135 mm View camera lens

[Frank Teodosio]

I have a speed graphic camera, and a 135mm
schnieder lens 4.7. Can anyone provide any info on this lens.

Thanks

 

[k_jupiter]

What kind of info do you want?

If it's a 135 lens made for LF, then it's probably a Tessar clone that will cover 4x5 with no or little movements. Probably not an issue with a Speed.

tim in san jose

 

[Ian Grant]

There was a an f4.7 135mm Xenar this is a Tessar type design, it will just cover 5x4 with a little room for movements.

These Tessar type lenses give their best performance at f22, edge and particularly corner sharpness slowly improves as you stop then down and by f16 they are quite reasonable.

Welcome to APUG BTW

Ian

 

[nemo999]

I have a speed graphic camera, and a 135mm
schnieder lens 4.7. Can anyone provide any info on this lens.

Thanks

Best place to look for info is here:
http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/

The previous 2 posters are quite correct - best aperture for edge-to-edge coverage will be f16, larger apertures are fine if edges are not critical, the 135 Xenar will not allow much camera movement, on the other hand it does give quite interesting perspective and will focus closer on a Speed Graphic than a 150 lens or longer!

 

[Wade D]

The Speed Graphic has limited movements so your lens should work quite well.
My Speed Graphic has a Kodak Ektar 127mm f/4.7 lens and I've never had any problems obtaining sharp images. I agree with the others that posted about using smaller apertures. Edge to edge sharpness is best at f/16 or smaller.
Your lens is a bit different in design than the one I have but they both work in pretty much the same way. Have fun with it and go out and turn some heads with it. When I set mine up in a public place I always draw a crowd.

 

[photobum]

I have one too. Mine's a Schneider Xenar model from a late model Crown. I did some lens testing a while back and this Xenar kicked the @$$ of some modern day multi-coated lenses.

While as others have said, it has limited movements for 4X5, I will never let this lens go.

For most L/F photography movements are over rated. Don't let lens snobs talk you out of any lens. Test for yourself. Hang around some workshops and you will meet plenty of guys with a bag full of thousand dollar lenses.
How come they always show their lenses and never their prints?

 

[Ian Grant]

For most L/F photography movements are over rated. Don't let lens snobs talk you out of any lens. Test for yourself. Hang around some workshops and you will meet plenty of guys with a bag full of thousand dollar lenses.
How come they always show their lenses and never their prints?

That's a rather glib comment, I use both a field camera and Speed/Crown Graphics and it's the poor & limited movements of the Graphics mean certain images that would be easy with my Wista and movements just can't be made with the Graphics. It's not the Tessar/Xenar 135mm lens.

Having been on quite a few workshops and run some too I can't ever remember people showing off their lenses, in fact only prints were ever shown & discussed.

I have one too. Mine's a Schneider Xenar model from a late model Crown. I did some lens testing a while back and this Xenar kicked the @$$ of some modern day multi-coated lenses.

Last year I tested three 135mm/150mm Tessar's (1920's, 30's & 50's) and a modern late 150mm f5.6 Xenar (new around 2006) against an f5.6 150mm MC Sironar and an f5.6 135mm MC Caltar (Symmar). The Sironar & Caltar were vastly superior in all respects, over the Tessar's but the modern Xenar wasn't too far behind once stopped down , and at f22 results were indistinguishable.
I used a 60's 150mm f4.5 Xenar commercially for many years and it never let me down optically, but it was was always used at f16/f22.

A 135mm Tessar or Xenar is fine used carefully on a Graphic with it's limited movements but inadequate on a field camera, the 150mm Tessar/Xenar has better coverage and edge/corner sharpness on 5x4 and I now prefer to use them on my Graphics.

Ian

 

[Steve Smith]

I have a 135mm (marked 13.5cm) Zeiss Tessar f4.5 in quite a large shutter (not sure which number but it's about 3" diameter).

Would this have the same elements as the f4.7 version or is it a different design entirely?

Despite warnings that it would only just cover 5x4, this lens seems fine with modest movements.




Steve.

