PDA

View Full Version : That New Schneider 350mm Apo-Tele-Xenar Compact



Richard K.
28-Apr-2009, 16:00
is definitely now available. I got mine this morning. :D It's totally cute, very compact (#1 shutter, 400 grams) and the image looks very good on the GG...still have to test it with film.

Schneider states: "View cameras with short bellows extensions of up to approximately 320 mm can use an accessory lens tube, which shortens the distance between the lens and the camera by approximately 44 mm without mechanical vignetting."

Um, don't they mean that the distance from the front standard to the rear standard (or bellows extension!) is shortened?

The rear of the lens has an ~ #3 thread on the outside of the barrel to which is attached a spacer, so if one needed the extra room, one could attach the lens and extender to a #3 board.

Very nice offering from Schneider. This will be a perfect light-weight lens for WP cameras, certainly a LOT smaller than the usual 360mm Plasmats (albeit with a maximum aperture of f/11).

Allen in Montreal
28-Apr-2009, 16:37
:( Pictures pictures! we want pictures! :)


is definitely now available. I got mine this morning.......
.

Gene McCluney
28-Apr-2009, 17:56
:( Pictures pictures! we want pictures! :)

And don't be stingy and just shoot it on 4x5. It is supposed to have big coverage. Shoot it on 5x7 or 8x10 and post samples.

My older Schneider Tele-Xenar telephoto gets real soft around the edges of 5x7, even though it is "supposed" to cover.

Michael Alpert
1-May-2009, 08:58
Just a note to follow-up on what Richard K. posted. Although the maximum aperture on the shutter scale is f 11, the lens actually opens about a third to a half of an f-stop more. On my 5x7 camera, the ground-glass image is bright and extremely sharp. This multi-coated lens is a substantial improvement over lenses previously available at (or around) this focal length. And it's a very useful focal length for 5x7, as well as for other formats. With its small size. low weight, and more than adequate (350mm) image circle, it is certainly a candidate for K.T's "Future Classics" list. Who would have thought that a new, significantly better large-format lens would come along in 2009 !

Eric Leppanen
1-May-2009, 09:41
Richard and Michael,

Have you guys validated the image circle spec yet, i.e., does the image stay sharp right up to the IC edge (or beyond)? Does the lens abruptly vignette beyond the IC edge, or does it gradually start to get dark and/or soft? How large would you say the circle of illumination is?

A 350mm IC is a bit tight for me for 8x10, but if the IC spec turns out to be conservative then this lens might be a candidate for me.

Any feedback you guys can provide would be appreciated!

Michael Alpert
1-May-2009, 10:35
Eric,

I have not validated the size and attributes of the image circle. Since I use a 5x7 camera, I doubt if the image circle will be a significantly limiting factor for me. During the next few days, I'll see what the edge of the image circle looks like, but I don't think I can answer your question satisfactorily without using the lens on an 8x10 camera. I assume that the 350mm figure refers to the lens at f22, but I do not know how much the useful image circle is enlarged as one stops the lens down. Sorry that I cannot be more helpful to you.

Steve Hamley
1-May-2009, 11:54
I'm sort of with Eric on this one, if you believe Schneider, there would be better 8x10 choices unless perhaps you're "packing". Like a 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar, a 360mm Caltar II-N (Bought one near mint for less than the price of the new shutter), and so on.

A more specific question I have, is like Kerry, I had a 360mm process lens (a 360mm f:9 Kowa Graphic) custom mounted in a Compur #2. This lens is fine for what I intended, a smaller-than-8x10 packing lens. It's a f:9 versus f:11, and uses standard 58mm filters.

So why would I trade this lens in on the new Schneider? I'm sure the Schneider is contrastier, perhaps sharper off-center (or not being a telephoto design), and most important to me, be more flare resistant due to design and internal baffling. It would be more usable on my Ebony RW45 because of the reduced draw. But I'm not under any impression that in most cases it would make any difference in image quality.

Ideas? Comments?

Cheers, Steve

Diane Maher
1-May-2009, 12:06
That lens just might work out better than my 355 G-Claron on my 4x5 Toyo AII. And by work out better, I mean that I wouldn't be stressing the bellows by stretching them virtually all the way out. I know we're only talking 5 mm here.

