Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Schneider lenses - why are they "slower"?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:33 am    Post subject: Schneider lenses - why are they "slower"? Reply with quote
Hi All,

A question to the lens guru's here. I enjoy "exploring" various lenses and have been able to pick up a somewhat wide variety. This includes a few Schneider Kreuznach lenses, which I do like.

Looking at the various lenses Schneider made in M42 and Exakta mounts in the 1950's and 60's, it seems to me that on average the maximum aperture of these lenses is smaller ("slower") than you see for lenses by Japanese companies in the 1970's and 80's. For example: the fastest 50mm lens Schneider made that I am aware of is the 50mm 1.9 Xenon. In the line ups of Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Olympus, etc. you will find a 50mm 1.4. And sometimes a 1.2. At 135mm, Schneider has a 3.5, but not a 2.8. The 200mm lens: Schneider Tele-Xenar is 5.5. The Japanese lenses usually come in at 4.0

I have been wondering why this would be the case, and have come up with a few theories. I would appreciate any insight!

Theory 1: Technology improvement. Since Schneider's M42/Exa lenses were made in the 1950's/60's this means they were designed before that. The Japanese lenses being 1970's and later perhaps benefited from improvements in optical know-how.

Theory 2: Marketing choice. Perhaps Schneider opted to not market their lenses with a maximum aperture that did not give satisfactory results when shot wide open.

Theory 3: Optical choice: Perhaps Schneider decided to improve one aspect of the optical performance of their lenses at the expense of the speed of the lenses? And if so what?

Theory 4: Something I haven't considered?

Does anyone have an idea?

Regards, Christine


PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Schneider lenses were only slower when they were constrained by the cameras they had to be used on, such as the leaf shutter SLRs, i.e. the Kodak Retinas.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
There is Schneider Xenon 5cm F1.5 made in 1930s for Leica camera.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Schneider lenses were only slower when they were constrained by the cameras they had to be used on, such as the leaf shutter SLRs, i.e. the Kodak Retinas.


So theory 4 is: Restrictions of the camera.

Please do correct me if I am wrong, but this applies to the DKL mount lenses. But do/did the cameras using the M42 and EXA lenses also have leaf shutters? I am not very familiar with the various shutter technologies and which cameras used what.

calvin83 wrote:
There is Schneider Xenon 5cm F1.5 made in 1930s for Leica camera.


That would eliminate theory 1, thank you Smile

Regards, Christine


PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Despite their relatively slow apertures of schneider lenses they are definitely a top tier optical company. I have many many schneider lenses. Top flight kit IMHO.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
jamaeolus wrote:
Despite their relatively slow apertures of schneider lenses they are definitely a top tier optical company. I have many many schneider lenses. Top flight kit IMHO.


Agreed! Smile I really like Schneider lenses.

My collection of Schneider lenses is not very large, but for example the 200mm 5.5 Tele-Xenar wide open at 5.5 is at least the equal to any 200mm 4.0 lens I own stopped down to 5.6.

Recently I added the 50mm 1.9 Xenon to my collection and I have a "zebra" 135mm 4.0 on the way, should be here within the next week or so. Let's see if it can challenge the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm 4.0 Sonnar (which is my oldest but also the best 135mm lens I own at the moment).

(Off-topic: I did a test the other between the CZJ 135mm 4.0 Sonnar, Minolta 135mm 2.8 MD II version and Olympus 135mm 3.5. The Minolta and Olympus gave similar performances but the CZJ won that one. No contest).

Regards, Christine


PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you have a DKL adapter the 85 f4 Tele Arton is a fantastic performer if you like that FL. Its very small and very sharp. Prices are quite low by comparison to nearly any other 85mm. Not what most people like for portraits though as it is very sharp even wide open. I have quite a collection of them as I am speculating that as more and more CaNikon users move to mirrorless they will increase in price.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In some cases I can see Schneider choosing a slower design in an effort to improve image quality, something most landscape shooters would gladly accept, slower lenses should require less effort to correct distortion and aberrations.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My guess dreamy character wide open was not their niche.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
My guess dreamy character wide open was not their niche.


Very few people shot wide open in those days, it is a modern fad that came from Japan, it would have been seen as bad technique in the past - only a poor photographer fails to make proper use of the tools at his disposal.

