f4.7 lens opinion

[tonyowen]

I use a Xenar 135mm f4.7 lens on my 4x5 camera. I've used it with fomapan-100 and Ilford multigrade paper as paper negatives.

The film and paper were processed using Ilford chemicals in a Jobo rotary tank

In all cases I've noticed that the resultant image is 'soft' compared with 'sharp' B&W images seen elsewhere on this forum.

Agreed the words 'soft' and 'sharp' are not precise and agreed I'm not specifically taking images with definite black and/or white tones.

I've also processed digital images from my Nikon D50 with a Nikon 85mm f1.8 lens using ps in the grey mode [to remove colour] and get a similar 'soft' B&W result.

An I neurotic or is the xenar lens 'softer' than other lenses, or is there another possible reason??

regards

Tony

[Pere Casals]

The Xenar is always (f/11) a very sharp lens in the center, but you may have to stop to f/22 to have very sharp corners: It is a Tessar delivering a great quality very smooth bokeh in the Out Of Focus.

Mr Pérez and Arne Cröll measured perfomance of several Xenars and they found are pretty good, it is also my personal experience: Crazy sharp !

So check focus accuracy, GG to film plane matching and film flatness.

Because lacking MultiCoating it may be less contrasty in some situations, but not softer.

[tonyowen]

Because lacking MultiCoating it may be less contrasty in some situations, but not softer.

I think this is 'my problem' - contrast is the term I should have used!!

regards
Tony

[Pere Casals]

I think this is 'my problem' - contrast is the term I should have used!!

regards
Tony

You may adjust contrast in several ways: color filters, polarizer, compendium shade, film processing.

With only 3 groups single coated Tessars generate not much flare, but as always a shade may be important.

[tonyowen]

You may adjust contrast in several ways: color filters, polarizer, compendium shade, film processing.

Pere, I've got two 'yellow filters' one has 'green tinge', the other has a 'brown tinge' - one is marked as 'K2' the other 'x2' both meaning exposure compensation.

I also have a set of 'five' Ilford below-the-lens multigrade filters that I can fit in front of the xenar lens. The 'instructions' state that #5 is for the 'flatest' negatives'.

I've also a red filter - but that is of no use with paper negatives.

Any comments??????

regards

Tony

[Corran]

Forget color filters as a solution to overall image contrast. That is more applicable to contrast in the scene photographed between differently-colored areas/objects.

I have always found that older Tessar-type lenses, like the Xenar, suffer from this low-contrast look. Try underexposing and overdeveloping for the simplest solution. How much depends on your taste and methods.

[Pere Casals]

I also have a set of 'five' Ilford below-the-lens multigrade filters that I can fit in front of the xenar lens. The 'instructions' state that #5 is for the 'flatest' negatives'.



For the "flatest negatives" means that it would rise contrast on the paper negative.

#5 ilford filter will make your paper "color blind" and it will take only blue (red will have no effect on paper), as it blocks green, giving a similar look than wet plate.

Also as you rise paper contrast your captured latitude will be narrower, see the paper curves in the datasheet.


...so it's better if you rise contrast when you make the positive, by illuminating the contact copy with light filtered by one of those ilford filters.


You may also try the polarizer if direct sunlight reaches the scene. The polarizer mostly saturates colors but it may have an effect on a BW medium.

[Jim Andrada]

I have a 360 TeleXenar that I also think is somewhat less contrasty than (for example) the Nikkor 360 - 500- 720 set. Makes a nice photo but not sharp enough to "cut your eye" by any means. Not smart enough to know exactly how the TeleZenar would relate, though, just going by the name.

[Mark Sampson]

The Xenar is, as stated above, a classic version of the Tessar design. Assuming good physical condition, it should perform very well. But they were made for a very long time; pre-WWII versions will be uncoated and thus lower in contrast than later, coated examples. Even those will not show the brilliant contrast of a modern multi-coated lens- although the resolution stopped down may well equal the newer optics. Many photographers prize the 'look' of the classic Tessars, most eloquently our own Bernice Loui; I'm partial to it myself. Mr. Andrada's Tele-Xenar is not a Tessar design, but it was likely made in the same era as yours, so will likely exhibit similar contrast characteristics; as he points out, less contrast than the more modern Nikkor-T.
The K2 (yellow#8) and X2 (yellow-green #13) filters you mention will alter subject tones, sometimes acting to increase contrast- depending on the subject and lighting. The Ilford multigrade filters are for making b/w prints in the darkroom and are not meant for on-camera use.
Are you comparing this lens against a modern multi-coated lens? If so, you might try increasing the development maybe 10% for film exposed through the Xenar and see how that compares. But it would probably be easier just to print the Xenar negs to the contrast level that looks good. I'm assuming here that you are making darkroom prints...
I won't try to advise you about making paper negatives; I have little experience with them. And when you talk about digital images, well, once you get into the software world, all bets are off.
Hope this helps... best of luck!

[Pere Casals]

I have a 360 TeleXenar that I also think is somewhat less contrasty than (for example) the Nikkor 360 - 500- 720 set. Makes a nice photo but not sharp enough to "cut your eye" by any means. Not smart enough to know exactly how the TeleZenar would relate, though, just going by the name.