Richard K.
1-May-2009, 12:13
Richard and Michael,

Have you guys validated the image circle spec yet, i.e., does the image stay sharp right up to the IC edge (or beyond)? Does the lens abruptly vignette beyond the IC edge, or does it gradually start to get dark and/or soft? How large would you say the circle of illumination is?

Hi Eric;

Unfortunately, I don't have an 8x10 camera, but I'm expecting a 7x11 some time in June. I did take a few shots on my WP for testing, one with 2" rise and the negs are sharp corner to corner, with no apparent fall -off. If I have time (but I'm away this weekend) I'll try to take a shot with maximum rise and shift and see what happens to the corner!

_Richard

Steve Hamley
1-May-2009, 12:25
That lens just might work out better than my 355 G-Claron on my 4x5 Toyo AII. And by work out better, I mean that I wouldn't be stressing the bellows by stretching them virtually all the way out. I know we're only talking 5 mm here.

Diane,

Actually 31mm, 75mm with the "barrel" according to Schneider. It's a telephoto design so the draw is shorter. That's one appeal for me too.

Cheers, Steve

Richard K.
1-May-2009, 12:45
Diane,

Actually 31mm, 75mm with the "barrel" according to Schneider. It's a telephoto design so the draw is shorter. That's one appeal for me too.

Cheers, Steve

Hi Steve;

It's not actually a tele-photo design; I don't know why they called it that! It' s a symmetric 4 element design (like Artar) and bellows extension is the normal lens focal length. HOWEVER, with the optional extension tube, Diana, your bellows extension will be less by 4.4 cm and you will have a 4.4 cm tube protruding in front of the front standard. Schneider claims no mechanical vignetting, so all is groovy!:)

-Richard

Richard K.
1-May-2009, 12:47
That lens just might work out better than my 355 G-Claron on my 4x5 Toyo AII. And by work out better, I mean that I wouldn't be stressing the bellows by stretching them virtually all the way out. I know we're only talking 5 mm here.

With the optional extension tube, we're taling about 4.4 CM less stretch! :)

Michael Alpert
1-May-2009, 13:09
I'm sort of with Eric on this one, if you believe Schneider, there would be better 8x10 choices unless perhaps you're "packing". Like a 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar, a 360mm Caltar II-N (Bought one near mint for less than the price of the new shutter), and so on.

A more specific question I have, is like Kerry, I had a 360mm process lens (a 360mm f:9 Kowa Graphic) custom mounted in a Compur #2. This lens is fine for what I intended, a smaller-than-8x10 packing lens. It's a f:9 versus f:11, and uses standard 58mm filters.

So why would I trade this lens in on the new Schneider? I'm sure the Schneider is contrastier, perhaps sharper off-center (or not being a telephoto design), and most important to me, be more flare resistant due to design and internal baffling. It would be more usable on my Ebony RW45 because of the reduced draw. But I'm not under any impression that in most cases it would make any difference in image quality.

Ideas? Comments?

Cheers, Steve

You asked for comments: If you are happy with your Kowa Graphic, okay. But the qualities you list in your third paragraph, especially flare resistance, can be important and do make a significant difference in image quality. I have little doubt that the new lens is sharp off center at normal shooting apertures (I'll find out over the next month). But again I am writing from the perspective of a 5x7 photographer.

Drew Wiley
1-May-2009, 16:22
What seems to be missing here is the performance of the lens at significant tilts or
swings typical of landscape applications, where the light rays are entering off axis.
I'd suspect the coverage of this lens is a bit tight for 8x10 or 7x17, especially compared to a plasmat like a g-claron or fujinon a, or one of the conventional heavy
clunker plasmats.

Richard K.
2-May-2009, 08:40
This lens seems to be a good choice for a bellows limited 4x5 (eg. Wista); with the extender, you can use 44 mm less bellows draw. As I mentioned, I havent' yet been able to check for extreme movements on my WP and yes, the 350 mmm IC may be a limitation for some 8x10 users (probably not for landscape though). But if you use 4x5, 5x7, or WP, this is a fantastic, very small. light and SHARP lens. I'm happy to see that no one has told Schneider about film's imminent demise and about the digital steam roller. Now if only they (Schneider) would produce a 300 - 360 mm lens with say 600mm IC (enough to cover 12 X 20), then I could die happy :eek: ...er...after I play with it for a (long) while that is!