Fast lenses like the 1.4 'normals' were not designed to be shot wide open, they were designed with wide apertures to allow more light into the SLR for easier focusing in low light.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Pancolart wrote:
My guess dreamy character wide open was not their niche.


Very few people shot wide open in those days, it is a modern fad that came from Japan, it would have been seen as bad technique in the past - only a poor photographer fails to make proper use of the tools at his disposal.

Fast lenses like the 1.4 'normals' were not designed to be shot wide open, they were designed with wide apertures to allow more light into the SLR for easier focusing in low light.



Like 1 small


Yes, in the 1970s, my father always told us that we had to shrink the aperture by at least two.

However, as the aperture continues to shrink, the personality of various lenses will disappear.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting, thank you.

Regards, Christine


PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
There is an S-K Xenon 50mm 0.95. C-mount but with that mount replaced it covers more than APS. A friend has one. Way heavier than the Canon FD 55mm 1.2.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:22 am    Post subject: 0,95 Reply with quote
I have used my modified 0,95 on MFT where it covers the whole sensor without problems but assume it dates from a period later than discussed here,

Except for Leitz and Zeiss it seems that German producers were reluctant to join the race for large apertures. If one looks at camera magazine directory lisitings one will notice that in the presumably strongest market, the US, the Popular Photography listings for 1964 only mentions interchangeaable lenses as part of camera listings, not as separate items. This indicates that customers shopped for cameras more than for lenses.

Prices cannot have made it easier to compete: the nikon f is listed as 323usd with the f2 and 388 with the 1,4 while the contarex is 499 with its f2 while demanding an extra 249 for the 1,4 so if Schneider had similar higher costs than Nikon for faster glass, it was sensible not try to compete on speed.

p.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
laenee wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Pancolart wrote:
My guess dreamy character wide open was not their niche.


Very few people shot wide open in those days, it is a modern fad that came from Japan, it would have been seen as bad technique in the past - only a poor photographer fails to make proper use of the tools at his disposal.

Fast lenses like the 1.4 'normals' were not designed to be shot wide open, they were designed with wide apertures to allow more light into the SLR for easier focusing in low light.



Like 1 small


Yes, in the 1970s, my father always told us that we had to shrink the aperture by at least two.

However, as the aperture continues to shrink, the personality of various lenses will disappear.


Yes, in the days of film cameras, people were much more concerned with getting a well focused result - film was not cheap, you tried to make every frame count, and with the difficulty of focussing, it was common to have some out of focus shots on every roll.

Shooting wide open is something that has become popular since the advent of digital.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
connloyalist wrote:

Looking at the various lenses Schneider made in M42 and Exakta mounts in the 1950's and 60's, it seems to me that on average the maximum aperture of these lenses is smaller ("slower") than you see for lenses by Japanese companies in the 1970's and 80's.

You have already given the answer yourself: the 1950-1960 time frame was was twenty years before the 1970-1980 time frame. Compare a cell phone from 2000 with a smart phone from 2020 ...


connloyalist wrote:

Theory 1: Technology improvement. Since Schneider's M42/Exa lenses were made in the 1950's/60's this means they were designed before that. The Japanese lenses being 1970's and later perhaps benefited from improvements in optical know-how.

Yep, main reason.

connloyalist wrote:
Theory 2: Marketing choice. Perhaps Schneider opted to not market their lenses with a maximum aperture that did not give satisfactory results when shot wide open.

Theory 3: Optical choice: Perhaps Schneider decided to improve one aspect of the optical performance of their lenses at the expense of the speed of the lenses? And if so what?

Theory 4: Something I haven't considered?


I would say that the German companies in general were a bit "lazy" during theses times, just relying on their pre-war success instead of steadily improving their optical constructions (as the Japanese did). Canon was best at marketing their (super)fast lenses - first normal lenses such as the f1.2 and f0.95 for the rangefinders, later the 1.2/55 ASPH, the 1.2/85 ASPH, the 1.4/24 APSH and the 2.8/300mm Fluorite for SLRs (around 1975). The aspherical lenses made by Canon were based on US technology, so it's NOT a genuine Canon development. Neither was the Japanese quality control system (another important reason for the success of Japanese cameras in the 1960s); this as well had US (military) origins.

