Xenar 150mm 3,5? Why is it similar to my modern Rodenstock 150mm 5.6?

[joshdaskew]

Hi, I am basically trying to achieve a look on the 5 x 4 format that is similar to shooting wide open on the 8 x 10 format ( 300mm @ 5.6 ). After a bit of number crunching, I figured I would need to shoot at 2.8 on a 150mm lens on the 5 x 4 format. As far as I could tell, the Schneider Xenotar 150mm 2.8 seemed the only real candidate. I know there are other faster lenses but this was the latest I could find and I am not really after a 'vintage' look.I recently bought a Schneider Xenar 150mm 3.5 as I could not afford the Xenotar and I thought that this would give me an indicator as to whether what I was searching for could be achieved.. This is quite an old lens ( I believe 1930's or so ) and was sold to me as a coated version and also 3.5.. Now on the front part of the lens it does say Schneider Xenar 150 3,5 but on the aperture part of the lens it is only labelled as 4.5. I recently had this mounted on a Linhof board to fit my Chamonix and was disappointed to see that there was really hardly any difference in drop of focus between my modern Rodenstock 150mm Sironar N @ 5.6 and this ( supposed ) 3.5. The only real difference was that the Xenar was obviously much less sharp. Oh, and it seems that it is a longer lens than a 150mm. I don't know what it would aquate to but on the rough tests that I did, I had to move a significant amount forward to get the subject in the same part of the frame and by doing that I had left out other parts of the scene... Any thoughts? The other lenses I have looked at are the Zeiss Planar 135mm 3.5 and the Xenotar 135mm 3.5. Not quite 2.8 but close.. Any idea how old all three lenses are? Are they all single coated? Ok, thanks so much. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated Kind Regards Josh

Attached is the type of look I am after... Full Body portrait with a serious drop of depth in the background... Thanks again

[Steve Hamley]

My guess is the aperture scale is off because it isn't the original shutter. Test the focal length by your 150mm Sironar-N on the camera, focus at infinity, and make a (removable) witness mark on the rail. Now mount the mystery lens, focus on infinity, and measure the difference.

There's also the Zeiss Tessars at f 2.7 or so, like the 165mm f:2.7. Lens and Repro has one just like mine except in barrel. I found of all things, it was a direct fit into a Compound #4.

None of these are likely to be coated except maybe the Xenotar. The glass can oxidize and look sort of like coating, which is what you see on my Tessar. There's also a 210mm f:3.5 Xenar that might work for you.

Oh yes, the shutter below isn't original equipment, it's from a WWII era f:5.5 Xenar, but the Tessar is wide open at f:2.7.

Cheers, Steve

[Frank Petronio]

That example shot looks a lot wider than a 150mm lens on 4x5. In fact it looks Photoshopped blur-wise, I haven't seen that kind of dramatic fall-off -- sharp at 20 feet but totally blurry at infinity -- occur naturally and I shoot wide open quite a bit.

To me, the best way to get the steep fall-off from sharp focus is to be closer to your subject, like 6 to 10 feet, usually with a little longer lens. Then the background will be pleasantly wacked.

To me, the modern 5.6 lenses look nice when shot wide open.

[joshdaskew]

Thanks Steve and Frank, much appreciated! Steve, will definitely take your advice on testing the focal length.... Should a 150mm from that period be the equivalent field of view to a current 150mm? Also, if the aperture scale is off due to not being the original, that still means that wide open should be 3.5, not 4.5, right? Its just the shutter is giving false information... If that is the case, then why isnt there much that difference between my current 150mm 5.6 and this 150mm 3.5 in terms of drop of focus? Does this change over time or should it be somewhat standardised over time? The lens looks very similar to your example ( have attached some examples ). I will attach some examples of some test shots taken when I get a chance... Do you have any examples of your lens wide open? How old is it?

Frank, that example that I gave was shot on a 300mm on a 8 x 10 camera, hence the severe drop off in the background.. This should be roughly equivalent to a 150mm standard lens @ 2.8 on the 5 x 4 format... I realise that you can get a steeper drop of focus if you are closer to the camera but to me, this is the look I really like, full body with a dramatic decrease in focus... This is the reason that I have looking into lenses that are faster than modern day 5.6 lenses...

Ok, any thoughts you have will be once again very gratefully received.. Kind Regards Josh

[Ole Tjugen]

The field of view should be the same with two 150mm lenses, but the extension at infinity focus can be very different. Tessars are unsymmetrical, and in the case of the fast f:3.5 ones very much so. My ancient 150mm f:3.5 Xenar Typ D requires about the same extesion at infinity as a symmetrical 120mm lens does - but that one is a reverse Tessar, so "normal" ones may well require much more extension.

[Daniel_Buck]

Tessar is wide open at f:2.7

interesting sounding lens, do you have any scanned photos taken with it wide open? :)

[thafred]

Daniel,
I have a few scanned pictures with said Tessar on my Flickr. Used on a 4x5 Speed with Rangefinder handheld: http://www.flickr.com/photos/57493810@N00/tags/carlzeissjenatessar165mmf27/

It´s quite soft wide open but usable IMHO, a heavy beast to schlepp around thou..

[thafred]

double post...sorry

[Dan Fromm]

Folks, the lens whose picture Josh posted is post-WWII, probably 1951, and is marked with a red triangle, which means Schneider thought they coated it.

There's a quaint theory to the effect that flange-to-film distance = focal length. This isn't always the case, and the discrepancy varies with lens design. Josh, if you don't have a nodal slide, you can always compare y'r f/3.5 Xenar's and f/5.6 Sironar N's focal length by shooting not-too-near subject with both lenses and comparing the sizes of the on-film images.

In the shot in the original post the subject (young lady) is considerably in front of the background (the buildings on each side of her). That they're out of focus shows narrow depth of field, that's all.

Josh, 135/3.5 Xenotars and Planars are all post-WWII and all are coated. Ages? That depends on when the lens was made, both were made over a considerable span.

[Sevo]

Should a 150mm from that period be the equivalent field of view to a current 150mm? Also, if the aperture scale is off due to not being the original, that still means that wide open should be 3.5, not 4.5, right? Its just the shutter is giving false information... If that is the case, then why isnt there much that difference between my current 150mm 5.6 and this 150mm 3.5 in terms of drop of focus?

Period or not is somewhat irrelevant - in any case your Xenar is the post war, coated version. Excellent lens btw., if it is similar to my 3.5/240 Xenar (which is very likely).

And the field of view should be the same - neither Schneider nor Rodenstock erred much in their specifications. If there is a considerable difference between them, you should investigate whether the shutter depth is correct - a wrong distance between the front and rear halves will alter the focal length and anything that comes with it!

Sevo

[Steve Hamley]

Daniel,

here's an informal portrait of my dad. Thafred's comments are right on, soft wide open, heavy for it's size, and coverage isn't great as expected. However, this is a wide open lens. There's as not much reason to shoot it at f:8 or f:11 versus other Tessars.

Cheers, Steve

[joshdaskew]

Thanks to everyone for the responses, much appreciated! Am going to get up in the morning and take a shot each with the two lenses. Will place a central object in the middle of the groundglass and try have this basically in the same position for both shots ie same height, roughly same angle etc etc.. Then I will go with what Steve and Dan said and try and get an idea of what the focal length is.. The fact that it is a different focal length doesn't really bother me, its the fact that I thought it would have a narrower depth of field than it does.. Dan, what is a nodal slide? Also, with your reference to my reference picture, isn't that the point, that it is shot with an extremely narrow depth of field? In this case, on an 8 x 10 camera, 300mm lens @ 5.6? Not so much to do with what focal length the lens is? Ok, hopefully will have some reference pictures for you guys tomorrow. Thanks again to everyone who contributed. Kind Regards Josh

[J. Patric Dahlen]

The shutter is much older than the lens, and it isn't sure it allows larger openings than 4,5 (or maybe around 5,6 since the aperture scale isn't calculated for this lens).