Don Hutton
15-May-2009, 18:55
I just received one of these today and had a quick look at the GG on an 8x10 focused at infinity. The stated image circle of 350mm at f22 looks about right -the front filter ring causes some mechanical vignetting at the 350mm mark - however, at f32, you probably get an extra inch of front rise and obviously even more the further you stop down, if that's your thing... The GG in the corners with 2 inches of front rise at f32 with a 6X loupe looked excellent. I'll shoot some test shots to get an idea of corner performance at the extremities of the image circle this weekend, but I think it looks very hopeful as a light 8x10 lens - if it has a usable 375mm image circle at f32 and is excellent into the corners, there's no competition for what it is - very small and very light. On smaller formats, it looks awesome too - I think it needs about 320mm of bellows to focus at infinty which would make it a fabulous lens for a lot of short bellows 4x5 field cameras which often have around 360mm (like the Chamonix or Ebony 45SU)...

eric t
17-May-2009, 00:38
Thanks Don,

what do you think of its performance wide open or at f16 ?

Robert A. Zeichner
17-May-2009, 02:53
There is something I'm not understanding here. If this lens is called an Apo-Tele-Xenar, yet advertised as a 4-element fully symmetrical design, what exactly is so Tele about it? A fully symmetrical lens would have its primary nodal point somewhere near the diaphragm of the shutter and an FFD pretty close to the FL of the lens. A tele design is not symmetrical and has an FFD somewhere in the range of 60% of its FL making it possible to use with cameras that have limited bellows draw. Schneider appears to offering a tube that holds the lens further out by 44mm, but that doesn't change the lens design, only its position relative to the front standard. I do the same with my 300mm Nikkor M for use with my Ikeda 4 x 5, but it's still a Tessar design. Any insights here?
http://www.schneideroptics.com/news/110308_Apo-Tele-Xenar.htm

Arne Croell
17-May-2009, 07:16
Robert, that has been discussed in my older thread when Schneider announced it: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=40937&highlight=apo-tele-xenar
From the description it is a symmetric dialyte and certainly not a Tele lens in the optical construction sense of the word. It is not even a Tessar (Xenar) type. Apparently, Schneider used the name to just mean "long lens with a somewhat narrower angle than a regular standard lens like the Apo-Symmar". This is unfortunate and misleading for those of us who associate it with the lens construction, but they are not alone. Not long ago, Zeiss brought out an 85mm f/4 ZM "Tele-Tessar" for the Zeiss Ikon rangefinder (i.e. for the M bayonet mount). If one looks at the lens diagram (http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Tele_Tessar4_85mm_ZM_d/$File/Tele_Tessar4_85ZM_d.pdf), there is no negative power group in the back, it actually looks like an "Oxyn", which was Voigtländers mixed version of the original Heliar and the Dynar and not a tele type whatsoever. I don't know if that makes it a trend to use "tele" just for small angle of view, but it might be.

aduncanson
17-May-2009, 07:51
My insight? Trademarks are fungible.

Arne Croell
17-May-2009, 09:49
My insight? Trademarks are fungible.

Oh yes. And since the companies own them, they can do whatever they want with it. Its just a minor gripe, and I'm actually quite glad Schneider brings us new lenses, whatever they want to call them!

Don Hutton
17-May-2009, 10:00
The 350mm requires exactly 324mm of extension to focus at inifnity, which is significantly shorter than the focal lengh of 350mm - to me that's a tele design (but of course, I'm pretty ignorant of all aspects of optical design). FWIW, I can focus the lens to under 10 feet on my Chamonix 4x5....

Gene McCluney
17-May-2009, 10:05
The 350mm requires exactly 324mm of extension to focus at inifnity, which is significantly shorter than the focal lengh of 350mm - to me that's a tele design (but of course, I'm pretty ignorant of all aspects of optical design). FWIW, I can focus the lens to under 10 feet on my Chamonix 4x5....

Is that with or without the rear spacer?

Don Hutton
17-May-2009, 10:22
That's without - the rear spacer is not available just yet - it will be in a week or two. I'm not going to be buying it...

Brian Ellis
17-May-2009, 10:25
Just curious, no plans to buy the lens, but what's the difference between the "extension tube" and a "top hat" lens board?

Richard K.
17-May-2009, 10:43
The 350mm requires exactly 324mm of extension to focus at inifnity....

Hi Don;

Not to *contradict you or anything, but I just focused on infinity (which is just across the street in my neighbourhood :) ) and I measure the distance from the GG inner surface to the exterior of the lens board (not quite but close enough to the nodal point of the lens) to be about 348mm. One of us must be mis-measuring but I'm pretty sure it's not a tele-photo design; such a design would reduce bellows extension to around 225mm!

