It's funny - I do love that Xenotar but there are a bunch of older lenses out there that are pretty close and not that much money. Xenars, Helier's... Enjoy the 4x5!!
Thanks for this one Alastair. Yes, I too was lured to 4x5, then 5x7, (all Linhof) .. and nearest I have come to that soft transition quality has actually been with the Hasselblad 110 f2 Planar. But yes my first choice is my Technika 4x5 and a Tele-Arton f5,5 270mm. Also worth a look is the Cooke PS945 229mm/9inch ƒ/4.5 (which requires a Copal No.3 shutter.) These also cost around $4,700. Once again, thanks for a very informative presentation.
Hi Kevin, thanks for your comment. I have the 110 f2 Hasselblad Planar, and I love it *almost* as much as the Xenotar. The other lenses do intrigue me, but the pricing makes me take a sober second thought. Regardless, I'm glad I'm not the only one caught by the Siren Song of Large Format!
i guess im asking the wrong place but does anybody know of a tool to get back into an Instagram account? I stupidly lost my login password. I appreciate any tips you can offer me
@Jameson London I really appreciate your reply. I found the site on google and Im trying it out now. I see it takes quite some time so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
Love the video! thank you for sharing! Wondering for the polaroid shots, is the 4x5 film holder specific for the polaroid film? Or is it a film that can work in any 4x5 slot?
The regular 4x5 holders will take any 4x5 film. The Polaroid film has a specific holder which is now really only good as a paperweight. I’m not sure if there are any 4x5 Polaroid or pack films available any more.
@@UnderexposedwithAlastairBird thank you for the reply! After watching your video I went and found a Xenotar 150mm 2.8! Front glass condition isn't the best.. but rear glass is perfect. Will test it out and see how it goes 😄
Xenotars (and Zeiss Planars - same design) we’re conceived in the first years of the 20th century, but could not really be produced commercially until 1/4 wave coating became generalized, reducing internal reflections from the larger number of lens elements (5). Post war Rolleiflex TLRs initially used Tessar type lenses, and as good as these were, there were some misgivings about quality. With the widespread introduction of 1/4-wave coatings, the Tessars were replaced with coated Xenotars, and the reviews were glowing, which I think adds to the « aura » of this lens. Rollei used some Planars as well, but this is only because they could not get enough Xenotars to meet production needs, so they asked Zeiss to produce these. Zeiss charged a slightly higher price for the Planar, which Rollei passed onto the customer, leading some to believe the Planar version was in some way superior, due to the higher price, but in fact they are indistinguishable. The 150mm version, along with the 135mm Planar and the 75mm wide-angle Biogon are some of a handful of medium-format lenses offered in grown-up sizes to just cover 4x5, essentially for hand-held work, as they are corrected for use wide open. In this regard, using them on a view camera, on a tripod could be considered paradoxical, because as you point out any Symmar, Sironar or Super-Angulon will produce far better images at f/22, and have adjustability as well. Nevertheless, not a few photographers have come to appreciate the shallow depth of field combined with honorable sharpness in the in-focus zones of these lenses, when combined with the great tonal range of the large format, and while there may be a « trend » mentality driving some of these exaggerated prices, the lenses themselves do hold a valid interest for the aforementioned qualities. Nice photos, and thanks for the video.
Alistair, I note that you have the Planar 110mm FE lens for your Hasselblad, as do I. Watching this video again, I thought I'd compare the depth of field of the Xenotar and the Planar. At 8 feet, the Xenotar has 6" DoF and the Planar has just 4" at f/2.0. I'm wondering if you'd be interested in running a comparison test and sharing the results here. You could even back away with the Planar to the point where you have the same depth of field with the two. It'd be a great follow up to the above video. Look forward to your response. Gary.
Hi Gary, for sure. They would be a great comparison. The only drawback is that my 203fe is in for service but once it comes back we’ll do a shootout. Thanks for the suggestion.
Hi Alastair, I recently purchased this lens but I'm having a hard time getting the rear element off. Is there a special trick? Or is perhaps mine just stuck.
