PDA

View Full Version : Is a SCHNEIDER XENAR 210MM F:6.1 MC a good Portriat lens for a 4x5



akfreak
17-May-2011, 14:16
5 have a canbo 4x5 with a nikon nikkoe w 135mm lens on a Copal 0. It seems I cant get a 240-300mm in a copal 0 so I moved up to a Copal 1. I found a SCHNEIDER XENAR 210MM F:6.1 MC for a reasonable price, I was wondering if anyone here has used this lens and what do you think. I like to make sharper portraits but a little soft is ok. I reall want a fujicon 260mm I have read great things about it, but the price is a little much this week. I have a 3 week window to shoot tons of portraits as my wife will be on vacation. Any input is greatly apprciated, AKf

Steve Goldstein
17-May-2011, 14:21
I wasn't aware that the 210mm f/6.1 Xenars were multicoated. Mine isn't.

Ken Lee
17-May-2011, 15:03
210 is a wonderful length for portraits on 4x5. A Xenar is (correct me if I'm mistaken) a Tessar design. Tessars can be plenty sharp. Nasty sharp. Compared to newer designs, Tessars have limited coverage, but within their limits, they are superb.

I prefer Tessars for portraits. Here is an example shot (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/29.html) made with a 250mm Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar on 4x5.

What kind of aperture does the Copal 1 have ? By that I mean, how many blades ? If it has many blades, then it will have a circular aperture - which will help give a smooth blur rendition. Below is one that has 18 blades. It's coated, fairly new, but in barrel.

If you want the subject to be entirely in-focus, then blur rendition doesn't matter - in which case the Xenar will be wonderful. Or, you may not care about the shape of blurred areas - again, the Xenar will be wonderful.

http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/tech/tessarX.jpg

If I were buying a Tessar for portraits, I'd get one either in barrel, or in an old shutter - because those old shutters have wonderful circular apertures. They are generally cheap because people think that a new shutter will be better. When I tested my vintage shutters with a Calumet Shutter Tester, I found the speeds to be quite accurate.

http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/TessarCompundShutter.jpg

Kerry L. Thalmann
17-May-2011, 15:16
210 is a wonderful length for portraits on 4x5. A Xenar is (correct me if I'm mistaken) a Tessar design.

I prefer Tessars for portraits. Here is an example shot (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/29.html) made with a 250mm Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar on 4x5.

What kind of aperture does it have ? By that I mean, how many blades ? If it has many blades, then it will have a circular aperture - which will help give a smooth blur rendition. Below is one that has 18 blades. It's coated, fairly new, but in barrel.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/tech/tessarX.jpg

If I were buying a Tessar for portraits, I'd get one in an old shutter - because those have wonderful circular apertures. They are generally cheap because people think that a new shutter will be better. When I tested my vintage shutters with a Calumet Shutter Tester, I found the speeds to be quite accurate.

I agree with Ken on those late, single coated Zeiss Jena Tessars from the former East Germany (DDR). They are very well made, both optically and mechanically and a real bargain - since they are barrel mount and the cells don't readily fit any modern shutter. Still you can use them with a Sinar, Packard or Luc shutter, or front mounted on a big shutter, like a Compound V. Keeping them in their original barrels preserves the original many bladed diaphragm.

In addition to the Schneider Xenars and the genuine Zeiss Tessars, there are many other Tessar type lenses out their, including the Kodak Commercial Ektars and the Bausch and Lomb Tessars that were produced under license from Zeiss. The Bausch and Lomb Tessars are usually quite inexpensive, even post-WWII coated samples in working shutters.

Kerry

akfreak
17-May-2011, 15:54
The looks of the 250 with 2 subjects a 210 may be a little wide for portrait work on 4x5 I may go to 300, I like to compress subjects to a narrow backdrop, I am looking for a narrow fov when working on 8ft seamless. My 135 is way to wide for portrait, I thouhgt 210 may be narrow enough, nit I guess not.

What is the minium focus distance on an average 300mm lens on a 4x5, I am still up in the air but I need to act fast, or my window will be gone. I plan to use it as long as possible. I have 4 days until the vac starts


As to the sharpnees of a Tessar lens, it will render what is in focus sharp, however bokeh (oof blur) is a function of aperture and subject distance, no?

Frank Petronio
17-May-2011, 16:37
I don't think 210 is too wide but your taste may differ. If it's an environmental shot usually you want more information in the image anyway, so wider can be better.

It's probably a fine general purpose lens, good for portraits but the older 210/4.5 design in the compound shutter is even better for portraits (also it will have a rounder aperture for better bokeh. But those usually sell for more. If you are getting a clean nice 210/6.1 in a modern shutter for under $200 it seems like a reasonable price to me.

