art_major Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 <p>Hello,<br> I just dug up to old lenses, which one should I keep?</p> <p>Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 150mm f/3.5</p> <p>or</p> <p>Schneider Xenar 150mm f/3.5</p> <p>many thanks. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianS1664879711 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 <p>Why not keep both? Probably not much of a difference between them really. Maybe flipping a coin is best method if you must give up one. That assumes glass on both are in same condition. Do they have shutters? Best shutter would also be a discriminator.</p> ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art_major Posted March 1, 2012 Author Share Posted March 1, 2012 <p>yeah, i would like to keep both, but im just trying to thin out my collection. they are both in the same condition w/ shutters. its a oddly tough decision. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thirteenthumbs Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 <blockquote> <p>I just dug up to old lenses, which one should I keep?</p> </blockquote> <p>Depends on what they were buried in and how bad of shape they're in. :D<br> Seriously, ask them. Mount them up on lens boards and make some test shots. How well they were stored and how roughly they were handled will have more to do with how they preform now than they did when new. </p> <p>If both are in very good condition I'd bet on the Zeiss.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelging Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 <p>I have them both and like the Xenar better myself, but I think that Charles idea is a good one. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhbebb Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 <p>Depends too on if they are similar ages i.e. both produced close to WWII and uncoated. Coating is likely to make a larger difference than anything else, if the lenses are in good condition expect usual 4-element performance with reasonable central sharpness at full aperture improving somewhat 2 or 3 stops down, with edges not great at full aperture but improving to good by f11 to 16.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_s Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 <p>What Charles said: test before deciding.</p> <p>Anecdote: I have a couple of uncoated Zeiss Tessars from the 1930s. I bought them 25 years ago, but I don't use them anymore. One (a 10.5cm) is sharp, and performs close to a modern lens. The other (a 13cm) gives a very soft image. From the outside, there's no visible difference in their condition.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drew bedo Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 <p>Why not check to see which ranks higher in salability . . .which one sells for more online? That should tip you one way or another (But to keep or sell . . .?) </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
profhlynnjones Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 <p>Theoretically they should be similar since both are tessar types, however, I would take the Zeiss Tessar every time, I've never had a bad one.</p> <p>Lynn</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now