[joshdaskew]

Have attached another example, just in case I wasn't clear before... This image has a pretty severe drop of depth to it. For a full body portrait ( well he is sitting but you get the point ) from his face being in focus and then the items at the back of the truck being completely out of focus... So I think for both examples it is just using an aperture that provides this extremely shallow depth of field, for whatever the relevant format.. Thanks again Josh

[joshdaskew]

Hi J. Patric Dahlen, This is what a rough test seems to confirm but will take a few test shots and post them.. Look forward to hearing your thoughts. Regards Josh

[BennehBoy]

Josh, bit of a tangent, but who are the photos by that you are posting?

[joshdaskew]

Ben, Checked out your site, awesome photos there! The urban motion series is awesome! What did you shoot these on? Digital and then cropped in for some? So, the photos are by a photographer named Richard Renaldi. He shoots 810 and his prints are truly amazing.. I saw on your flickr site that you have a 810 portrait on there.. Very cool... What lens did you use? Did you shoot wide open (5.6). A little bit out of my league I am afraid, hence trying to find a cheaper option around it... As you can see by this post, not having the most success...

[BennehBoy]

Ah yeah I know Richard Renaldi's work, I just haven't seen the 2 images you posted until now.

I don't really take notes when shooting (I need to change that), but I think the 8x10 portrait on my flickr was shot at f/8, I shot it with a Schneider 300/5.6 Symmar.

It's bleeding expensive to shoot, but there's nothing like that big GG.

The parkour photography is a mix of Rollei 6008i (portraits), And Canon 5D/1DMKII. You can see some more here if you're interested -> http://flickr.com/gp/bennehboy/gu0QW9

[Frank Petronio]

Here are two from a few years ago when I used 8x10 with a 1970-80s 300/5.6 Xenar.

Damn that example photos feels a lot wider to me.

Just because the lens is marked 150mm doesn't mean it isn't 152.87mm or 147.89mm you know....

[Steve Hamley]

A little bit out of my league I am afraid, hence trying to find a cheaper option around it... As you can see by this post, not having the most success...

Josh,

I've explored the same option, and I'm not sure that you can easily replicate the 8x10 look on 4x5. Theoretically you should be able to, but in practice it doesn't seem to be as simple. Also, lenses fast enough to do this on 4x5 will not be cheap as they're rare. I lucked into my Zeiss Tessar, but the Lens and Repro lens is $750.

So why not get a good Kodak 2D for $250-300, and a lens for $50 or so? You can shoot Arista EDU and other films to help control the costs. This route would be cheaper than a Xenotar or the Tessar at L&R.

Cheers, Steve

[Sevo]

The fact that it is a different focal length doesn't really bother me

But it should, unless we are talking about less than five mm either way. If the focal length is off considerably beyond usual tolerances, it has been misassembled in repair or when mounting in the shutter, and will be quite a way off its best optical performance.

Sevo

[Steve Hamley]

A related question - given we haven't seen the back of the lens - is "How sure are you the rear lens cell is the one that goes with the front?" If it's from a 210mm Xenar that would complicate things.

Cheers,

Steve

[Dan Fromm]

But it should, unless we are talking about less than five mm either way. If the focal length is off considerably beyond usual tolerances, it has been misassembled in repair or when mounting in the shutter, and will be quite a way off its best optical performance.

SevoSevo, the 105/3.7 Ektar's flange-to-film distance at infinity is, IIRC, more than 5 mm shorter than the 101/4.5 Ektar's. Lrns design makes a difference, some times a large one. 6/4 double Gauss types (don't know about 5/4s) are usually somewhat telephoto.