The 210/5.6 Symmars and Sironars are also great values. They can be very sharp but there are ways to diffuse things -- or actually learn to appreciate a crisp, sharp portrait. The older single-coated ones with rounder apertures and a bit of haze can be pretty nice lenses actually, sharp and smooth, lower contrast, nicer for B&W.

Ken Lee
17-May-2011, 17:26
What is the minium focus distance on an average 300mm lens on a 4x5, I am still up in the air but I need to act fast, or my window will be gone. I plan to use it as long as possible. I have 4 days until the vac starts

As to the sharpnees of a Tessar lens, it will render what is in focus sharp, however bokeh (oof blur) is a function of aperture and subject distance, no?

A 300mm lens has very shallow depth of field, unless you stop it down considerably. That requires fast film, bright illumination, slower shutter speeds, etc.

Blur or bokeh has been discussed ad nauseum, and while it varies with aperture/focal length/subject distance, it can also affected by the shape of the aperture - especially when there are dots in the distance. Also, lenses differ in their rendering of OOF areas, in front of and behind the plane of focus.

Frank Petronio
17-May-2011, 17:32
I shot some pairs and triples with a 300mm on 4x5 and it was iffy keeping them all in focus unless I was very careful to keep their faces in the same plane, even at f/22.

A 210mm would be a lot easier.

I think a 300mm on 4x5 is great for individual portraits, very classic and traditional.

Jim Galli
17-May-2011, 18:13
A 210 6.1 Xenar would serve you very well. If you want creamy smooth with perfect round aperture, shoot them wide open. I concur that like the G-Claron's, Schneider didn't multi-coat these. They're single coated and that's actually a plus for portraits.

akfreak
17-May-2011, 22:26
A 300mm lens has very shallow depth of field, unless you stop it down considerably. That requires fast film, bright illumination, slower shutter speeds, etc.

Blur or bokeh has been discussed ad nauseum, and while it varies with aperture/focal length/subject distance, it can also affected by the shape of the aperture - especially when there are dots in the distance. Also, lenses differ in their rendering of OOF areas, in front of and behind the plane of focus.
You say a 300 mm has a shallow dof, HUH do you mean FOV field of view. DOF is a function of aperture and film/sensor and subject distance relationships. I fell like I am real stupid all of a sudden

akfreak
17-May-2011, 23:16
I have used 35mm so much I see in different focal lengths. I use 17mm thru 300mm.
A few more word's on the subject of lenses and photography in general, This way I am not seen as a total Noob.

Lenses
WA lenses tend to distort people and long lenses tend to compress. If I have all sorts of junk in the background that I do not want to be rendered in an image I will stand back and compress things from the background so they are no longer recognizable and does not distract from my subject. Another example of compressing, say I have 4 or 5 people I need to fit in a 8 foot wide seamless, I wont use a wide angle. I will grab a zoom, stand back and zoom until they all fit within the background (compress) with a prime I have to walk instead of zoom, FOV is what makes the people fit in the limits of my space.

I keep hearing blur with regards to focal length and this confuses me. I full understand aperture blade count will render a more round oof blur (I call it Bokeh), example instead of a light in the background looking like a stop sign it will look round, I have some serious fast glass like 50mm 1.2 and 50 1.4 my 1.2 has twice as many aperture blades as my 1.4 and it really make a difference with respect to bokeh.

Thanks Mr. G for your words on the subject, in photography portrait work is my favorite. I have learned much from several greats. Monte Zucker, Jim Schmelzer, Helene Glassman, Zack Arias, are just a few people that I have worked with as an assistant or learned from personally. An Image of mine was chosen as editors choice for PhotoShop Magazine and will be in print in the next issue.

I work at Photoshop World (thru Kelby Media, Scott Kelby) I assist in several Pre-Con classes with Jim Schmzner, they are all classes where we teach 300 or so people a quality of light class, as well as how to properly light people in a portrait session.

I haven't fully embraced focal lengths with regards to 4x5. With my 645 MF camera focal lengths aren't that much different then 35mm as they are way different with 4x5.

I am still having to fight with visual choices, When I see things I see them in 35mm, I see a person I see 70mm or 200mm, I see a field with rolling grass and a tree far off with a god ray of light peeking thru a could I see 17mm. I see a subject sitting on chair on a balcony of a high rise I see 300mm because I want the subjects head to be in a clean place, I know the 300mm will render the water tower off in the distance as a huge round bulb so the head will be in a clean place, It compresses the water tower it brings it real close and makes it appear really large.

