Which is sharper? Tele-Xenar 180mm f/2.8 AF or the Apo-Symmar 150mm f/4.6 ?

[larry_leung1]

Need to decide soon...shooting portrait/ glamour. Using 6008AF.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Larry

[erik scanhancer]

These lenses are totally different beasts with totally different use. But to stick to your

question: the Apo-Symmar 150 is the sharpest of the two (and possibly the sharpest of all

lenses available for this camera). You know you have to use it with the bellows or the longest

extension tube as a minimum?

[Pa-cha]

Hello Larry,

 

I've the two lenses and I think the tele xenar is the best for portraits. I appreciate its sharpness, and the great aperture goes well to do soft focus behind the main subjects. But it is heavy (1500 gr)and the lens hood (in metal !) is very expensive but necessary. If price isn't a problem for you, take the 180 mm. You always will be enjoyed by it. Regards. Pascal Chambin

[paulmoore]

there is no way I would limit myself to a f4.6 maximum apeture for "portrait / glamour" work.

this implies at least some studio work.. this implies modeling lights.. unless you

are burning 650 watt bulbs and a few of them.. it will be dark in that viewfinder at f4.6 and

this lens is not AF

 

second...depth of field, f4.6 is too much depth of

field unless you are working on a pimple.. then the symmar wins..

[erik scanhancer]

If I had to choose between the two exclusively (fortunately I don't have to) I would take the

Apo-Symmar. It does have a very

narrow depth of field at full open and can be used in the close-up range. The Tele-Xenar

is not suitable for that, even with stepping rings. Due to its large diameter it looks

"around" your subject from an infinite number of angles. This causes a lot of softness if

used in close-up. Sometimes I deliberately use this lens to cause that effect, but for a

normal sharp picture I won't. It is easier to soften a sharp lens than to sharpen a soft lens.

For portraiture the 180 is mostly too long. I use the 180 mm for outdoor shoots: fashion,

wedding, model, although in that field the Apo 300 mm wins most of the time. The Apo-

Symmar 150 is the great studio lens for portrait, close-up (flowers, pack shots), fabrics,

nude (with Softar) and repro work. I like the 120 mm Macro-Planar for those fields as well.

It is easier to take outside too. Great angle.

[larry_leung1]

Any experience?

 

 

Larry

[dale_edward]

Larry,

 

For shooting portraits/glamour, I would recommend the 180mm 2.8 Tele Xenar. I find that the perspective of the 180 provides a more up close personal look than the 150 perspective. The 150 focal length is often regarded as a standard for portraits, but my personal preference is the 180. The most interesting characteristic of the 180 is the background blur (bokeh) that this lens paints so to speak. This background blur is unlike any other Rollei lens that I've come across. If you shoot the 180 at f/4 for example with your subject at about six feet away, with an open background behind the subject at least 10 feet away, this background blur of the 180 is most unique and very enticing to the eye. I find that the majority of portraits that I take with this look is preferred by the subject over anything that I can do with the 150 4.0 Sonnar lens. The 150 Sonnar is an excellent lens for portraits, but its perspective is traditional for portraits and gives that very common look. The comparison between the 150 Sonnar and the older now discountinued 150 Schneider Tele Xenar is fairly close sharpness wise. If we look at the MTF charts for both of these lenses, the 150 Tele Xenar has a very slight edge at f/4, and at f/8, the 150 Sonnar has a slight edge, so in this respect both lenses are very close. The 150 Sonnar seems to have a different look to the contrast than compared to the 150 Tele Xenar. This is not an issue of either lens being better, but more so just a different look that just depends on personal preference. With the newer Schneider 150 4.0 AF Tele Xenar lens, the optical formula was revamped ever so slightly, so again, this new AF version 150 may produce another different look compared to the previous versions of the 150. As is the case with the Schneider 180 2.8 Tele Xenar lens, the newer AF version of this lens has a different optical formula than compared to the manual focus version, so again, a different look may be evident as well. Personally, I usually prefer the manual focus versions of these lenses since the construction of the barrel assembly is a bit more rigid than the AF versions, and the lens elements with the manual versions have a tighter mount which I prefer for critical focusing.

 

Dale