Schneider Xenon-E 50 mm f/2.2 tested

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

enricosavazzi
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: Västerås, Sweden
Contact:

Schneider Xenon-E 50 mm f/2.2 tested

Post by enricosavazzi »

This lens was discussed some time ago at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... sc&start=0 . Opinions of this lens were not high when reversed and used in photomacrography at relatively low enlargement.

My tests at 2x and 3x reversed on Micro 4/3 format essentially confirm these findings. In addition, since Schneider states that this lens (in forward orientation) can be focused up to infinity, I tested it also reversed on tube lenses (50, 100 and 200 mm). It performs moderately better as infinite conjugate at 2x and 4x than as finite, but vignettes at 1x. Albeit, the improvement is still not enough to earn a recommendation for using this lens.

http://www.savazzi.net/photography/schn ... ld_50.html

Season's greetings.
--ES

Lou Jost
Posts: 5945
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Well, that's a surprisingly bad lens for a Schneider. But I found it interesting that the lens did better when coupled with a tube lens than when reversed by itself. At these low magnifications, that should be true even for a perfect lens optimized for infinity (because for a given aperture f on the prime lens, the effective aperture of the coupled pair is significantly lower than the effective aperture of the reversed prime lens by itself at the same magnification). This test shows that this may also be true of a bad lens!

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Thanks for sharing the info Enrico. Very interesting!

I do remember seeing that lens for sale on Ebay and the thread, you posted the link. I was hoping someone would test it more throughly one day.

I remember the auction, I sent the seller a low-ball offer and they agreed but before I could press the pay button all the lenses sold out. Looking at it now I am glad I didn't get a chance to buy one.

Robert

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23562
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Lou Jost wrote:At these low magnifications, that should be true even for a perfect lens optimized for infinity (because for a given aperture f on the prime lens, the effective aperture of the coupled pair is significantly lower than the effective aperture of the reversed prime lens by itself at the same magnification).
I assume you're thinking about diffraction, but in this situation I doubt that diffraction is the main issue. More likely it's a matter that in dragging the lens too far away from its design point, significant aberrations get introduced. A perfect lens optimized for infinity will certainly not be optimized for use at 2-3X, reversed on empty extension. Even at image center, spherical aberration can cut contrast pretty badly. Away from image center there's a host of other possibilities.

See http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 943#102943 for results of one particular 55mm f/1.8 operated at 2.45X, reversed on extension versus reversed in front of a 135mm rear lens. Big differences in the corners for that test, in favor of the two-lens combo.

--Rik

Lou Jost
Posts: 5945
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Sorry, I missed this when you wrote it, Rik. Yes, I was thinking of diffraction primarily. That's an especially important difference between the two techniques at low m. But for any m, as you say, coupled lenses optimized for infinity have the advantage that they are being used more or less at their design point.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic