Schneider Xenar 105mm/4.5 on Canon T90

[raid]

How many people here have tried using a large format lens on a 35mm SLR? It sounds crazy, but it may have some merits. Usually, a MF format lens is less sharp than a corresponding 35mm lens [I am told]. Also, a MF lens is sharper than a corresponding MF lens [again, I am told]. Does this imply that I will get lousy results with a LF lens on a 35mm camera, in comparison to having used a lens meant for the 35mm camera?

I always had that experimenter's heart, so one day while I was playing with a Mamiya 645, I got the idea to get a Pentacon 6 adapter to use Zeiss Jena lenses on the Mamiya 645. This was followed on another day with the idea to get a Pentacon 6 to Canon FD adapter, and then I was able to use Zeiss MF lenses on my Canon FD cameras. The results were good, but ... I was told that it isn't so.

Logically, when using a MF lens on a 35mm camera, you will be shooting only through the center part of the lens, which usually is sharpest. It is confusing.

Anyways, on another day, I saw on ebay a Schneider Kreuznach 105mm/4.5 lens that had been hacked to Pentacon 6 mount. This was food for thought, and I ended up buying the lens.

It is a Xenar, which [I am told] is not bad at all. I think, it is a lens meant for 4x5 cameras but I could be wrong. It does not allow any focusing. Does this mean this is an enlarger lens?

Last week, I got the inspiration to use this lens on my Canon T90. My aim is nice portraits that are sharp,with a vintage touch, if possible.


I got back the results today. Here they are:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=745570


What do you think about the photos? Is the Xenar a good lens when used on a 35mm camera?

Raid

 

[BrianPhotog]

the Xenar is a LF lens...anyone who has an early Crown Graphic Special has one of these (I have a 1947 CG Special with one).

Generally speaking, LF lenses are less sharp then 35mm lenses...there's no need to be blazingly sharp with such a large medium size. The Xenar isn't super-sharp but renders great tonality and has wonderful bokeh.

you can't really see sharpness differences with web-sized photos, but blow a couple up to 8x10 or post some 100% crops next to photos taken with an eq. 35mm lens (~40-50mm) and you'll see some differences.

 

[raid]

Brian: Thanks for your input. The lens does not look very large to my eyes. I agree with you regarding the tonality. So this is a "normal" lens then.

Raid

 

[BrianPhotog]

for LF, ~105 to 150mm is "normal. Mine is a 137/4.8 Xenar. LF lenses are actually very compact...much, much smaller then any SF or MF lenses I've had.

 

[raid]

Brian,

If I shoot only through the center of the lens, shouldn't I get sharper results?

Raid

 

[raid]

Here are more photos of the adapters:

 

[spyder2000]

WOW. That's some adapter.

Some have said that LF lenses don't need to be as sharp probably because the requirement for enlargement isn't as great. Modern lenses certainly don't adhere to that philosophy. LF lenses do not have a focusing mount, as that is what the bellows (or bag) provide.

I occasionaly shoot 35mm with my Rolleiflex 2.8E via a Rolleikin and the results are sizzlingly sharp.

The results you posted look very pleasing indeed and if they appeal to you, enjoy the lens.

 

[raid]

WOW. That's some adapter.

Some have said that LF lenses don't need to be as sharp probably because the requirement for enlargement isn't as great. Modern lenses certainly don't adhere to that philosophy. LF lenses do not have a focusing mount, as that is what the bellows (or bag) provide.

I occasionaly shoot 35mm with my Rolleiflex 2.8E via a Rolleikin and the results are sizzlingly sharp.

The results you posted look very pleasing indeed and if they appeal to you, enjoy the lens.

Syder2000: Thanks. I have not yet tried out a Rolleikin, but I have one. The advantages for using a Rolleikin on 35mm film are limited to being able to use the excellent Rolleiflex for more frames. It also makes the "normal" lens a tele lens, which is great for portraits.

Raid