Schneider Xenotar 80mm f/2.8 at 6x9

[Dan Daniel]

I came across a nice Rolleiflex 2.8C in very good condition except for the lens, at a nice price. I bought it for parts. When I had the 80mm Xenotar lens off I realized that I could mount it in a #0 shutter and see how it works at 6x9 ( I also noticed the yellow tint to the back lens group, leading to this thread- (there was a url link here which no longer exists)).

Just in case anyone is curious, here's one shot from the lens-



This is on a Horseman VH. It turns out that I had the lens swung a bit to the left from a previous session and didn't realize it. So you can see a touch of vignetting on the upper and lower right corners from this swing (maybe 3 degrees?). Later shots after I corrected this do not show the vignetted corners. I'd say that the lens just barely covers 6x9. Sharpness holds up well, dropping off only in the 2-3mms at the corners. I have a 6x7 back, so if I use this lens on any regular basis it would be at that format. All in all I am pleasantly surprised that it covered out as far as it did. I didn't see anything amazingly special about this lens compared to other large format lenses I have in this preliminary test with an erratic shutter.

An interesting note: the blurred shapes at the bottom edge are the focus knobs on the Horseman. I use a Schneider Super-Angulon 75mm on this camera all the time and have never had this problem. If anyone can describe or link to an explanation of this difference between focal length and 'image center point'???, much appreciated.

 

[ic-racer]

The red and white dots on the side of the front standard are used as a marker for the minimum rise needed to clear the image of the focus rails when using 75mm lens in portrait orientation. (Page 17 of the VH-R manual). If you don't want the rise (or have no image circle for rise) then use the side tripod mount and flip the back. If you like that focal length, I can highly recommend the Topcor 75mm lens. I think it is one of the sharpest in the Horseman 6x9 lens range.

 

[gone]

Interesting that it covered 6x9. I have owned two cameras w/ that lens. One was stellar, just a great lens. The other one was like yours. Nice and sharp, but nothing exceptional about it. Apparently there is/was some variation between samples w/ this particular lens. My Planars were not that special either, but they were very good for portraits and wide open, and sharp all the way across the plane (hence the name). I always preferred the Tessars. If you want a lens w/ a lot of character, get a Heliar.

 

[Dan Daniel]

ic-racer, I use the 75mm Super-Angulon without raising the lensboard in portrait orientation all the time. Go figure...

momus, I have a Kodak Ektar 105, which is supposed to be a Heliar design. Very nice lens. One of the reasons I'm not too worried about using this Xenotar. And my 6x9 portrait lens is a 150mm Xenar, a tessar-type design.

Then again, the 80mm Xenotar on my 'main' Rolleiflex is amazing. And on the 3.5E, not as amazing. Agreed, sample variation seems to be the explanation. Just as a 75mm Xenar on a Rolleiflex is the nicest Tessar-type lens I've ever used....

 

[ic-racer]

I use the 75mm Super-Angulon without raising the lensboard in portrait orientation all the time. Go figure...

Interesting observation. Perhaps due to lens construction. The Super Angulon 75mm has a back focus distance of 85mm whereas the Horseman/Topcor 75mm has a back focus distance of 73.7mm. Schneider literature also lists the back focus distance for the 80mm Xenotar at 73.5mm. So basically the SA sticks out more than the Horseman/Topcor and Xenotar, when focused at the same distance. So, you have observed it sticks out enough for the image to clear the focus rails. Back focus is determined by both the nodal points and how the lens barrel is mounted in the shutter. Since angle of view of the two lenses would be similar, I suspect the nodal point of the SA are farther apart with the front one being farther in front compared to the Horseman/Topcor lens.

Anyway that [using the Xenotar on the Horseman] is a neat experiment. I always wondered what a Rolleiflex would be like with movements.

BTW the Schneider literature also lists 56mmx72mm (nominal 6x7 format) as the covering format for the Xenotar 80mm lens with 3 to 5mm of movement.

 

[Dan Daniel]

ic-racer, thanks for the discussion of the back focus distances, etc. I knew there was a language to describe what was going on but I couldn't remember it.

Your comments got me to drag out the bookmark to the Schneider site where I assume you were getting these numnbers? If they are from another plalce, it'd be great to know. Anyway, the Schneider site-
http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/index.htm

 

[ic-racer]

This lens brochure used to be on the Schneider site. Don't know if it is still available there. The cameracentric website also has a number of Schneider PDF files.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Dan, I'm all for solidarity among Dans but I'm afraid I have to disagree with you about the 80/2.8 Xenotar's coverage. I have one too. Mine is in terrible condition, has the classic cleaned with coarse sandpaper look. It is soft and flary. I tried it out anyway, on a 2x3 Graphic. No way will it cover 2x3 (= put good image in the corners, even allowing for the lens' condition). It illuminates 2x3, doesn't cover. Perhaps we have different coverage concepts.

 

[JW PHOTO]

It might cover if stopped to f16-22?

 

[Dan Daniel]

Dan, I'm all for solidarity among Dans but I'm afraid I have to disagree with you about the 80/2.8 Xenotar's coverage. I have one too. Mine is in terrible condition, has the classic cleaned with coarse sandpaper look. It is soft and flary. I tried it out anyway, on a 2x3 Graphic. No way will it cover 2x3 (= put good image in the corners, even allowing for the lens' condition). It illuminates 2x3, doesn't cover. Perhaps we have different coverage concepts.

Well, Dan, all I can do is look at the images I made. It was only one roll, and the shutter was new to me and its times were off. But I did get image to the corners. As I said, it lost sharpness at the edges. maybe 2-3mm in on the corners. to me, that is NOT coverage of 6x9. There are so many 75mm lenses out there that can give you clean corners at 6x9, and provide for movements. If I am going to mess with a 60 year old lens, there had better be a reason. The combination of blurred corners, no movements, and nothing about thelens screaming 'special' means I won't be using it much. Truth is I don't like the 6x7 format so I doubt it will see use there, either (please, no need to argue how great 6x7 is- I see people do great things all the time, it's just not for me).

I wonder if your lens was set up for 'traditional' view camera type mounting. For the Rolleiflex, there is no need for a filter ring on the front and any protection on the back. The glass itself projects beyond the metal mount for both the front and rear group. The Rolleiflex body and lens shroud add depth. Maybe the extra metal for view camera work adds a bit of shading?

 

[ic-racer]

My Lisco "2x3" film holders have a larger image area than my Horseman 6x9 film back. There are separate marks on the Horseman GG also.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you want a Xenotar that covers 6x9, there's a perfectly good 105/2.8.

 

[Dan Fromm]

As I said, it lost sharpness at the edges. maybe 2-3mm in on the corners. to me, that is NOT coverage of 6x9.

I was mistaken. We agree that it doesn't cover.