It *should* unscrew like any other large format lens setup. I actually just sent my shutter in for a CLA and took the elements off the old Compur shutter. They were a bit stiff but unscrewed without too much trouble.
@@UnderexposedwithAlastairBird great, thanks for the quick reply. The front came off easily, but I think the greases have dried a bit on the rear. I'll try a blow dryer tomorrow as I read that may help loosen them.
@@composeexpose8009 I think a hair dryer is a smart way to start. I can't imagine anyone would glue it in there so hopefully it will loosen with some heat. Can you check for any retaining rings holding it back or anything like that? I'm pretty sure that wouldn't happen, but it's worth a look...
very nice and interesting lens :) off-topic: Can you tell me which tripod are you using and which tripod head you have? I've seen that you also use ball heads and that's the first time I see it in 4x5. Do you think/feel it's safe for a camera which weights so much? I'm asking because I have a very similar camera...
Hi Federico, sorry for the delay in replying. I use a Gitzo GT3542L tripod which, really, is probably a bit light for this camera. The head I'm using is a Really Right Stuff BH-55, which will easily hold the weight of the camera. I find the ball head to be just ok, rather than great, as the camera is quite heavy and it requires some planning to make sure that the camera doesn't fall away when you are making adjustments. I think a preferable setup would be a larger tripod and a more traditional head, but I can make this one work, so I'll keep it. I do plan on getting a larger tripod soon, though.
Hm. I do love the 4x5 for portraits. It's a great combination of large format as well as fairly lightweight and nimble - compared to 8x10. I haven't shot many 8x10 portraits, yet (looking forward to more as soon as I can) but I find the nature of 8x10 is to make things just a little more formal - it's impossible to be whimsical and impulsive with an 8x10. Hard, even, with 4x5 but a lot easier. Not sure if I answered your question, but I'll have a better idea once I put more 8x10 film through the camera.
Good question. I think there might be some confusion between the Xenotar lenses that were built for the Rolleiflex system - which were usually 80mm and f3.5, or the 105 f2.5 version (for press cameras) and my 150mm f2.8 version - for large format. The coverage on the other lenses is not quite 4x5 - the 105 covers about 6x8 or so, but works rather well on large-format if you don't mind some vignetting. Just looking on EBay right now - I'm amazed. The 105s are like $800 or $1000; and someone has a 150 listed for $9999. I'm astonished at how many have come up - usually there aren't nearly that many for sale. Maybe someone had a truckload full. Yeah, all the 150s are like $4650, $6000... Ugh. Personally, I think of of those 105 versions might work really well for the money.
@@UnderexposedwithAlastairBird Well on a dutch marketplace website I see one with similar specs, 150mm 2,8, just not linhof. Nor is there the red triangle on the front ring. I cant really differentiate the two, but I've seen similar ones go for 500 bucks. Guess the linhof version has different lens elements or something.
@@Jerbod2 Very interesting. It's possible that it's in rough shape, but if not, maybe they just don't know what they have. The Linhof versions were the 'better' ones, but no one has ever actually authenticated that. Certainly mine isn't a Linhof Select version and I'm perfectly happy with it. If it is legit then it's a great deal, but it's a fair amount of money if not. Sorry I can't offer any more insight than that.
Heidosmat is a 3-element Cooke Triplet variant. It was never sold as a taking lens, as it is generally considered to be of insufficient correction, but it was used as a cost-effective viewing lens on twin-lens Rolleis, and also as a medium-format projection lens for slide projectors. This is the origin of the 150mm variant. Of course neither of the applications mentioned has a shutter or diaphragm, so these must be provided one way or another. The lens is of inferior quality to the four-element Xenar/Tessa’s, not to mention the five-element Xenotar/Planar, but some photographers are making good use of its qualities, and they are dirt cheap.
Why is this lens OBSCURE ? The brandname is Schneider. The name of this Schneider lens is Xenotar The Schneider works are in the German town of Bad Kreuznach. The works were founded by Josef Schneider. Why do I explain this? The DOF varies; depends on the distance to the subject. So ....? Why do some people always mention the price of an optic? Fingerprints on a negative is non professional. Is it magic, focusing a portrait and peeling apart a shot of a camera ? The Xenotar 150 mm is too short for portraits at close focus; makes noses big and ears small. A 300 mm or a 360 mm would be a better optic for portrait photography. A lot of chaos in this review.
