Re: Alternative to the Schneider Xenotar 150mm F2.8 for 4x5?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erian
I think it is 152mm. Does not come up very often. Do you have any experience with it?
I have used a 152/2.8 Komura. It was a fine lens, very similar to the Xenotar, but harder to find. I was less pleased with the 135/3.5 Komura I owned, and found it more prone to flare than my 135/3.5 Xenotar. (Note that I only owned one of each Komura lenses, so my sample may have been different from others.)
Re: Alternative to the Schneider Xenotar 150mm F2.8 for 4x5?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erian
Mind you that all Aero Ektars are
radioactive. I think this is something you should be aware of.
I believe I've directed you to "the list." If I haven't, please ask for directions.
It contains a link to a piece by Mike Briggs, a PhD physicist, that discusses how severe a radiation hazard the 7"/2.5 AE poses. Not much.
Re: Alternative to the Schneider Xenotar 150mm F2.8 for 4x5?
Hey Jason, that is great. Any photos you could share from the lens wide open?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jason Greenberg Motamedi
I have used a 152/2.8 Komura. It was a fine lens, very similar to the Xenotar, but harder to find. I was less pleased with the 135/3.5 Komura I owned, and found it more prone to flare than my 135/3.5 Xenotar. (Note that I only owned one of each Komura lenses, so my sample may have been different from others.)
Re: Alternative to the Schneider Xenotar 150mm F2.8 for 4x5?
Hi Larry
Over on that large Auction site, there's a Scandinavian seller who specialises in such fast lenses, I'll ping you an email with his details
regards
Andrew
Re: Alternative to the Schneider Xenotar 150mm F2.8 for 4x5?
Rollei Heidosmat 150mm f/2.8 projection lens (no aperture).
The others are also good options, and don't forget the Kodak Aero Ektar also game in a 6" variety (rarer). These generally have a yellowish stain that can be removed in some part, so be aware of that for color work.
There is also a 165mm f/2.7 Tessar out there, and as for f/3.5 lenses, there is a 150mm f/3.5 Triotar (rare).
Probably some more I'm forgetting...I'm a bit of a fast ~6" lens hoarder!
Re: Alternative to the Schneider Xenotar 150mm F2.8 for 4x5?
As mentioned, there's a lot of choices, depending on whether you need a shutter or not. Still, with still-life, some tilt/swing and shooting f/5.6 wide open will still result in pretty shallow DOF.
I have at least 1 spare Aero Ektar 6"/f2.5 and a couple modern 6" f/2.8 aerial lenses (no shutter, but includes aperture) I could part with for not much $.
Re: Alternative to the Schneider Xenotar 150mm F2.8 for 4x5?
Meyer-Görlitz Trioplan 210mm f/3.5. Its a barrel lens, no shutter. If it's mostly the shallow DOF you're after, Meyer also made 260mm, 300mm, and 360mm f/4.5 Trioplan lenses. Both uncoated versions and coated versions exist.
Carl Zeiss Jena made coated F/3.5 Tessars in 150mm, 165mm, 210mm, 250mm, and 300mm for a short time after WWII. Both barrel versions and shuttered versions (Compur 2, Compound III, IV, V) exist, except for the 300mm which only came in barrel.
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Alternative to the Schneider Xenotar 150mm F2.8 for 4x5?
210mm f3.5 Heilar.
Attachment 197583
There were a good number of 6" f2.8 lenses (Leitz Elcan, Pacific Optical, Perkin Elmer and others) made for the US military beyond the Aero Ektar.
Beyond eBay, look at the hobby astronomy want-ads. That could be another source of optics like this. There was a time when surplus lenses like these were really low cost and plentiful, those days are mostly gone now.
Bernice
Re: Alternative to the Schneider Xenotar 150mm F2.8 for 4x5?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bernice Loui
There were a good number of 6" f2.8 lenses (Leitz Elcan, Pacific Optical, Perkin Elmer and others) made for the US military beyond the Aero Ektar.
Bernice, most of those six inch lenses were made to cover 6x6, not 4x5. The Elcan exception that covers 4x5 is the C-180, which can be recognized by its serial number (180-xxxx). Very uncommon.
Re: Alternative to the Schneider Xenotar 150mm F2.8 for 4x5?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dan Fromm
I believe I've directed you to "the list." If I haven't, please ask for directions.
It contains a link to a piece by Mike Briggs, a PhD physicist, that discusses how severe a radiation hazard the 7"/2.5 AE poses. Not much.
I have read it and both, the article and the video I linked agree with each other.
Mike says
"My very-approximate calculations show that a few hours exposure close to an Aero-Ektar causes a smaller additional radiation dose than a trans-Atlantic plane flight. However, a one-year long close exposure would cause a significant radiation dose, one that would be several times higher than the naturally occurring dose. Clearly, you should not store Aero-Ektars under your bed!".
Garglon measures ~1.7 μSv close to the ground glass and ~0.5 μSv 10 cm away from it.
Mike does not explain what methods did he use to measure the radiation but assuming that one does not stay constantly next to the ground glass then few hours of Aero Ektar usage probably will give lower dosage than 6 hours lasting transatlantic flight during which the radiation levels are around 0.5-0.7 μSv.
I think it is also fairly evident that Aero Ektar does not have some granite or banana level radioactivity. It has some punch, especially next to it (it saturated the Radex dosimeter) and it should be used with caution and respect.
I am not in position to say if somebody should or should not use Aero Ektars but I think it was evident that OP was not aware of this issue and I think it is fair to disclose this information.