Cheers,

Dan

[Sevo]

Yes, but even on telephotos the engraved focal length will usually be matched to 1-2% accuracy. A bit worse if we are talking about pre-war lenses or Congo teles, but still not off to a degree where the lens would be noticeably wide compared to another of same nominal length.

Sevo

[Dan Fromm]

Sevo, the issue isn't the relationship between the lens' actual focal length and the focal length engraved on it. It is the relationship between flange-to-film distance at infinity and focal length. This can vary greatly because of differences in lens design.

[Jim Noel]

"None of these are likely to be coated except maybe the Xenotar. The glass can oxidize and look sort of like coating, which is what you see on my Tessar."
According to the histories of coating I have read, this oxidation was in fact the first "coating". Photographers recognized that lenses with the oxidation passed more light with fewer reflections and thus began to investigate methods to "oxidize" the lens artificially.

[Jim Galli]

One option that may make sense (I don't have one but...) is the Kodak Aero Ektar 178mm f2.5 on the Speed Graphic (http://www.skgrimes.com/thisweek/1-07-07/index.htm) platform with the focal plane shutter. Sort of like stuffing a 427 into a Ford Falcon but there seems to be a whole cult built up around these machines. There should be some examples on the web. But I'm in the camp with Steve. Buy an old Kodak 2D 8X10 and put a Packard shutter inside. Then you can spend the rest of your days doing bizarre bokeh shots.

[joshdaskew]

Hi All, Sorry for the delayed response.. I still havent found a flat measure the two different lenses focused at infinity. The Rodenstock Sironar N 150mm measures roughly 150mm while the Xenar 150mm 3.5 measures about 210. Why is this? How does it work? Is it because the back element is from a different camera? What effect would this have on the overall image? So it sounds like this is the case and it has been put in a different shutter with the most wide open aperture being 4.5, instead of 3.5. Ok, thanks to all for your responses. Josh

[Frank Petronio]

http://www.johndesq.com/graflex/aerousers.htm

The cult

[Sevo]

Hi All, Sorry for the delayed response.. I still havent found a flat measure the two different lenses focused at infinity. The Rodenstock Sironar N 150mm measures roughly 150mm while the Xenar 150mm 3.5 measures about 210. Why is this? How does it work? Is it because the back element is from a different camera? What effect would this have on the overall image?


Before we continue: You stated that one lens is "wider" than the other. Is that really so - that is, does it deliver a picture with different angular coverage? Or are you merely concerned about build length differences?

Tessar types (like the Xenar) have their nodal point towards the rear, at about 1/4 of their overall dimensions from the rear. A fast Tessar type like yours might be 80mm long, and protude by 60mm, so that 210mm front lens to film plane at infinity seems plausible. Asymmetric Plasmat types like the Sironar-N are not infinitely flat either - indeed, they are slightly deeper than a Tessar of similar specs, but their nodal plane usually is somewhat in front. The overall length from film plane to front element on my Sironar-N is about the focal length plus two fifths of the physical length of the lens itself. That should amount to about 170mm on the 150mm Sironar-N, if that scales proportionally to a 240mm - but 150mm would be too short.

In any case, it is almost irrelevant how deep the lens is physically, either way - that will only be worth considering if the lens has to clear a mirror or fit inside a folding case.

But if one of your lenses seems to have its rear nodal plane somewhere outside the barrel, or if your two 150mm lenses actually have noticeably different focal lengths (as seen by the angular coverage on image), you should investigate further, as one of them will be flawed - neither are tele- or retrofocal by design, and their focal length should match to a percent or two.

Sevo

[joshdaskew]

Thanks for your responses! Am getting both pieces of film scanned so I can post them here.. In the meantime, I contacted the original seller and he is going to take the lens back and I am going to buy a Xenotar 135mm 3.5 and pay him the difference. Hopefully that should give more of the drop of focus I am looking for.. Anyone had any experience with this lens? How does it compare to the Xenotar 150mm 2.8 and the Zeiss Planar 135mm 3.5? Mainly in sharpness terms? Thanks again.