*Well not with evil purpose anyway!

Richard K.
17-May-2009, 10:48
Just curious, no plans to buy the lens, but what's the difference between the "extension tube" and a "top hat" lens board?

Other than cost, I suppose you get the maximum calculated extension without mechanical vignetting with the auxiliary extension tube...the top hat may not be optimum.

Kerry L. Thalmann
17-May-2009, 10:49
The 350mm requires exactly 324mm of extension to focus at inifnity, which is significantly shorter than the focal lengh of 350mm - to me that's a tele design (but of course, I'm pretty ignorant of all aspects of optical design). FWIW, I can focus the lens to under 10 feet on my Chamonix 4x5....

Actually, it's pretty common for non-tele designs to have a shorter (or longer for wide angles) ftf than their focal length. A 450mm Fujinon C has an ftf of 425.3mm. The 300mm Fujinon C has an ftf of 282.3mm. This new lens from Schneider shares the same basic design (4/4 Celor-type) as the Fujinon C series.

So, no matter what they call it, it's not a telephoto design. It's basically an updated (multicoated, modern Copal shutter) 14" Red Dot Artar - which is a very good thing. I'll probably get one to use with my Chamonix. It would be a nice, lightweight long lens paired with my 240mm Germinar-W (or a 240mm Fujinon A).

Kerry

Kerry L. Thalmann
17-May-2009, 11:03
My insight? Trademarks are fungible.

And, what we are observing here is the difference between the engineering depart that designs the products and the marketing department that sells them. This is the same dynamic that led to the wide spread proliferation, and re-definition, of the term APO back in the early 1990s. APO was seen as a desirable attribute. So, suddenly every new large format lens on the market bore the APO designation, regardless if they were true APO designs or not. Most likely, the marketing department already had the name selected before this lens was even designed. Ironically, even though this new lens from Schneider isn't a telephoto design, it is most likely a true APO (as it's based on the classic APO Artar design).

The original goal was was, no doubt, a lens in the 360mm range that was small enough and light enough to use with lightweight field cameras. There was probably also an assumption that it would be a telephoto design. The engineers realized that a non-tele would work fine for general landscape use on cameras like the Chamonix or Toho. By dding the extension tube, it could also be used on cameras with shorter bellows (like the Shen-Hao, Wista, Toyo, etc.). In the end, they succeeded in designing a compact, lightweight lens that will work on most lightweight field cameras, and did so without resorting to a telephoto design.

I hope this lens sells well. There has long been a hole in this focal length. Other lenses were either telephoto designs, huge plasmats in Copal No. 3 shutters, or very hard to find and expensive (Fujinon 360mm A). I had long wished that Nikon had made a 360mm in their M series, or Fujinon had one in their C series. Nice to see Schneider step up and fill this void.

Kerry

Don Hutton
17-May-2009, 11:09
Well, I just checked mine again with a Fatmax tape I had lying around and that came to a bit under under 13 inches, so I'm pretty sure I haven't screwed up. The Chamonix 4x5 has 15.5 inches (395mm) of bellows and that enables focus with the lens down to almost exactly 8 feet. I don't believe that there is a "fixed" formula for the reduction of flange to film measurement for a tele design - it's my understanding (and it's limited!) that a telephoto design is simply one where the physical lengh of the lens (F-t-F) is shorter than the focal lengh. I had a query about this before buying it and Jeff Tauger porvided me with the F-t-F of the lens at 324mm which seems to correspond exactly to my physical measurement. It's now mentioned as "lens to camera distance" here: http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=2966 at 324mm.

Kerry

Thanks for chiming in here.

Arne Croell
17-May-2009, 11:34
"The combination of a positive front component and a negative rear component constitutes a telephoto lens" R. Kingslake, A History of the photographic lens, p.131.
Similar definitions can be found in other books, e.g. Sidney F. Ray, Applied photographic optics, 3rd ed., p. 302.

An ftf much shorter than the focal length results from this, but a shorter ftf as such does not constitute a telephoto. As an example, Sonnar types (real ones derived from the triplet, not just in name) have significantly shorter ftf's than fl's, but are not telephotos, even though many people name them that way.

