Xenotar condition opinions?

[fullsteam75]

Hey, all! I just got this Xenotar 150mm 2.8. The seller wasn't really upfront with its condition, but as long as it doesn't affect the image, I'm cool with it. I'm currently waiting for my 4x5 so I don't have a way to test it, so I'm looking for your opinions. A large format friend of mine says that it will most likely shoot fine, maybe with some flare shooting into the sun, etc. What do you think?

223052223053223054

[paulbarden]

That's a pretty badly scarred lens. The damage won't affect sharpness of the images it makes, but it will affect contrast and perhaps introduce a degree of "soft focus" fuzziness. I have a 105mm Xenotar that has about twice as much damage to the front element and it still makes decent photos: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/40893615493_cb0aefb434_k.jpg
and: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51205711430_2f8668fc11_h.jpg
Both of those images were made with the lens stopped down one stop. The softness would decrease if I stopped down more, and the "glow" around highlights would decrease somewhat. Its a very badly damaged lens and yet when I want a softer look, its one of my best lenses! I think there's way too much emphasis placed on the acquisition of "pristine" lenses sometimes. Sure, a flawless lens is nice to have sometimes, but I can tell you from personal experience, flawless isn't always an asset. I have a 240mm Schneider Symmar-S with flawless glass, and its contrast and sharpness are brutal. I rarely use it now.
So, you can certainly make good images with that lens. But I wonder - how much were you charged for it?? Xenotars are not cheap these days, but that damage should have reduced the price significantly.

[fullsteam75]

This one was $1600, so not the $5k+ you might see typically.

[paulbarden]

This one was $1600, so not the $5k+ you might see typically.

Yikes! That is outrageous. IMO you paid far too much for it, given its condition.

[Louis Pacilla]

Yikes! That is outrageous. If you're using Fleabay as a barometer of value, its a distorted view. I've seen two accounts of photographers who bought this lens - in much better condition - for under $1000. Yes, in 2021. IMO you paid far too much for it, given its condition.

I agree w/ brother Paul.

[mhayashi]

It looks to me there is coating oxidation with many blotches that look hazy.
The haze over the whole area of the lens affects the sharpness and contrast.
1.5K sounds too expensive to me for this kind of condition.

[Tin Can]

we don't do valuations

[paulbarden]

we don't do valuations

No, but I won't hesitate to tell someone if I believe they've paid far too much for a damaged lens.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I have tried to use similarly scarred Xenotar lenses, and they don't do well. About 50 of them (?) badly damaged from a lab sold for $250 each about 10 years ago on ebay, and I tested a few. Even in perfect shape they have quite a bit of flare and softness, and the scratches and fogging made them (for my purposes) unusable. An 8" f2.9 Pentac or maybe even a 16.5cm f2.7 Tessar will likely perform better.

[Oren Grad]

The original post, which didn't ask for valuation but rather for advice on the impact of the lens's condition, is entirely within our guidelines, as are the various observations that have been shared addressing that. But per guidelines, no more on pricing, please.

This does underscore the risk of buying an expensive item without being in a position to test it for yourself within a reasonable return period.

[LabRat]

One has to be careful with Xenotar's of this period, as the front glass of this time was very sensitive to "environmental" factors (such as moisture/fungus/calcification etc) that easily caused spots that can eat into the glass below the surface... Take a loupe and look at "spots" at an angle, maybe drag a mashed up point of a wooden toothpick across surface to see and feel if there is any roughness or pitting visible breaking the surface... Lenses with the above will not be able to just be polished and re-coated, but might be used for "special effect" uses...

If one owns one in good shape, be careful with the storage as this can happen in the future, so kept airtight dry with silica gel as a dryer, and avoid use during damp weather (without through drying and through cleaning before storing again)...

Steve K

[Dan Fromm]

Perhaps not directly relevant, but I have an 80/2.8 Xenotar that has the coveted "cleaned with sandpaper" look. Unusable. The OP's lens isn't nearly as bad. Even so, if I were the OP I"d send it back for a refund.

OP, you might run across 150/2.8 Elcan lenses from aerial cameras. The ones whose serial numbers begin with 138 cover 6x6, no more, and have 1.6" back focus. Unusable, except perhaps to shoot 6x6 on a 4x5 Speed Graphic. The ones whose serial numbers begin 180 cover 4x5 and not much more, have 3.92" back focus. Neither has cells that can be put in shutter, neither is well achromatized. I've had a "138," sold it on.

[fullsteam75]

Thanks, everybody, for your insight - just sent the lens back. Had I paid less, I might have given it a shot but considering the current issues and potential future issues, it was best to return it.

[J. Patric Dahlen]

Aren't the Xenotar and Planar for large format somewhat overrated? People think Rolleiflex and Hasselblad and hope for the performance many times doubled on large format, so these lenses sell for high prices. But in the few tests I've seen the Planar and Xenotar were not any better than the common lenses like the Symmar. I have no experience with these lenses, so it's just a thought that popped up when I read this thread.

[Bernice Loui]

There was a time not that many years ago when large aperture LF lenses were not desirable in any way. Those were the days when Kodak 6" f2.5 Aero Ektars sold for about $50 USD. 150mm f2.8 Xenotars were not that much more. Fast forward some years, large aperture lenses on 4x5 became a fashion as did swirly bokeh and more.. The popularity of this appears to have originated in smaller imager formats digital or 35mm film or cinema or video.

Regardless, this is a departure from the Group f64 idealogy of everything in the image "sharp" achieved by applying smaller image taking apertures.

This current fashion of large aperture 4x5 lenses has driven the market value of these lenses WAY up. To extract the best out of large aperture LF lenses places specific accuracy and precision demands on the camera and film flatness in film holder due to the greatly reduced plane of focus.

Never really been a fan of Planar-Gauss designs for LF as their out of focus rendition and transition from in to out of focus is not agreeable. What they do and can offer is large lens apertures with GOOD performance for what they do. Lenses like the Xenotar have become a cult lens today.
Previously discussed:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?138566-Schneider-150mm-f-2-8-Xenotar


Bernice

[abruzzi]

I think Bernice is correct--the pricing on these lenses is less about its "planar" design, and more about a current trend on as shallow depth of field as possible. A few years ago, I saw a comment on a DSLR forum from someone to the effect that they didn't care that the aberration cleared up when stopped down to f2 because they "only shoot their lenses wide open." Nothing against that particular viewpoint, its simply the opposite of the f64 mindset of "everything in focus", but its not really my aesthetic. That has driven up the price of fast lenses--ƒ1.2 in 35mm land (or ƒ.95 for rangefinders), ƒ2.4 or ƒ1.9 in medium format, and ƒ2.8 on LF.

[Bernice Loui]

Using lenses at full aperture has been done for a VERY long time, going back to Petzval portrait view camera lenses circa abut 1840_?_
Since then, lens image personality at full aperture became a "thing" for photographic image making. The cinema folks applied this lots, as did the video and still Photography folks. Notable was how Stanley Kubrick used the Zeiss/NASA f0.7 Planar in the production of Barry Lyndon. IMO, Group f64 altered this direction for view camera images preaching the ideology of "everything sharp" in the print image.

With folks transitioning from smaller imaging formats digital or film into the world of view camera, their image making styles would like to be applied to sheet film view camera. This could be why the current market desirability for large aperture view camera lenses. Ideally, two sets of lenses for a given focal length can be applied to achieve this. The full to near full aperture lens set of Tessar, Heilar and similar related lens formula or Gauss-Planar lens formula offers good full aperture to about f16 working lens aperture. Taking aperture of f16 and smaller favors lenses like Dagor, APO process lenses, and similar with the modern Plasmat being biased to f22 and smaller.

Given a GOOD view camera offers camera movement, allows MUCH greater control over where the actual plane or area of focus happens. This grants more creative control over areas of focus a fixed lens to box camera cannot achieve.

The other possible solution to achieving thin plane or area of focus is to go up in sheet film size. Most popular being 8x10. Using a f4.5 full aperture / much longer than normal lens easily achieves that thin area of focus look.. Except long focal length lenses with large apertures (f4.5_ish) have become another high market demand item due to this and the alternative process contact print centric print making folks.


Bernice




I think Bernice is correct--the pricing on these lenses is less about its "planar" design, and more about a current trend on as shallow depth of field as possible. A few years ago, I saw a comment on a DSLR forum from someone to the effect that they didn't care that the aberration cleared up when stopped down to f2 because they "only shoot their lenses wide open." Nothing against that particular viewpoint, its simply the opposite of the f64 mindset of "everything in focus", but its not really my aesthetic. That has driven up the price of fast lenses--ƒ1.2 in 35mm land (or ƒ.95 for rangefinders), ƒ2.4 or ƒ1.9 in medium format, and ƒ2.8 on LF.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Aren't the Xenotar and Planar for large format somewhat overrated...

It depends. If you are stopping down then yes, totally overrated and the wrong tool. If you need fast there are limited options, and Xenotar/Planar design lenses are the sharpest and least flare-prone readily available, which isn't saying all that much. If you want shallow depth of field, aberrations, and vignette there are also better options, as Bernice suggests.

[J. Patric Dahlen]

Ah, yes, I forgot about the "wide open trend" with shallow depth of field and, sometimes, interesting aberrations. I'm so used to stopping down at least a little even if I want a shallow depth of field to tame the worst aberrations somewhat.