Obscure - they didn't make very many of them and they're old and hard to come by. I'm aware of the history of the company that makes this lens. Schneider lenses are common. Xenotars are much less common, than say, a Symmar-s. Price of the optics? Again, compare the price to a Symmar-s and let me know which one is more crazy, price-wise. Of course the DOF varies depending on subject-distance. That's how optics work. Fingerprints? Can you point them out? Or are you commenting on the fact that I don't wear gloves when I handle negatives? I do that because I'm much less likely to drop the negatives - which is absolutely non-professional. I have always thought that the fact you can have an instant image (not digital - a print) in your hand is magical. You're welcome to disagree. The Xenotar makes lovely portraits. 150mm is a normal lens. No different than a 50mm on a SLR or an 80mm on a medium format camera. Too close and things do get get mushy. This is no macro lens, that's for sure. I have neither a 300 or a 360, (wait. I have a 360mm f9 APO-Ronar, but that's not quite the same thing) but you're welcome to post a link to the large format portraits you do with those lenses. Chaos? The more, the better, for sure!
Really? Why crap? Not sharp enough for you? Too much mood? Don't like portraits? Seriously, I'm interested. No one has ever said that about my work - and I have had a lot of very positive feedback over the years.
@@UnderexposedwithAlastairBird I just think they look like crap for all the trouble you go through. I'm entitled to my opinon of your work aren't I? Or do you think all of your works as masterpieces?
@@liquidmocofilmsllc4915 You are entitled to your opinion, but remember, this is my channel and my work. Most of the photos I take end up on the cutting room floor, so to speak - forgettable at best. But I have had a few masterpieces - enough to keep me shooting. Regardless, I think what I produce with this camera is really rather nice and I'm not the only one who says that. In my reply to you I was curious if there was something specific you could point to in the images, rather than just saying 'they look like crap'. Because that really doesn't help anyone. Or were you not trying to be constructive?
Underexposed with Alastair Bird yeah it is your channel and work but YOU have chosen to put yourself out there. That was your decision. The colors are off and the photos are soft at best. What I mean is that you can achieve a lot better quality with a $500 digital camera and some decent editing skills. You are addicted to the workflow not the quality.
@@liquidmocofilmsllc4915 Absolutely true. Colours are all over the place and the lens was made in 1957 and shot wide open at 2.8. I wasn't going for true colour or for sharp in any of these images - in fact, I was avoiding them at all costs, hence the insistence on shooting on film with a 4x5. If I wanted either true colour or sharpness I would have shot with my Fuji GFX 50r and my 110 F2 Fujinon lens. Colour and sharpness abound there. Thanks for answering my question.
Oh, man. That lens. So sweet.
And your comment on the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus strikes me as exactly right.
The best portraits I've ever taken were with a 4x5 camera. You're right. It's more the camera than the person behind the ground glass that matters.
I just got into 4x5 and LOVE IT. I like you also own a HASSY AND an M6. Your lens is AMAZING, it is crazy how expensive they have gotten.
It's funny - I do love that Xenotar but there are a bunch of older lenses out there that are pretty close and not that much money. Xenars, Helier's... Enjoy the 4x5!!
Thanks for this one Alastair. Yes, I too was lured to 4x5, then 5x7, (all Linhof) .. and nearest I have come to that soft transition quality has actually been with the Hasselblad 110 f2 Planar. But yes my first choice is my Technika 4x5 and a Tele-Arton f5,5 270mm.
Also worth a look is the Cooke PS945 229mm/9inch ƒ/4.5 (which requires a Copal No.3 shutter.) These also cost around $4,700.
Once again, thanks for a very informative presentation.