Jim, yes.. but it also depends on the era those lenses were made.

Later APO-Tele-Xenar models may be better than nikkor T glass. In particular for 8x10 (the scarce) APO-Tele-Xenar 600 and 800 is quite superior.

[Bernice Loui]

What were the image expectations from this combo of lens-film/paper-processed film/paper?

If the Xenar is in good optical condition, it will easily equal a modern lens in resolution, it will NOT equal a modern lens in producing a higher overall contrast image. That said, the Xenar or similar Tessar lens formulation has the ability to render gradations in contrast a modern Plasmat cannot. Neither is IMO, better or worst, they are just two different personalities to be used based on finished image goals. This said, there are differences, but the differences are not extreme. So many point to the lens being at fault for not producing their image intended, yet the challenge of expectation can be found else where in the image making process / system or could be an issue with what the image maker expected as a result.

All of which goes back to what was the original image expectation? What do you want to achieve in the finished image?

The similar lower contrast image as produced by the "Nikon D50 with a Nikon 85mm f1.8 lens using ps in the grey mode" can offer another point of reference to the images produces by the Xenar and current image making process.

Keep in mind, higher contrast is NOT higher resolution or similar descriptive noun as there is a LOT more to overall image quality than contrast, "resolution" and ...

~Consider how any given image affects stirs the viewer's emotions or trigger of memories good or bad~


Bernice





I use a Xenar 135mm f4.7 lens on my 4x5 camera. I've used it with fomapan-100 and Ilford multigrade paper as paper negatives.

The film and paper were processed using Ilford chemicals in a Jobo rotary tank

In all cases I've noticed that the resultant image is 'soft' compared with 'sharp' B&W images seen elsewhere on this forum.

Agreed the words 'soft' and 'sharp' are not precise and agreed I'm not specifically taking images with definite black and/or white tones.

I've also processed digital images from my Nikon D50 with a Nikon 85mm f1.8 lens using ps in the grey mode [to remove colour] and get a similar 'soft' B&W result.

An I neurotic or is the xenar lens 'softer' than other lenses, or is there another possible reason??

regards

Tony

[LabRat]

I tend to view lens performance as the balance of contrast and gradation... Lenses are usually plenty sharp enough until degree of enlargement shows up the differences...

A contrasty lens will create harder lines making an "apparent sharpness" as a greater step between contrast areas seem "sharper"... A lens with an expanded scale can seem "flatter" with a full tonal scale, but can seem to not have an "edge" between tonal "clouds" so mushy when critically looked at up close... I evaluate lenses for my use as the proportion of each of the above so there is a full tonality in the scale (as a layer), but hopefully enough contrast to give those "clouds" a step in contrast to give them an outline effect of apparent contrast edge effect... The effect of a layer of gradation outlined with a "brittle" layer of contrast edge... This blows up well...

I have two vintage prints somewhere I have shown to prove my point... One was an 8x10 B/W taken from the cockpit of P-47 Thunderbolts flying in formation, that looks incredibly sharp with every silver rivet on the planes is stark relief in the hard sun, but with a very close look, you notice the image is really quite soft after being shot through the bubble canopy, but the hard contrast makes it look brittle sharp...

Another image is shot in Santa Monica, CA overlooking the sea in the 20's with full gradation sky clouds that look glorious in detail, but look closely and you see the sharpness is quite low, but separation of expanded scale creates an illusion of sharpness (print looks like early 35mm enlargement but with amazing scale)...

So I think it is our job to best utilize these 2 "overlays" to combine into the same image (and let the viewer's eye/brain do the rest)...

For the OP, the "problem" is probably the choice of lens for the materials used... The lens should be plenty sharp when using film materials (that inherently have a harder edge), but when using it for paper negs (paper dev + paper tend to have a more gradation softer effect that we don't notice on prints at veiwing distances) probably needs a modern lens with harder contrast to give it some "edge"... This lens is probably the wrong tool for this job, but is better for a film application... Matching a lens "signature" to the materials is an important choice...

I'm a fan of older lenses too, but my current need is to tame modern films (like Foma, with its long toe and inherent contast) it provides that softer old lens "overlay" with this slightly harder film look (that gives it the lens some "edge")... But in the OP'S case, the opposite is needed...

So matching lens response to materials is the choice here...

Steve K

[Jim Andrada]

This one is definitely not "Apo"

Nice lens nevertheless depending on the result you're after. Sharpness/contrast isn't always the right metric for a given image.

[Pere Casals]

I tend to view lens performance as the balance of contrast and gradation...

Perhaps we should distinguish general contrast vs microcontrast.


General contrast looks related to coatings and number of groups when not Multicoated, but the most important factor is flare provocated by excessive illumination circles, many times of the light entering 75% ends illuminating the bellows that will be reflecting 10%, so when bellows are very extended or compressed many rays end on film after a single reflection in the bellows.

Anyway some flare (under 0.01 Lux·second for ISO film) under the film speed point may be benefical to help detail in the deep shadows.

So IMO a compendium shade is a powerful tool for adjusting how a lens renders contrast.