Question about Schneider Xenotar 150mm f/2.8 Linhof

Hi everyone,

 

I stumbled upon this article

 

Lens review: Schneider Xenotar 150mm f/2.8 + Linhof Technikardan (plus video) - by Alastair Bird « EMULSIVE

 

and was wondering if this lens is only able to go on a Linhof camera. I want to get into large format, but have been looking at Tachihara, Shen Hao, and Chamonix cameras mostly. I don't think I want a camera on a rail like what this photographer uses. I like the foldable wooden ones that you can go out with. Is this lens only made for Linhof cameras or can it go into one of those foldable types?

 

Also, I'm trying to learn about large format lenses and I can't seem to find resources that speak about them. I just keep finding threads about lenses mostly being old and everyone mentions that they're at most f/5.6. Regardless of aperture sizes, where can I find a good resource that talks about all of the best large format lenses? Do manufacturers continue to make new ones like the major brands do for their full frame cameras?

 

I have a Sony a7r2 with a bunch of great lenses. I mostly keep my Sony Zeiss 35 1.4 on it and it takes great images. I also have a Hasselblad 503cx and Mamiya RZ67 Pro ii. I honestly think the Mamiya beats the Hasselblad in image quality. Probably due to the size of the film being larger and lens is sharper. Don't get me wrong, my Hasselblad looks brand new and lens is great as well. I even used an adapter to put the Hasselblad lenses on my Sony and they're not bad, but all images from the Mamiya just look better. I digress :)

It'll fit on anything with a big enough lens board.

 

That huge Xenotar wouldn't be my first choice for a first time user of 5"x4". It's practically unusable wide open for a start, due to a very shallow depth-of-field and noticeable vignetting. Its only real advantage is having a bright image for viewing and focusing.

 

If you're going to use a wooden field camera with limited movements, you might as well save a lot of weight and money by getting a 150mm f/5.6 Schneider Symmar, Rodenstock Siranon, Nikkor-W or Fujinon. These are all far more common and all deliver superb image quality.

 

A 'cheap' 135mm f/4.5 Xenar would do the job equally well too, while allowing a slightly brighter viewing/focussing image.

 

The limited DoF on 5"x4" usually demands using taking apertures in the range of f/11 to f/22, so having a large maximum aperture is pretty irrelevant.

 

"Also, I'm trying to learn about large format lenses and I can't seem to find resources that speak about them."

 

- The LF forum here on Pnet would be a good place to start.

 

However, large format users tend not to get too anal about lens quality. The large image size means that the likes of an old f/6.3 Dagor or Kodak f/7.7 anastigmat will give more than acceptable image quality, and put anything shot on smaller formats, with far more exotic lenses, to shame.

Edited December 30, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

However, large format users tend not to get too anal about lens quality. The large image size means that the likes of an old f/6.3 Dagor or Kodak f/7.7 anastigmat will give more than acceptable image quality, and put anything shot on smaller formats, with far more exotic lenses, to shame.

 

 

Thanks for replying! :)

 

I was curious what you meant by that. When you say image quality being better on large format compared to others, are you restricting it to film or it doesn't matter? I ask because I've been trying to understand what everyone keeps talking about that have a larger format will make for better images in terms of resolution. I was trying to understand what that meant because when I take a shot on my Sony with it's 42mp sensor, and I zoom in on the image, I can see incredible detail. But my scans from my medium format film do not have that kind of detail. So I guess that's a difference between sharpness and resolution. I can get the best scan ever, but I'll zoom in and I'll just see grain. I mean it makes sense since the deeper you zoom in on digital you end up hitting individual pixels, and film has no pixels, but I just enjoy zooming in on images and seeing the sharp detail still there and wanted to see that happen on film as well.

 

I also enjoy the look of these old cameras and the way it makes me slow down and think so as not to throw away money. The whole process is fun with film, whilst digital is amazing but I can fire away and never care and have 1000 images of the same crap. So, I want to get into large format now. Also I noticed the DoF is very different on my Mamiya RZ67 compared to shots I get on my sony.