Don Hutton
17-May-2009, 11:45
Thank's Arne - I'm now only slightly less ignorant than I was this morning!

timberline12k
26-May-2009, 10:45
And, what we are observing here is the difference between the engineering depart that designs the products and the marketing department that sells them. This is the same dynamic that led to the wide spread proliferation, and re-definition, of the term APO back in the early 1990s. APO was seen as a desirable attribute. So, suddenly every new large format lens on the market bore the APO designation, regardless if they were true APO designs or not. Most likely, the marketing department already had the name selected before this lens was even designed. Ironically, even though this new lens from Schneider isn't a telephoto design, it is most likely a true APO (as it's based on the classic APO Artar design).

The original goal was was, no doubt, a lens in the 360mm range that was small enough and light enough to use with lightweight field cameras. There was probably also an assumption that it would be a telephoto design. The engineers realized that a non-tele would work fine for general landscape use on cameras like the Chamonix or Toho. By dding the extension tube, it could also be used on cameras with shorter bellows (like the Shen-Hao, Wista, Toyo, etc.). In the end, they succeeded in designing a compact, lightweight lens that will work on most lightweight field cameras, and did so without resorting to a telephoto design.

I hope this lens sells well. There has long been a hole in this focal length. Other lenses were either telephoto designs, huge plasmats in Copal No. 3 shutters, or very hard to find and expensive (Fujinon 360mm A). I had long wished that Nikon had made a 360mm in their M series, or Fujinon had one in their C series. Nice to see Schneider step up and fill this void.

Kerry


What limitations does this lens have with a Chamonix 4X5 (universal bellows) or 5X7?

How much excess coverage does this lens have with a 4X5 or 5X7?

What are the 35mm equivalent focal lengths for a 4X5 or 5X7?

What type of situations would be the sweet spot for this lens with a 4X5 or 5X7?

Is there an advantage to using only Copal 1 shutters?

Is there any way to add new lenses to the following chart?
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

Steve Hamley
26-May-2009, 12:26
Don't have a Chamonix, but I'll venture a reply:


What limitations does this lens have with a Chamonix 4X5 (universal bellows) or 5X7?

None as long as you can focus as closely as you want with the bellows you have. The "tophat" will help you focus closer.

How much excess coverage does this lens have with a 4X5 or 5X7?

http://www.schneideroptics.com/news/110308_Apo-Tele-Xenar.htm

The image diagonal on 4x5 is about 165mm, 5x7 210mm. So 350 - 165 for 4x5, 350 - 210 on 5x7.

What are the 35mm equivalent focal lengths for a 4X5 or 5X7?

For 4x5, divide by (roughly) 3, for 5x7 divide by (roughly) 4 or 4.5.

What type of situations would be the sweet spot for this lens with a 4X5 or 5X7?

Since it's edging into longer focal lengths, situations that don't require a lot of DOF that can't be corrected by movements. Alternatively, situations where you don't want a lot of DOF. It would be a good slightly long focal for 5x7 portraits if the distortion and rendering are acceptable.

Is there an advantage to using only Copal 1 shutters?

To using ONLY Copal 1 shutters? Technically no, financially maybe. If you used only one shutter, you could have one flange (would need to be made) mounted on one lensboard for all your lenses, which could be changed out easily in the field versus a retaining ring. My lenses are on their own boards. If you fool around a lot changing shutters and lens cells in the field, you will drop one. My goal is to minimize handling.

Is there any way to add new lenses to the following chart?
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

Don't know.

Cheers, Steve

Gene McCluney
26-May-2009, 12:31
Isn't it the consensus is that this lens will (by manufacturers statement) cover 8x10? It is not a "true" telephoto design, but with the available rear extension tube, will focus on most shorter-bellows 4x5's & 5x7's. Any 8x10 should be able to handle a 300mm lens without any extra extension tube.

Don Hutton
26-May-2009, 12:36
It covers 8x10 just fine with a fair bit of room for movements. I made a shot at f32 with about 1.5 inches of rise that is very sharp into the corners with a 4x loupe.

Gene McCluney
26-May-2009, 12:36
I think many people are confused about this lens because of what Schneider decided to name it. "350mm Tele-Xenar Compact". It's not a Tele, its not a Xenar (tessar). What it IS is a nice compact 350mm lens that has an available rear extension tube that allows it to focus on shorter-bellows cameras than a 350mm would normally focus on. It has wide enough coverage for 8x10, though, and for that size camera the extension tube would not be needed. The old "TRUE" 350mm Tele-Xenar would focus on short-bellows cameras without an extension tube, but has much narrower coverage. It will cover 5x7 but is soft at the edges. (at least mine is).