 

[Ian Grant]

The 135mm f4.5 Tessar is in a rimset Compur 1 shutter or equivalent, after about 1931, prior to that they are in non standard dial-set Compur's.

The basic Tessar design it the same regradless of whether f3.5, f4.5, f4.7. f6.3. Some specialist optical glasses were in very short supply after WWII in Germany and as new improved optical glass became available the designs were optimised to utilise them.

The 135mm will allow modest movements but it really depends how critical edge/corner sharpness is to your particular images, I mainly only use front tilt and if you use some fall as you tilt, which happens anyway when you drop the front bed on a graphic, you are still using the optimal part of the image circle. The main problem would be significant rise for architectural work.

Ian

 

[pgomena]

I owned one on a Crown Graphic. Excellent lens. Poor coverage for much of any movements on 4x5 as others have said. If you find yourself a 6x7cm or 6x9cm roll film back, you're in business. Plenty of coverage then. Remember, it's a press camera lens. Breaking news doesn't give you time for much setup nor for critical movements. You just aim, focus and shoot.

Peter Gomena

 

[photobum]

Glib comment? I think not. The question was in reference to using a Speed Graphic and a Schneider f/4.7 lens. At no time was it asked if such a lens would work for an assignment for Architectural Digest magazine. You state yourself that you used a '60's era Xenar F/4.5 commercially for years with no problems, "optically".

Speed or Crown Graphics with Schneider, Wollensak or Optar lenses have photographed some iconic images. The Hindenburg disaster, the flag at Mount Suribachi and Babe Ruth's last home run.

Here in Virginia is a huge museum of train photography by O. Winston Link. Mr. Link used Graflex view camera's with Optar lenses. Edward Weston used a crapped out $5 lens for many of his most famous photographs. St. Ansel often used convertible lenses that are much maligned by the "modern photographer". (exception Cooke and only because Adams used it)

Not too many posters here on APUG have a museum that takes up an entire railroad freight house. Or have a place in photographic history for their images.

No, I'll stick with my comment about lens snobs.

 

[RJS]

EW lens

I always heard EW's lens cost $12

 

[k_jupiter]

Glib comment? I think not. The question was in reference to using a Speed Graphic and a Schneider f/4.7 lens. At no time was it asked if such a lens would work for an assignment for Architectural Digest magazine. You state yourself that you used a '60's era Xenar F/4.5 commercially for years with no problems, "optically".

Speed or Crown Graphics with Schneider, Wollensak or Optar lenses have photographed some iconic images. The Hindenburg disaster, the flag at Mount Suribachi and Babe Ruth's last home run.

Here in Virginia is a huge museum of train photography by O. Winston Link. Mr. Link used Graflex view camera's with Optar lenses. Edward Weston used a crapped out $5 lens for many of his most famous photographs. St. Ansel often used convertible lenses that are much maligned by the "modern photographer". (exception Cooke and only because Adams used it)

Not too many posters here on APUG have a museum that takes up an entire railroad freight house. Or have a place in photographic history for their images.

No, I'll stick with my comment about lens snobs.

Show me one with the equipment listed. EW shot a lot of his famous early work with an 3x4rb graflex using standard Kodak 152mm lens.

As I can attest, that ain't no crapped out lens.

Personally, if I could afford a 450 Nikor M in shutter, or a Fuji SW with EBC coatings in a Sieko shutter, or APO European anything, that's what I would shoot. In the mean time I make do with my commercial Ektars, Raptars, Tessars, and my trusty Fuji 150 6.3. I'm a wannabe snob

tim in very north Carmel Valley California AKA san jose

 

[nemo999]

Show me one with the equipment listed. EW shot a lot of his famous early work with an 3x4rb graflex using standard Kodak 152mm lens.

As I can attest, that ain't no crapped out lens.

As I recall from EW's "Daybooks", he had a Zeiss Anastigmat for his 8x10" which was constantly in and out of hock. To cover the lensless periods, EW bought an old RR lens from a junkshop for $5. He used this for, among other things, his most famous pepper shots. He used the 3x4 Graflex for less formal portrait shots.