Hi Kevin, thanks for your comment. I have the 110 f2 Hasselblad Planar, and I love it *almost* as much as the Xenotar. The other lenses do intrigue me, but the pricing makes me take a sober second thought. Regardless, I'm glad I'm not the only one caught by the Siren Song of Large Format!
i guess im asking the wrong place but does anybody know of a tool to get back into an Instagram account?
I stupidly lost my login password. I appreciate any tips you can offer me
@Briar Damon instablaster :)
@Jameson London I really appreciate your reply. I found the site on google and Im trying it out now.
I see it takes quite some time so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
@Jameson London It did the trick and I now got access to my account again. Im so happy:D
Thanks so much, you saved my ass :D
I really should start shooting with my graflex again. It’s been sitting still for too long now!
Very interesting. That lens is a beast dude, holy moley.
Love the video! thank you for sharing!
Wondering for the polaroid shots, is the 4x5 film holder specific for the polaroid film? Or is it a film that can work in any 4x5 slot?
The regular 4x5 holders will take any 4x5 film. The Polaroid film has a specific holder which is now really only good as a paperweight. I’m not sure if there are any 4x5 Polaroid or pack films available any more.
@@UnderexposedwithAlastairBird thank you for the reply! After watching your video I went and found a Xenotar 150mm 2.8! Front glass condition isn't the best.. but rear glass is perfect. Will test it out and see how it goes 😄
@@TheBrancos Fantastic! Love to see what you come up with!
Xenotars (and Zeiss Planars - same design) we’re conceived in the first years of the 20th century, but could not really be produced commercially until 1/4 wave coating became generalized, reducing internal reflections from the larger number of lens elements (5). Post war Rolleiflex TLRs initially used Tessar type lenses, and as good as these were, there were some misgivings about quality. With the widespread introduction of 1/4-wave coatings, the Tessars were replaced with coated Xenotars, and the reviews were glowing, which I think adds to the « aura » of this lens. Rollei used some Planars as well, but this is only because they could not get enough Xenotars to meet production needs, so they asked Zeiss to produce these. Zeiss charged a slightly higher price for the Planar, which Rollei passed onto the customer, leading some to believe the Planar version was in some way superior, due to the higher price, but in fact they are indistinguishable. The 150mm version, along with the 135mm Planar and the 75mm wide-angle Biogon are some of a handful of medium-format lenses offered in grown-up sizes to just cover 4x5, essentially for hand-held work, as they are corrected for use wide open. In this regard, using them on a view camera, on a tripod could be considered paradoxical, because as you point out any Symmar, Sironar or Super-Angulon will produce far better images at f/22, and have adjustability as well. Nevertheless, not a few photographers have come to appreciate the shallow depth of field combined with honorable sharpness in the in-focus zones of these lenses, when combined with the great tonal range of the large format, and while there may be a « trend » mentality driving some of these exaggerated prices, the lenses themselves do hold a valid interest for the aforementioned qualities. Nice photos, and thanks for the video.
Inspiring video. I would love to try a honking 4x5 someday. Still in 120-land. :)
Loved your Video
Alistair, I note that you have the Planar 110mm FE lens for your Hasselblad, as do I. Watching this video again, I thought I'd compare the depth of field of the Xenotar and the Planar. At 8 feet, the Xenotar has 6" DoF and the Planar has just 4" at f/2.0.
I'm wondering if you'd be interested in running a comparison test and sharing the results here. You could even back away with the Planar to the point where you have the same depth of field with the two. It'd be a great follow up to the above video. Look forward to your response. Gary.
Hi Gary, for sure. They would be a great comparison. The only drawback is that my 203fe is in for service but once it comes back we’ll do a shootout. Thanks for the suggestion.
wow those are some amazing photos!
Great content!
the guy with the grey hair moved so much, it would have driven me nuts!
Thanks. I use Komura 152/2.8 Nice lense also.
dude that lens is listed for 15K on ebay. 5 times? bro... that was at least 5 years ago
Hi Alastair, I recently purchased this lens but I'm having a hard time getting the rear element off. Is there a special trick? Or is perhaps mine just stuck.
It *should* unscrew like any other large format lens setup. I actually just sent my shutter in for a CLA and took the elements off the old Compur shutter. They were a bit stiff but unscrewed without too much trouble.