I have 1 4x5 lens the 135 w Nikkor. I have 50 35mm and MF lenses I will be buying a few more lenses, I am excited to shoot LF and some day maybe ULF. The most exciting thing I find so far about LF vs a standard camera's the the ability to move the focus plane from vertical to horizontal and correct perspective. This will me wonderful when I learn all the little tricks of the trade with respect to Scheimpflug Principle and the Hinge Rule, Law of Reciprocity and bellows factor, I know enough about each of the aforementioned but it's hard to be proficient and know everything in a few months.

I am excited again about photography, I dont know why it took me so long to get here. I have been enjoying 120 film for a very long time, but 4x5 and larger I never thunk I would be trying to tackle it this late in the game

Kerry L. Thalmann
17-May-2011, 23:50
FYI, there is another thread running in parallel that has some information I posted on several other Tessar type lenses in the 210mm - 254mm (10") range. Rather than repost it all here, you can follow this link (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=727783&postcount=14), if you are interested.

Kerry

akfreak
18-May-2011, 01:51
FYI, there is another thread running in parallel that has some information I posted on several other Tessar type lenses in the 210mm - 254mm (10") range. Rather than repost it all here, you can follow this link (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=727783&postcount=14), if you are interested.

Kerry

Thanks for the link, The OP of that thread was asking about Coverage, and you did give some good information, I was asking about Portrait lenses specifically. The reason I ask about 4x5 is this is the film size I will going to cut my teeth on. I have an 8x10 also but why waste the $$$ before I fully understand, I am not much of a landscape guy, I like to take pictures of people.

I appreciate the link but I think this thread is asking for different information, and I understand coverage, so I dont need a lens coverage for dummies sticky, lol.

gain thanks for the post, it has some nice info, you spent some time talking about several lenses, I am sure that took some time to explain all of the TESSAR designs I was asking about the one, then was drawn into a focal length = OOF bokeh discussion that I felt the need to address.

One last thinf looking at your info on the other post you list a 210mm f5.6 Fujinon L, I think the older Fujinon Fuji W 210 f5.6 is much more versatile IMO, it will cover 8x10. The older single coated Fuji W 210/5.6 with a 58mm filter size has 352 image circle and the newer MC 210/5.6 with a 67mm size filter, but with only 300 image circle. I have to assume that the older lens is still sharp enough at 5.6 fr portrait work.

I have narrowed my search to the SCHNEIDER XENAR 210MM or Older Fujinon Fuji W 210 f5.6 faster is better imo

Ken Lee
18-May-2011, 04:56
"I keep hearing blur with regards to focal length and this confuses me. I full understand aperture blade count will render a more round oof blur (I call it Bokeh), example instead of a light in the background looking like a stop sign it will look round, I have some serious fast glass like 50mm 1.2 and 50 1.4 my 1.2 has twice as many aperture blades as my 1.4 and it really make a difference with respect to bokeh."

Blur or Depth of Field
As depth of field diminishes, blur or bokeh increases. It's a reciprocal relationship.

A 50mm lens at f/1.4 has the same depth of field as a 100mm lens at f/2.8, a 200mm lens at f/5.6, and a 400mm lens at f/11

A 300mm lens at f/8 has the same blur as a 150mm lens at f/4 and a 75mm lens at f/2.

These numbers are independent of film size and shooting distance, but simply due to optics.

Field of View
If we are accustomed to think in 35mm terms, it's easy to remember that 4x5 lenses are basically 3X the length of their 35mm counterpart. They have 1/6 the depth of field, or 1.5 f/stops. A 300mm lens on 4x5 is equivalent to a 100mm lens on 35mm. It will have the same "magnification" or field of view. However, you'll have to stop it down by 1.5 f/stops to get the same depth of field. If not, you'll get 6 times the blur.

IanG
18-May-2011, 08:38
Some of the East German post war CZJ Tessars were made for shutters, contrary to the data on this site about CZJ, Docter Optics etc.

The 1950's 150mm f4.5 CZJ Tessar I bought as cells here (in the Classifieds) fit's straight into Compur 1 and is very heavily & well coated albeit with a distinct blue cast. I've also seen a coated 210mm f4.5 Tessar in a shutter. Arne Cröll's CZJ article (http://www.arnecroell.com/czj1.pdf) of 2003 is more up to date than the page on this site.

The 1950's 150mm Tessar is optically as good as a late production (early 2000's SN) 150mm f5.6 Xenar and for B&W work the better coating helps when shooting into the light.