Steve Hamley
26-May-2009, 12:48
I think what it really is is an Artar formulated to f:11 versus f:9 so it will fit into a Copal 1 shutter. It seems to be the same formula with the same approximate rated coverage (usable IC about equal to FL). I suspect that given Schneider's recent history of specifying lens coverage, it will have more usable coverage for most people.

The shortest Artar Goerz specified for 8x10 at infinity was 16-1/2", although I don't know of anyone that knows how they determined that; resolution, distortion, or chicken bones on the oil drum.

Cheers, Steve

timberline12k
26-May-2009, 13:00
I am trying to decide if this lens would be a future addtion. In looking at my other two lense, the 350 would provide extra reach with a similar step increase as shown below.

large format 90mm 210mm 350mm
35mm equivalent 26mm 63mm 105mm

Someone with a computer program shared what the 4X5 equivalent would be for a 35mm. The results were slightly different than the charts which showed 23mm and 53mm respectively. I don't know why there would be a difference or what the 350mm translates to, but I just used 0.3 conversion. I may purchase a 5X7 in the future so I would like to own lenses that also work with that format.

I still need to get comfortable with my existing lenses, but thought it would be good to know what options are available. I just wanted to confirm the Chamonix was compatible with this lens or if there are better alternatives. Sounds like you can use it on a Chamonix without the extension tube as long as the subject is more than 8 feet away. The equivalent of a 105mm (35mm format) would allow shots with a more narrow perspective (bigger moon or sun, etc.)

Steve Hamley
26-May-2009, 14:15
Hey David,

You don't really need a calculator, you just need to know the format diagonal and that there's quite a lot of difference in what's considered normal based mostly on personal preference and maybe on the proportion of the format.

My advice is don't obsess about relating focal lengths to 35mm, just get a basic feel for what's a moderate wide, normal, and moderate long for the format. Mostly because there are several different ways to calculate equivalence based on format proportion, angle of view, etc. Some people "see" wide, and others "see" long after some experience with their cameras and lenses. I started with the standard 150mm - 210mm - 300mm set on 4x5 and ended up with 135mm - 180mm - 270mm as a basic set.

The 350mm Schneider would be a superb lens for a Chamonix 5x7 if you're looking for that focal length. I doubt there's any better. It also fits into your listed 4x5 progression well.

Cheers, Steve

timberline12k
27-May-2009, 06:27
That makes sense. I plan to get comfortable with my 90mm and 210mm before looking for a third lens. I will keep the 350mm in mind in case my preference is toward that direction. If not I may just stick with what I have or consider adding a 150mm which splits the difference between my exisiting lenses.

After I figure out how all the pieces come together, I will finally be able to take my first LF photograph.:o

Arne Croell
7-Jan-2010, 07:04
The US Schneider web site now has the MTF and other data online, for those that are interested:
http://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/datasheets/apo-tele-xenar/apo-tele-xenar_compact_11_350_1.pdf
http://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/datasheets/apo-tele-xenar/apo-tele-xenar_compact_11_350_2.pdf
http://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/datasheets/apo-tele-xenar/apo-tele-xenar_compact_11_350_3.pdf
The first and second data sheet have the erroneous header of "12.5"/350mm, but the 3rd one and the diagrams show 11.4 or f/11 as they should.
The drawing also confirms it is a dialyte, as suspected, and not a 4/4 double Gauss type.

letchhausen
15-May-2010, 23:54
Has anyone bought and shot with this lens? I have a 135mm Symmar-S and a 240mm Fuji A and am thinking that this might be the ticket for my bellows deprived Tachihara. Either that or a Fuji or Congo 400 tele.....However I'm thinking that a great lens at 350mm might be better than a longer lens that is heavier and not as good and only 50mm longer....

Arne Croell
16-May-2010, 01:58
Has anyone bought and shot with this lens? I have a 135mm Symmar-S and a 240mm Fuji A and am thinking that this might be the ticket for my bellows deprived Tachihara. Either that or a Fuji or Congo 400 tele.....However I'm thinking that a great lens at 350mm might be better than a longer lens that is heavier and not as good and only 50mm longer....