When you say image quality being better on large format compared to others, are you restricting it to film or it doesn't matter?

 

- In my experience, the level of sheer detail that can be got on 5"x4" with 100 ISO film can exceed that from a full-frame DSLR. It's getting a close-run thing with modern high-res sensors though.

 

Scanning a 5x4 neg at 2400 ppi gets you an image of just over 8500 x 10600 pixels (>90 megapixels) with detail visible down to the pixel level. IMO there's not much point in scanning at a higher ppi count, because (A) it takes a very long time, and (B) not many subjects contain or warrant a higher level of detail. Scanners that can genuinely extract detail at, say, 4800ppi are expensive and/or need careful adjustment, wet scanning or other gross inconvenience. And film just doesn't hold any useful detail above 4000ppi anyway.

 

That's just 5x4's resolution ability.

Quite frankly, any film's image quality can easily be brought down by other factors like processing cleanliness, or lack of, colour-depth and dynamic range. All of which are arguably inferior to native digital capture - although some people prefer film's technically inferior colour rendering.

 

FWIW, I've heard this 'film slows me down' argument many times and just don't buy it. You can work as slowly and methodically as you like whatever the format or medium.

Edited December 30, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

I have followed a similar route, through 35mm, medium format and large format, but struggle to justify the expense of the finest tools. I have managed however to get what I think are pretty high quality results from a £300 MPP Michrotechnical with a Schneider Xenar 150mm f4.5. I sourced a 1950s enlarger on eBay for £40, complete with omega neg holder. If you do your own processing and printing, there is nothing quite like projecting a 5x4 neg to 20x24 inches and then trying to find the grain.

I have managed however to get what I think are pretty high quality results from a £300 MPP Michrotechnical with a Schneider Xenar 150mm f4.5.

 

- Wow! Have values increased that much?

 

My MPP MKVI cost me £32 with 135mm Xenar back in 1972. IIRC I bought it from Brunnings of Holborn.

 

I later bought a MKVII to get the International back, and that did cost me a bit more - somewhere around £100.

 

The bellows have since needed replacement on both cameras, which added about another £80 in total to their cost. I dread to think what the price of new bellows is today. And of course the amount I've spent on LF lenses is many times the cost of that first MK VI.

- Wow! Have values increased that much?

 

My MPP MKVI cost me £32 with 135mm Xenar back in 1972. IIRC I bought it from Brunnings of Holborn.

 

I later bought a MKVII to get the International back, and that did cost me a bit more - somewhere around £100.

 

The bellows have since needed replacement on both cameras, which added about another £80 in total to their cost. I dread to think what the price of new bellows is today. And of course the amount I've spent on LF lenses is many times the cost of that first MK VI.

 

The International back was beyond my means, but I got a European back last week for 2 quid. They are flogging them off cheap at the moment, can’t think why.

 

I got lucky with mine, all works great. I think mine is a Mk 6, but one of those converted with the international back, since it seems to fall between the 6 and 7 in features. I don’t use it enough to warrant any other lens, it was a speculative dip into the world of LF to scratch an itch, now satiated. Whilst I have no experience of any other LF cameras, I can appreciate the MPP as a fine piece of British engineering from an age when that was the norm, rather than the exception.

Edited December 31, 2018 by stuart_pratt

I think mine is a Mk 6, but one of those converted with the international back, since it seems to fall between the 6 and 7 in features.

 

- Apart from the Graflok/International back, there's only one other feature that differentiates the Mk7 from the Mk6, and that's a locking 'button' on the focussing rail. It's situated at the front of the tailboard on the RH side as you look from the rear of the camera.

 

If the focus-rail lock is there, then you have a Mk7.

 

I've always hankered after a Mk8, but never been able to justify the cost, since the Mk6 & 7 do everything I need. I don't think I could shoehorn my 'hourglass' 90mm Grandagon lens through the smaller lens opening either!

 

"The International back was beyond my means, but I got a European back last week for 2 quid. They are flogging them off cheap at the moment, can’t think why."

 

- LOL, but enough of the Brexit jokes already!;)

Edited January 1, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1