@@UnderexposedwithAlastairBird great, thanks for the quick reply. The front came off easily, but I think the greases have dried a bit on the rear. I'll try a blow dryer tomorrow as I read that may help loosen them.
@@composeexpose8009 I think a hair dryer is a smart way to start. I can't imagine anyone would glue it in there so hopefully it will loosen with some heat. Can you check for any retaining rings holding it back or anything like that? I'm pretty sure that wouldn't happen, but it's worth a look...
very nice and interesting lens :)
off-topic:
Can you tell me which tripod are you using and which tripod head you have?
I've seen that you also use ball heads and that's the first time I see it in 4x5.
Do you think/feel it's safe for a camera which weights so much? I'm asking because I have a very similar camera...
Hi Federico, sorry for the delay in replying. I use a Gitzo GT3542L tripod which, really, is probably a bit light for this camera. The head I'm using is a Really Right Stuff BH-55, which will easily hold the weight of the camera. I find the ball head to be just ok, rather than great, as the camera is quite heavy and it requires some planning to make sure that the camera doesn't fall away when you are making adjustments. I think a preferable setup would be a larger tripod and a more traditional head, but I can make this one work, so I'll keep it. I do plan on getting a larger tripod soon, though.
Great video! By the way what loupe do you use in the video?
Thanks Andrey! The loupe is a Rodenstock 4x Aspheric Loupe. I'm not sure if they still make them, but it's a really nice loupe.
I have a Schneider Xenotar 80mm f2.8 on my Rolleiflex and it’s the BEST lens for BW over my Hasselblad or Leica 😱😱😱
The Xenotars are rather unique...
How do you like 4x5 for portraits vs 8x10?
Hm. I do love the 4x5 for portraits. It's a great combination of large format as well as fairly lightweight and nimble - compared to 8x10. I haven't shot many 8x10 portraits, yet (looking forward to more as soon as I can) but I find the nature of 8x10 is to make things just a little more formal - it's impossible to be whimsical and impulsive with an 8x10. Hard, even, with 4x5 but a lot easier. Not sure if I answered your question, but I'll have a better idea once I put more 8x10 film through the camera.
f/2.8 on a large format? Jesus, that must be something
It's a rather unique look. Of course, it's a massive challenge to focus properly. ...but when everything comes together, it's quite something...
Love it
Alastair, what is the difference between this one and ones I see that are sold for like 500 dollars? Am I missing something?
Good question. I think there might be some confusion between the Xenotar lenses that were built for the Rolleiflex system - which were usually 80mm and f3.5, or the 105 f2.5 version (for press cameras) and my 150mm f2.8 version - for large format. The coverage on the other lenses is not quite 4x5 - the 105 covers about 6x8 or so, but works rather well on large-format if you don't mind some vignetting. Just looking on EBay right now - I'm amazed. The 105s are like $800 or $1000; and someone has a 150 listed for $9999. I'm astonished at how many have come up - usually there aren't nearly that many for sale. Maybe someone had a truckload full. Yeah, all the 150s are like $4650, $6000... Ugh. Personally, I think of of those 105 versions might work really well for the money.
@@UnderexposedwithAlastairBird Well on a dutch marketplace website I see one with similar specs, 150mm 2,8, just not linhof. Nor is there the red triangle on the front ring. I cant really differentiate the two, but I've seen similar ones go for 500 bucks. Guess the linhof version has different lens elements or something.
@@Jerbod2 Very interesting. It's possible that it's in rough shape, but if not, maybe they just don't know what they have. The Linhof versions were the 'better' ones, but no one has ever actually authenticated that. Certainly mine isn't a Linhof Select version and I'm perfectly happy with it. If it is legit then it's a great deal, but it's a fair amount of money if not. Sorry I can't offer any more insight than that.
@@UnderexposedwithAlastairBird Cheers for that!
Makes me sad I only have one pack of fp100c left in the fridge.
Use it, if you haven't already. It doesn't keep forever, even refrigerated.