Yes, I have it, and it is every bit as good as one could hope. There are at least two more threads on this lens here, including some of my own comments and those of other users, so you might want to check them:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=40937
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=51561

cdholden
16-May-2010, 06:25
Now if only they (Schneider) would produce a 300 - 360 mm lens with say 600mm IC (enough to cover 12 X 20), then I could die happy :eek: ...er...after I play with it for a (long) while that is!

They did. It's a 14" G-Claron.

Dave Aharonian
16-May-2010, 14:16
I bought this lens from Badger Graphic a few months ago and while I haven't used it a whole lot, I'm extremely pleased. Its small and all my shots so far are ridiculously SHARP! Even wide open. Bellows draw is not a concern for me - if it is you may want to consider the spacer which I think is about $100 extra. A fine lens - I'm very glad to have it.

John NYC
16-May-2010, 18:20
I bought this lens from Badger Graphic a few months ago and while I haven't used it a whole lot, I'm extremely pleased. Its small and all my shots so far are ridiculously SHARP! Even wide open. Bellows draw is not a concern for me - if it is you may want to consider the spacer which I think is about $100 extra. A fine lens - I'm very glad to have it.

Are you using this on 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10?

Dave Aharonian
16-May-2010, 22:40
I'm using it on both 4x5 and 5x7. I haven't checked the actual range of movement on it, but there seems to be plenty still on 5x7.

Richard K.
17-May-2010, 06:01
I'm using it on both 4x5 and 5x7. I haven't checked the actual range of movement on it, but there seems to be plenty still on 5x7.

I use this on WP and 7x11, so it will cover 8x10. One of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned and when you factor in its weight, it's one of the best lenses out there for 8x10 down. Because of their high contrast, this and the Fujinon 600CS are the two easiest to focus lenses that I own even though they're f/11 or so.

John NYC
17-May-2010, 08:27
I use this on WP and 7x11, so it will cover 8x10. One of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned and when you factor in its weight, it's one of the best lenses out there for 8x10 down. Because of their high contrast, this and the Fujinon 600CS are the two easiest to focus lenses that I own even though they're f/11 or so.

Great to hear. Thanks. I'm considering this as a complement to my 240mm g claron on 8x10. Seems like this could be a candidate for the ultimate two lens field kit for my Wehman.

Don Dudenbostel
17-May-2010, 12:04
I bought one about three months ago and also find it to be one of the best lenses I own. It's exceptionally sharp and contrast is excellent. I've used it at close range and feel it performs quite well at less than 5 feet distance. I shoot it on my 8x10 Canham traditional and can use full rise with no problem. Stopping it down gives plenty of coverage for my needs.

I would not call it a Tele in the true sense. I have a 360 Nikkor T which takes much less bellows and have owned a couple of 360 Tele Arton lenses that took only 210mm (roughly) for infinity focus. If the 350 Apo takes any less bellows than it's FL it's very little compared to true tele lenses. For the person interested in the Congo I just sold one and either the Fuji T or Congo are better choices for short bellows cameras. I haven't used the Fuji but the Congo is very fine lens and only uses 200mm of bellows at infinity.

letchhausen
28-May-2010, 13:39
Thanks for the info everyone!

Has anyone used this with the extender? I have a Tachihara and would need to use that for this lens. I'm wondering if that limits my movements....

The Congo isn't that much cheaper though it might be a better lens for my camera. I've read very mixed reviews of that lens though....

Sal Santamaura
9-Jun-2010, 12:04
...Although the maximum aperture on the shutter scale is f 11, the lens actually opens about a third to a half of an f-stop more...


Yes, I have it, and it is every bit as good as one could hope...


..my shots so far are ridiculously SHARP! Even wide open...


...One of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned...easiest to focus...even though...f/11 or so.


...It's exceptionally sharp and contrast is excellent...OK, there's a strong consensus about sharpness and contrast. :)

Can Arne, Dave, Richard and/or Don confirm Michael's observation about the wide-open focusing aperture being 1/3 to 1/2 stop larger than f/11? Have any of you measured this by metering the ground glass? Thanks in advance!

Don Dudenbostel
11-Jun-2010, 07:10
I have not metered it but my sample opens less than a third of a stop beyond f11. It's probably 1/6 stop on my lens. In any case 1/6-1/3 stop isn't going to make much difference in focusing or picture taking. You might gain 4/10 of a stop if you remounted it in a copal #3 but you gain substantial weight and size.