[Bernice Loui]

One other important consideration if making images at large lens apertures are a requirement, accuracy and precision of the camera's ground glass to film in film holder distance must be held to a high degree of accuracy and repeatable precision due to the small area where the lens is focused. Tiny changes or shifts between the ground glass image to film in film holder will produce focusing errors.

Goes back to camera choice needs to be driven by lenses needed to achieve a print image goal.


Bernice

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/5533/30492458690_146819ae2c_b.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

I bought one of the $250 Ballistic test lenses on Ebay ten years ago. This was wide open handheld with a 6x9cm Makina back on 4x5 Plaubel Makiflex Standard. I only use this lens wide open; otherwise what is the point? There are certainly better performers but not all of them can be handheld. The Xenotar was offered with auto aperture for the Makiflex by Plaubel back in the sixties. If you get a good one it is certainly distinctive.

I kind of like this one. FP4+ at 1/250 Microdol-X straight replenished

[lassethomas]

I got one by chance last year on a Swedish auction site. Coating a bit damaged but not as bad as OP's copy. So I decided to keep.
Haven't seen it affect images so far.

And yes it's a mixed bag. Bokeh is definitely nervous and not buttery smooth.
And it's hard to get good #2 shutters with working short exposures that's needed, cause you want to shoot wide open. Otherwise you can get a much cheaper, smaller and better lens.
Very sharp even wide open if you actually nail the focus plane.

A one trick pony, yes, but with a very special trick. A 35mm equivalent lens would be a 42mm f/0.8

To be honest I rarely use mine, thought I would do a series of portraits but so far haven't got there

[Corran]

Handheld, Linhof IV + 150mm Xenotar, RF focused:

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-j7tS62Lwb14/UlhBC8QyuOI/AAAAAAAAD-Y/n800Nb-NLAQ/s700/awa-1692.jpg

My fast LF lenses are a fun tool that I would not part with, as I would likely not be able to buy them later. An investment, if you will, in both future image making capability and monetarily, as the prices keep going up...

PS: Aero Ektar has gotten more use in recent years due to both faster shutter speeds available on the Speed and less need for RF focusing of late (static subjects, tripod).

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50505677496_729b12d3ab_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2jX1Nk3)Auto Maki no 2 150 2.8 Xenotar HRU 5 (https://flic.kr/p/2jX1Nk3) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr



https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50504910778_d522aef27d_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2jWWSpL)Auto Maki no 2 180 2.8 Xenotar HRU 3 (https://flic.kr/p/2jWWSpL) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50502606137_269beef773_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2jWK4jz)Auto Maki no 2 150 2.8 Xenotar HRU 1 (https://flic.kr/p/2jWK4jz) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

This is as close as Maki would focus this day. Elephant ears were about a foot long each

Automatic Makiflex #2 150mm F2.8 Xenotar wide-open 1/15 Fuji 8x10 XRay HRU cut down to 4x5 in Graphmatic back StarD tripod. Development 12 minutes 60F straight Mic-X replenished by inspection of shadow values by deep red safelight. 8x10 Arista #2 RC Omega DII 180 Rodagon f22 50 seconds Omegalite diffusion head Multigrade developer

Full film gate images 9x9cm on 4x5 film

This was a blast/hoot to do. :)

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/5629/30678290532_2198106ff4_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/NJWfXE)150 Xenotar Auto Makiflex Foma (https://flic.kr/p/NJWfXE) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Auto Makiflex 150 Xenotar Foma 200 6x9cm rollfilm tripod Microdol-x straight replenished. 8x10 #2 Arista RC Multigrade dev Omegalite DII 180 black Rodagon

I used two ND filters stacked together to shoot wide open in the sunlight

[Bernice Loui]

Small imager format images at full lens aperture examples:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?43423-safe-haven-for-tiny-formats&p=1628439&viewfull=1#post1628439

The image results are different than 4x5 with close to "normal" focal length f2.8 lens, much depends on lighting, how the specific lens is used and subject and image composition and ...


Bernice

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51832651239_79ecd6aa45_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2mYgToF)Xenotar Literature (https://flic.kr/p/2mYgToF) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51847888046_1939ae8790_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2mZBYLf)SONY DSC (https://flic.kr/p/2mZBYLf) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

A new addition for this rare lens, the Schneider original lenshood for the 150mm F2.8 Xenotar. This one has an automatic iris which couples with the Plaubel Auto Makiflex camera. This hood was expensive but I am glad I grabbed it, I have never seen one before! I think it really completes the lens. :)

[Daniel Unkefer]

it's hard to get good #2 shutters with working short exposures that's needed, cause you want to shoot wide open. Otherwise you can get a much cheaper, smaller and better lens.

My Xenotar Trick:

I bought two 4X Neutral Density Filters of the appropriate size, which I stack together. On my Standard Makiflexes the top speed on the camera is 1/125, but the two stacked ND filters get me where I need to be in direct sunlight. Works for me :)