Best Regards Josh

[joshdaskew]

Hi All, SO here is the film that I just had scanned. One is taken with a Rodenstock 150 Sironar N and the other is the 150mm Xenar 3.5. Both shot wide open, the Rodenstock at 5.6 and the Xenar at 3.5 ( or 4.5 ) This is somewhat of a rough test but you should get the general idea. Basically, I had the leaves on the bottom of the frame and the part of the tree where the branches first appear to branch out on the top part of the frame, appear basically in the same part of the groundglass ( 2 horizontal lines up and 2 horizontal lines down ) I did put focus on the bottom container of the tree but for some reason on the Rodenstock image, focus has appeared slightly before that, where the leaves are.. ANyway, as I said, not exact but you should get the point.. So, as you can see from the side by side comparison, the Xenar looks like its focal length is longer than the 150mm Rodenstock and it does seem to have a drop of focus that I thought a 3.5 lens would warrant. Obviously there is some pretty extreme fall off of focus at the front part of the image with the Xenar ( this I put down to being an old style lens ) but the drop of focus BEHIND is not so great ie if you have a close look at the back wheel of the closest blue car, it is more out of focus with the Rodenstock.... Same goes with the white car in the back! Once again, I realise that my initial focus is slightly off and therefore altering test procedures a little bit but still.... Very confusing! Would welcome all thoughts and opinions and thanks again to all who have already contributed.. Best Regards Josh

[joshdaskew]

Just to follow on...

Here are two more that show the drop of focus in the background.. Thanks Josh

[joshdaskew]

Ok, just to sum it all up..

1. Rodenstock 150mm @ 5.6
2.Xenar 150mm @ 3.5 ( or 4.5 )
3. C/U with Rodenstock
4. C/U with Xenar
5. C/U of background with Rodenstock
6. C/U of background with Xenar

So it seems that the Xenar is sharper ( Ok, not sharper but doesnt have as severe drop of focus ) but overall the image has a softness to it.. Look forward to hearing your thoughts..Ok, thanks again.. Josh

[Sevo]

Ok, there positively is something wrong with one of them - the focal lengths should not differ as large as that for sure. It is hard to tell what is actually wrong, though - my gut feeling is that the Xenar is too long, as it also seems to have more curvature than it should have. Probably the cells are spaced too short, a element is reversed, or you have a wrong rear to it.

But I am not entirely satisfied with the Rodenstock either - the edge falloff seems to be exaggerated, compared to my (relabelled Rodenstock) 210mm Sinaron on 5x7. But that might be due to wrong contrast settings in the scan, and shorter focal lengths may be worse offenders in the falloff-when-fully-open domain - these Plasmat types are designed to be used at above f/8 in any case, the first stop positively is a focusing setting only.

As to your speculations on front/back focus drop - you can only seriously compare them once the lenses are flawless, so you'd better get all problems sorted out before you embark on that. One thing however is sure, a 135mm/3.5 won't help - the Tessar and Planar types that exist in that length and opening only cover quarter plate to 9x12cm, but not 4x5", and besides, their DOF is about equivalent to that of a 150mm/4.5, so no improvement for what you seem to be into.

If you really want a narrow DOF, you'll eventually have to bite the bullet and get a 150/2.8 Xenotar (or Pentac or Aero Ektar, if you are prepared to wrestle with aerial lenses that aren't really intended for mounting on regular cameras and are of very mixed production quality and condition), or settle for a somewhat longer 3.5/180 or up Tessar type.

Sevo

[joshdaskew]

Hi Sevo, Thanks for your response! Have just traded that lens in for a 135mm Xenotar. From my initial tests this seems to be much better! Although, now I am having the problem of having a misaligned groundglass with my camera! I have focused on a stationery object with this lens and a Rodenstock 135mm Sironar and with both the focus point is before the focus point.. Not ideal for portraits! Hmmmm, the list goes on... Thanks so much for your response! Best regards Josh