C
Cwoodhou
I need a longer lens than the 150. I like the idea of the 180 / 1.4 Schneider combination, but how does this combination stack up against a 250mm CZ optically?
CI Photocommunity
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Dear Cwoodhou,
I think that you would find the Schneider 180 Tele Xenar 2.8 lens, along with the 1.4 Longar to be a very versatile combination. Having a 250 lens is quite cumbersome to carry around unless you have a specific need for this focal length on a frequent basis. If your requirements dictate making enlargements beyond 11"x14", the Schneider 180 Tele Xenar will provide better performance in the outer edges. If you go to the rolleiusa.com website, you can see the MTF charts for both of these lenses.
Regards,
Dale
I think that you would find the Schneider 180 Tele Xenar 2.8 lens, along with the 1.4 Longar to be a very versatile combination. Having a 250 lens is quite cumbersome to carry around unless you have a specific need for this focal length on a frequent basis. If your requirements dictate making enlargements beyond 11"x14", the Schneider 180 Tele Xenar will provide better performance in the outer edges. If you go to the rolleiusa.com website, you can see the MTF charts for both of these lenses.
Regards,
Dale
C
Cwoodhou
thanks, mechanic, I remember seeing some MTF charts of the 180 / 1.4 combo, but I cannot remember where. Maybe it is on the Schneider site.
Dear Daniel,
Anytime you introduce a tele converter with a lens, the optical performance is almost always h&ered to a certain extent. The Schneider 1.4 Longar is optically calibrated for use with the 180 2.8 Schneider Tele Xenar as well as the 300 4.0 Tele Xenar and the 80 2.0 Xenotar lenses. The 2.0 converter is more of a universal type converter, and the optical performance with the 180 2.8 will not be on par as compared to the 1.4 Longar.
There are two versions of the 180 2.8 lens with different MTF ratings. If the rear bayonet of your 180 2.8 lens is st&ed CE, than you probably have one of the newer version optical formulas. A serial number of # 14581933 or prior generally fell into the catagory of the older optical formula version of the 180 2.8 Tele Xenar lens. The older version actually has a higher resolving power from the center of the negative close to the outer edge, but the newer version has better overall performance from the center to the very edge of the negative. Nevertheless, both versions are stellar performers of a very high order.
My experience with using the 1.4 Longar with the 180 2.8 Schneider is that the shawdow detail and edge sharpness is not quite as good with a size 16"x16" print. Depending on your subject, you may or may not notice a difference. With landscapes, I doubt that you would be able to see any difference at all. If your subject contains very fine and intricate detail, and you are able to view two prints side by side of the same subject, one taken with the 1.4 Longar and one without, then you might notice a difference. Moreover, shooting at 2.8 with or without the use of the 1.4 Longar, I cannot discern any difference in the optical performance other than the difference in the focal length perspective.
Regards,
Dale
Anytime you introduce a tele converter with a lens, the optical performance is almost always h&ered to a certain extent. The Schneider 1.4 Longar is optically calibrated for use with the 180 2.8 Schneider Tele Xenar as well as the 300 4.0 Tele Xenar and the 80 2.0 Xenotar lenses. The 2.0 converter is more of a universal type converter, and the optical performance with the 180 2.8 will not be on par as compared to the 1.4 Longar.
There are two versions of the 180 2.8 lens with different MTF ratings. If the rear bayonet of your 180 2.8 lens is st&ed CE, than you probably have one of the newer version optical formulas. A serial number of # 14581933 or prior generally fell into the catagory of the older optical formula version of the 180 2.8 Tele Xenar lens. The older version actually has a higher resolving power from the center of the negative close to the outer edge, but the newer version has better overall performance from the center to the very edge of the negative. Nevertheless, both versions are stellar performers of a very high order.
My experience with using the 1.4 Longar with the 180 2.8 Schneider is that the shawdow detail and edge sharpness is not quite as good with a size 16"x16" print. Depending on your subject, you may or may not notice a difference. With landscapes, I doubt that you would be able to see any difference at all. If your subject contains very fine and intricate detail, and you are able to view two prints side by side of the same subject, one taken with the 1.4 Longar and one without, then you might notice a difference. Moreover, shooting at 2.8 with or without the use of the 1.4 Longar, I cannot discern any difference in the optical performance other than the difference in the focal length perspective.
Regards,
Dale
C
Cwoodhou
>Just to clarify, when you discuss differences, are you talking about a shot with the 180, enlarged to the same print image size as one with the converter, or are you answering the poster's subject line about comparing the 180 with 1.4 against a 250?
C
Cwoodhou
I'll be getting a 1.4 converter soon and will try it with the Schneider 80 and 150mm lenses. It will be interesting to see if a further enlargement has equivalent resolution to the extended lens. If it does, then the only benefit will be for slide workers or those who value minimal grain above all else.
C
Cwoodhou
No problem, I have a calibrated test target and a 50x Peak microscope. I will give centre and edge resolutions from the same standpoint, rather than a standard multiple of the focal length.