I'd also add Thornton Pickard shutters to the list of possibilities, these came in two types - for front mounting or between lens and lens board, the later often take interchangeable lens panels making them highly flexible. It would be possible to use the same shutter with a tiny WA Protar and a large Darlot :D

Ian


I agree with Ken on those late, single coated Zeiss Jena Tessars from the former East Germany (DDR). They are very well made, both optically and mechanically and a real bargain - since they are barrel mount and the cells don't readily fit any modern shutter. Still you can use them with a Sinar, Packard or Luc shutter, or front mounted on a big shutter, like a Compound V. Keeping them in their original barrels preserves the original many bladed diaphragm.

In addition to the Schneider Xenars and the genuine Zeiss Tessars, there are many other Tessar type lenses out their, including the Kodak Commercial Ektars and the Bausch and Lomb Tessars that were produced under license from Zeiss. The Bausch and Lomb Tessars are usually quite inexpensive, even post-WWII coated samples in working shutters.

Kerry

Kerry L. Thalmann
18-May-2011, 08:45
I appreciate the link but I think this thread is asking for different information, and I understand coverage, so I dont need a lens coverage for dummies sticky, lol.

Which is why the link I provided was a direct link to the post I made about Tessar type lenses in the 210mm - 254mm (10") range, and not the OP's original question. Your original question was about using a 210mm Tessar type lens for portraits. Since I'd already replied in the other thread, I thought you might find information on several very similar lenses of interest.


One last thinf looking at your info on the other post you list a 210mm f5.6 Fujinon L, I think the older Fujinon Fuji W 210 f5.6 is much more versatile IMO, it will cover 8x10. The older single coated Fuji W 210/5.6 with a 58mm filter size has 352 image circle and the newer MC 210/5.6 with a 67mm size filter, but with only 300 image circle. I have to assume that the older lens is still sharp enough at 5.6 fr portrait work.

That's an apples to oranges comparison. The lenses mentioned in the linked post have much more in common (optical construction, coverage and performance, physical size and weight, price, etc.) with the 210mm f6.1 Xenar you asked about than the 210mm f5.6 Fujinon W you are now considering as an alternative. If you are looking for a lens in the 210mm range for portraits on 4x5, why do you need the much larger coverage of the 210mm Fujinon W, unless you plan to also use the lens on other formats, which wasn't evident from your earlier posts.


I have narrowed my search to the SCHNEIDER XENAR 210MM or Older Fujinon Fuji W 210 f5.6 faster is better imo

Then your decision comes down to do you prefer apples or oranges. These are two significantly different lenses, and there are several suitable alternatives to both. If faster really is better, why limit yourself to just the 210mm f6.1 Xenar? Why not consider an even faster Tessar type lens? The 210mm f5.6 Fujinon L mentioned in the linked post is very similar to the 210mm f6.1 Xenar you are considering, but a little faster. The f4.5 Xenars mentioned in the linked post are faster still. If that's not fast enough, there was also an older f3.5 version of the Xenar. And, while not mentioned in the linked post (because it's not a Tessar type), another great lens for portraits is the f4.5 Voigtlander Heliar. It is available in all the focal lengths discussed in this thread (210mm, 240mm and 300mm) and several more as well.

If, for some reason, you need more coverage than required for your original application (portraits on 4x5), then the Xenar (or other 210mm Tessar types) don't make sense, and you'd be better off with the Fujinon W, or other similar options.

Kerry

Mike Anderson
18-May-2011, 08:53
...
Field of View
If we are accustomed to think in 35mm terms, it's easy to remember that 4x5 lenses are basically 3X the length of their 35mm counterpart. They have 1/6 the depth of field, or 1.5 f/stops. A 300mm lens on 4x5 is equivalent to a 100mm lens on 35mm. It will have the same "magnification" or field of view. However, you'll have to stop it down by 1.5 f/stops to get the same depth of field. If not, you'll get 6 times the blur.

That's a great little summary that should be preserved somewhere.

...Mike

Ken Lee
18-May-2011, 10:57
That's a great little summary that should be preserved somewhere.

...Mike

See Long Lenses for the Best Blur (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/lenses/index.php#Vintage)

akfreak
20-May-2011, 01:02
Thanks for taking the time to hold my hand. I feel like a real infant here. Believe it or not in some other places I done seem so dumb! It's not fun being the smartest Kid on the short bus. You all seem to of ridden the long bus and have graduated to professors. Where is my helmet? I feel like banging my head on the wall! Thanks for your time. AKf

Ken Lee
21-May-2011, 04:41
Not to worry - Kerry is a widely published expert on Large Format lenses: he's world-class.