Heidosmat 150/2.8 is a cheap alternative. I use with graflex.
Never even heard of that one! I'll keep my eyes open for one. Would love to try it out.
Heidosmat is a 3-element Cooke Triplet variant. It was never sold as a taking lens, as it is generally considered to be of insufficient correction, but it was used as a cost-effective viewing lens on twin-lens Rolleis, and also as a medium-format projection lens for slide projectors. This is the origin of the 150mm variant. Of course neither of the applications mentioned has a shutter or diaphragm, so these must be provided one way or another. The lens is of inferior quality to the four-element Xenar/Tessa’s, not to mention the five-element Xenotar/Planar, but some photographers are making good use of its qualities, and they are dirt cheap.
Why is this lens OBSCURE ?
The brandname is Schneider.
The name of this Schneider lens is Xenotar
The Schneider works are in the German town of Bad Kreuznach.
The works were founded by Josef Schneider.
Why do I explain this?
The DOF varies; depends on the distance to the subject. So ....?
Why do some people always mention the price of an optic?
Fingerprints on a negative is non professional.
Is it magic, focusing a portrait and peeling apart a shot of a camera ?
The Xenotar 150 mm is too short for portraits at close focus; makes
noses big and ears small.
A 300 mm or a 360 mm would be a better optic for portrait photography.
A lot of chaos in this review.
Obscure - they didn't make very many of them and they're old and hard to come by. I'm aware of the history of the company that makes this lens. Schneider lenses are common. Xenotars are much less common, than say, a Symmar-s.
Price of the optics? Again, compare the price to a Symmar-s and let me know which one is more crazy, price-wise.
Of course the DOF varies depending on subject-distance. That's how optics work.
Fingerprints? Can you point them out? Or are you commenting on the fact that I don't wear gloves when I handle negatives? I do that because I'm much less likely to drop the negatives - which is absolutely non-professional.
I have always thought that the fact you can have an instant image (not digital - a print) in your hand is magical. You're welcome to disagree.
The Xenotar makes lovely portraits. 150mm is a normal lens. No different than a 50mm on a SLR or an 80mm on a medium format camera. Too close and things do get get mushy. This is no macro lens, that's for sure. I have neither a 300 or a 360, (wait. I have a 360mm f9 APO-Ronar, but that's not quite the same thing) but you're welcome to post a link to the large format portraits you do with those lenses.
Chaos? The more, the better, for sure!
Not impressed
No? Why not?
Honestly think the photos are crap. You addicted to the workflow not the quality.
Really? Why crap? Not sharp enough for you? Too much mood? Don't like portraits? Seriously, I'm interested. No one has ever said that about my work - and I have had a lot of very positive feedback over the years.
@@UnderexposedwithAlastairBird I just think they look like crap for all the trouble you go through. I'm entitled to my opinon of your work aren't I? Or do you think all of your works as masterpieces?
@@liquidmocofilmsllc4915 You are entitled to your opinion, but remember, this is my channel and my work. Most of the photos I take end up on the cutting room floor, so to speak - forgettable at best. But I have had a few masterpieces - enough to keep me shooting. Regardless, I think what I produce with this camera is really rather nice and I'm not the only one who says that. In my reply to you I was curious if there was something specific you could point to in the images, rather than just saying 'they look like crap'. Because that really doesn't help anyone. Or were you not trying to be constructive?
Underexposed with Alastair Bird yeah it is your channel and work but YOU have chosen to put yourself out there. That was your decision.
The colors are off and the photos are soft at best. What I mean is that you can achieve a lot better quality with a $500 digital camera and some decent editing skills. You are addicted to the workflow not the quality.
@@liquidmocofilmsllc4915 Absolutely true. Colours are all over the place and the lens was made in 1957 and shot wide open at 2.8. I wasn't going for true colour or for sharp in any of these images - in fact, I was avoiding them at all costs, hence the insistence on shooting on film with a 4x5. If I wanted either true colour or sharpness I would have shot with my Fuji GFX 50r and my 110 F2 Fujinon lens. Colour and sharpness abound there. Thanks for answering my question.