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

Yes, in the days of film cameras, people were much more concerned with getting a well focused result - film was not cheap, you tried to make every frame count, and with the difficulty of focussing, it was common to have some out of focus shots on every roll.

This was true in the 1950 and 1960s, particularly for amateurs. However in the 1970s and 1980s, shooting wide open was absolutely normal when using portrait and tele lenses.

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Shooting wide open is something that has become popular since the advent of digital.

Maybe in the United Kingdom - but certainly not here in Switzerland. We certainly were taught to shoot wide open when I was in high school, around 1980. That was 25 years before I bought my first DSLR ...

S


PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2021 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
We certainly were taught to shoot wide open when I was in high school, around 1980. That was 25 years before I bought my first DSLR ...


That's interesting. I've started apprx. 1980 when I bought my first SLR camera. I'm rather sure that the main purpose of the ultrafast SLR lenses has been the bright viewfinder for manual focusing these days rather to use them wide open because of their poor quality. Therefore I've always stopped down for shooting. In fact for best quality shooting that's still true today. The big difference is that modern lenses deliver acceptable quality wide open as well. To the best of my knowledge I dont't know any ultrafast lens from the 1970/80 that is really unconditionally usable wide open in daylight conditions. However, for some circumstances that may fall under the category "special character". Wink


PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2021 12:40 pm    Post subject: auto- aperture Reply with quote
Indeed, the entire rationale behind automatic aperture stopdown was to facilitate focussing. The only lenses not needing this were the rangefinder ones and they were often used by newsgatherers who needed speed rather than acutance since newsprint did not favour reproduction of microdetails.

p.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2021 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:

Maybe in the United Kingdom - but certainly not here in Switzerland. We certainly were taught to shoot wide open when I was in high school, around 1980. That was 25 years before I bought my first DSLR ...


That explains why you're a poor photographer and obsessed with wide open performance in the corners - you received a poor, incorrect education.

Now, please, as I have asked you several times before, please stop bothering me with your trollish behaviour. I have been good enough to ignore you for quite a while now, please do the same.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2021 4:56 pm    Post subject: Re: auto- aperture Reply with quote
paulhofseth wrote:
Indeed, the entire rationale behind automatic aperture stopdown was to facilitate focussing. The only lenses not needing this were the rangefinder ones and they were often used by newsgatherers who needed speed rather than acutance since newsprint did not favour reproduction of microdetails.

p.

Yes. A less sharp photo is still better than a photo with motion blur in news.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:05 pm    Post subject: argumentum ad hominem Reply with quote
Such disparaging remarks as above should not occur in any forrm. especially since they do not relate to the theme at hand.

pu


PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:05 pm    Post subject: Re: 0,95 Reply with quote
paulhofseth wrote:
. . .
If one looks at camera magazine directory lisitings one will notice that in the presumably strongest market, the US, the Popular Photography listings for 1964 only mentions interchangeaable lenses as part of camera listings, not as separate items. . .


Speaking of listings, if it's of interest, Popular Photography published a "lens guide" in 1966:
http://forum.mflenses.com/popular-photography-magazine-u-s-1966-lens-guide-t80921.html#top


PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I certainly have to say, my OM2N, with a zuiko 50 F1.4 in 1979 would be used to expose at any apeture, but focus at F1.4 and even had a button to check depth of field, using the stop down mechanism, So although I might use f1.4 exposurers, I more often did not.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="iangreenhalgh1"]
stevemark wrote:

Now, please, as I have asked you several times before, please stop bothering me with your trollish behaviour.


You are free to express your opinions - and I am free to talk about my experiences Wink

Gr S


PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:39 pm    Post subject: Re: 0,95 Reply with quote
55 wrote:
paulhofseth wrote:
. . .
If one looks at camera magazine directory lisitings one will notice that in the presumably strongest market, the US, the Popular Photography listings for 1964 only mentions interchangeaable lenses as part of camera listings, not as separate items. . .


Speaking of listings, if it's of interest, Popular Photography published a "lens guide" in 1966:
http://forum.mflenses.com/popular-photography-magazine-u-s-1966-lens-guide-t80921.html#top

Like 1 Like 1 small

The S21, although it is the fastest lens for SLR of its time, is not much expensive compare to the other fast 50s. Wink
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2