Schneider Xenar 15cm/3.5 on Speed Graphic

[RLangham]

I’ve had this lens lying around for some time. I believe it’s an early version since it does not have the “red V” on the front cell rim, and also it’s in a dial set Compur #1, rather than the rimset Compur that I usually see. Amazingly it’s barely hazy and the shutter seems quite accurate at all speeds. My understanding is that it covers 8x10”?

Does anyone have any experience using this lens on 4x5”? Seems like it’ll be close enough to 135mm to use the default finders on a 4x5” Speed Graphic and just crop a bit mentally. I’ve already established that the Kalart RF will go to infinity when adjusted for a 150mm, since graflex dot org shows them being adjusted for 152mm Ektar. Am I mistaken in any way here?

I was mainly curious if anyone had used this lens wide open or at medium-wide apertures for portraiture on 4x5” and what that was like, and if anyone knew what aperture it’s sharpest at.

 

[BrianShaw]

I wouldn't hold my breath hoping for 8x10 coverage...

Viewfinder mask 3 or 4 will work; 150mm is right on the edge of coverage of each.

 

[MARTIE]

You must be mistaken, barely 4x5".

 

[MARTIE]

Just curious, can you see the text "Typ D" written anywhere on the lens?

 

[RLangham]

Just curious, can you see the text "Typ D" written anywhere on the lens?

I don’t think so but I’ll check when I get home. I wonder if that chart might not include the version I have… seems very clearly to be a large format lens, very substantial and set in a big Copal #1. Maybe not 8x10” but it would be surprising to me if it didn’t cover 4x5”. As soon as my lens board for #1 shutters comes I’ll see if vignetting appears on the ground glass.

 

[BrianShaw]

It will do fine on 4x5 Graphic, if that's a FL that meets your artistic intent. You probably not going to be using much in the way of movements anyway. That table may have conservative format size numbers.

 

[Dan Fromm]

it would be surprising to me if it didn’t cover 4x5”.

By all means try, but be aware that Schneider claimed that the lens covers 4.25" x 3.25". See https://web.archive.org/web/20170123075959/http://cameraeccentric.com/html/info/schneider_3.html

 

[RLangham]

It will do fine on 4x5 Graphic, if that's a FL that meets your artistic intent. You probably not going to be using much in the way of movements anyway. That table has exceedingly conservative format size numbers.

Yes, and Anniversary SG I believe has movements in name only. I know the front standard rises up but it’s not exactly convenient or precise. My Pacemaker had swing too I believe, but it’s not my kind of photography and I think it was seized up.

 

[RLangham]

Just curious, can you see the text "Typ D" written anywhere on the lens?

No, it has only the text “Xenar f:3,5 F=15cm D. R. P. Schneider-Kreuznach no.(s/n)” around the rim of the front cell and nothing on the rear cell. No red V that would indicate coating, and it certainly appears uncoated.

 

[BrianShaw]

Put a lens hood on it and you’ll never miss the coating for 98.99% of your images.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

It should cover 4x5 no problem if you are going to use it for portraits. It should be a fine portrait lens.

 

[RLangham]

It should cover 4x5 no problem if you are going to use it for portraits. It should be a fine portrait lens.

It’s not my only use case. We’ll see how it behaves stopped down.

 

[BrianShaw]

You’ll likely be more impressed than you expect. Many of these older lenses perform quite admirably.

 

[RLangham]

You’ll likely be more impressed than you expect. Many of these older lenses perform quite admirably.

Schneider has yet to really let me down, and I think it’s a Tessar type, which similarly has a lot of credit with me.

It wasn’t an intentionally considered purchase by any means, I found it in a thrift store with another LF lens for $75, sometime before or after I got this Anniversary SG, but if it covers 4x5” accurately at a good range of apertures it represents an upgrade. Both of my Speed Graphics came with very flawed lenses and barely functional front shutters.

 

[abruzzi]

Xenars are 4/3 tessar types. Tessars to not have a lot of coverage for movements. I have a later Xenar 150/5.6 which has a little space for movements, and a 210/6.1 which has a good amount. Usually it seems like the faster tessars (like 3.5) are more limited in coverage.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Xenars are 4/3 tessar types. Tessars to not have a lot of coverage for movements. I have a later Xenar 150/5.6 which has a little space for movements, and a 210/6.1 which has a good amount. Usually it seems like the faster tessars (like 3.5) are more limited in coverage.

Please visit the link in post #7 above to see Schneider's view.

By the way, since the lens the OP is talking about has focal length in cm, not mm, it is pre-WW II.

 

[RLangham]

Please visit the link in post #7 above to see Schneider's view.

By the way, since the lens the OP is talking about has focal length in cm, not mm, it is pre-WW II.

We’re all aware of the official specifications. The question is how conservative that figure ends up being and how badly it falls off at the upper and lower edges and the corners. I’ve also seen someone cite 180mm as the actual image circle on (apparently) a version of this lens (15cm/150mm:3.5), which beats 162mm, the minimum for 4x5”.

 

[Dan Fromm]

We’re all aware of the official specifications. The question is how conservative that figure ends up being and how badly it falls off at the upper and lower edges and the corners. I’ve also seen someone cite 180mm as the actual image circle on (apparently) a version of this lens (15cm/150mm:3.5), which beats 162mm, the minimum for 4x5”.

This all depends on what "circle covered" means. In the bad old days it often meant "circle of good illumination." In the good (?) new days it usually means "circle of good definition." "Good definition" can be somewhat subjective.

What a 150 mm lens might do is irrelevant. You're buying a 135 that dates from the bad old days.

That's why I recommended trying the lens out. The results may or may not suit you. As I point out from time to time, sharpness is much overrated.