John Hicks
14-Aug-2000, 01:14
Ran the first test (on TMX) of my new old 105 f3.5 Xenar today....
The lens is a coated Schneider Linhof 105 f3.5 Xenar of 1959 vintage in a Linh of Compur #0 shutter, tested on a Galvin camera with Horseman 6x7 rollback. Test subject is a chain-link fence and vines etc about 75 feet away
The first "decent" aperture is f8, with the center crisp while the sides 3/4 o ut are still a little soft. There's some improvement at f11, but the first "real ly good" aperture is f16; the center is sharp and contrasty while the sides show just slightly less contrast. At f22, sharpness declines slightly while otoh con trast at the sides increases slightly.
It's sort of a tossup whether f16 or f22 is better overall, but this is viewin g the negs at 30X; at 5.5X they're indistinguishable.
At f32 overall softness sets in; it's not terrible, but probably won't be an a perture to use unless DOF demands it.
This lens shows higher contrast overall in comparison to the previously-mentio ned 105 Xenotar and 90 Angulon at equal apertures plus it's somewhat sharper tha n the Angulon.
In a couple of shots using rear tilt for "toes to fence" sharpness, f16 and f2 2 look very good, with lots of crisply-rendered blades of grass and weeds.
Bokeh deserves a mention; the Xenar renders out-of-focus areas as just plain s oft in comparison with the Xenotar, which smears off-axis out-of-focus areas in a particularly ugly manner.
The lens is a coated Schneider Linhof 105 f3.5 Xenar of 1959 vintage in a Linh of Compur #0 shutter, tested on a Galvin camera with Horseman 6x7 rollback. Test subject is a chain-link fence and vines etc about 75 feet away
The first "decent" aperture is f8, with the center crisp while the sides 3/4 o ut are still a little soft. There's some improvement at f11, but the first "real ly good" aperture is f16; the center is sharp and contrasty while the sides show just slightly less contrast. At f22, sharpness declines slightly while otoh con trast at the sides increases slightly.
It's sort of a tossup whether f16 or f22 is better overall, but this is viewin g the negs at 30X; at 5.5X they're indistinguishable.
At f32 overall softness sets in; it's not terrible, but probably won't be an a perture to use unless DOF demands it.
This lens shows higher contrast overall in comparison to the previously-mentio ned 105 Xenotar and 90 Angulon at equal apertures plus it's somewhat sharper tha n the Angulon.
In a couple of shots using rear tilt for "toes to fence" sharpness, f16 and f2 2 look very good, with lots of crisply-rendered blades of grass and weeds.
Bokeh deserves a mention; the Xenar renders out-of-focus areas as just plain s oft in comparison with the Xenotar, which smears off-axis out-of-focus areas in a particularly ugly manner.