Fun with the Xenon

<p>Last month I acquired a Leitz Schneider-Kreuznach Xenon 50 f/1.5 (UG from KEH) .<br>

It came to me with a loose lens unit after someone did a poor re-assemlby job. It had a large focus error and the glass had some cleaning marks at both ends.<br>

A check on the serial number told me it was from 1937. <br /><br />The Xenon was a prestige lens for Leitz, to show the world not just Zeiss could make fast lenses. But as with many fast lenses of the period I feel they took it a stop too far in the design. <br />Only 6190 were produced and sold poorly from 1936 to 1948, when it was eventually discontinued for the Summarit (which I'm told is basically the same lens formula with coating).</p>

<p><img src="http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/xenon13.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="426" /></p>

<p>It took me a few attempts to figure out how everything came apart and went back together. Luckily you can find a bit more info on disassembly of the Summarit. The Xenon is very similar indeed. In the end I managed to tighten up the loose lens assembly and with it the focus error went away too.<br /><br /><br>

Time came to test it. First I mounted it on my Leica M3 and loaded it with Lucky SHD 100 B/W film.<br>

<img src="http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/XenonT04.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/XenonT05.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="640" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/XenonT06.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="640" /></p>

<p>Not a sure if the glow is due to the cleaning marks on the rear element or because of the poor anti-halation layer of the Lucky film.</p>

<p>Next couple I didn't desaturated after scanning. Rather dreamy :)<br>

<img src="http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/XenonT08.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="400" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/XenonT11.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Next I put the Xenon on my latest Leica IIIc for another test, and loaded it with some Lucky 200 Color.<br /><br /><br>

Looks like a little shutter drag<br>

<img src="http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/FV121113.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/FV121114.jpg" alt="" width="420" height="660" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/FV121122.jpg" alt="" width="420" height="660" /></p>

<p>The Xenon appear to be resonably sharp from f/4 and smaller. But as expected contrast is low with color film (I imagine it's worse if my lens wasn't coated). I'd love to shoot some portraits with it in the near future, but I think I'll stick to B/W film.</p>

<p>Next goal: Get a 50 f/1.5 Sonnar in LTM...just for so I compare it you know.<br /><br />It'll be a while though. I got my eye on a Combat Graphic 45 at the moment.</p>

<p><br />Regards,<br>

Rick</p>

 

<p>Dreamy indeed. I like the results very much.<br>

Congratulations.</p>

<p>Reminds me that I have a Biotar 50mm f/2 in the M40 Praktiflex (prewar and early postwar) mount that has some 'cleaning' marks that I have been meaning to get out and shoot. </p>

<p>I rather like low contrast from older lenses but I have to say that if you try it with Velvia 50 or even Velvia 100, you'd notice a very pleasing contrast indeed. I have personally had good results with positives and older uncoated lenses.<br>

I like the glow! Call it cleaning marks or flare but I think in the black and white images there is something of a enigma! </p>

<p>Wow, that last photograph could have come right out of any propaganda magazine of that time. Really impressive lens to say the least.</p>

<p>These lenses are quite scarce due to the low production number, so you have scored well! Apparently the Xenon was badly received at the time and didn't perform to Leitz standards. Of course Zeiss had that 1.5 Sonnar which was always a cracker, even uncoated, so Leitz had some catching up to do. They finally caught up (and surged well ahead) with the Summilux.<br>

Having said that, the Xenon looks perfect for the kind of shots that you take, lovely antique look with plenty of Leica glow...you're on a winner here! </p>

<p>Thanks for the responses everyone,</p>

<p>Yes, I did my research on the lens before buying. And I took a chance when this one came up at KEH with its indicated defects. One in top condition sold a few weeks prior on Ebay from a Israeli seller...I was outbid by about $5 on it. <br /><br />I have been looking at original lens caps and hoods for this lens, but they're extremely pricy. I went for a 43mm vented hood with a 41-to-43mm step-up ring to reduce the flare/glow from stray light at least a little bit. (Got a 43mm vented Leica Hood for a Summicron today for free, that should fit too). <br /><br /><br>

As you said Tony, It gives the look I want in my Living History photos. Definitely interested to see what this thing can do for portraits at f/1.5 .</p>

 

<p>More fantastic shots from a classic camera and lens combination, <strong>Rick</strong>! As <strong>Starvy</strong> mentioned, I too would be interested in seeing what some Velvia would do for the contrast of this lens.<br>

Keep up the great work!</p>

<p>Gentlepersons: </p>

<p>This first post was shot with a Xenon F:2.0 on a Retina reflex (first model) in 2010 using Kodachrome 64 (not the sharpest film, wish it was Kodachrome 25!). The first post is the whole scene, highly reduced from an untouched scan from a Nikon Coolscan 5000. My second post will be a pixel for pixel cut from half way between the center and the edge of the view. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p><div></div>

<p>Gentlepersons:</p>

<p>This second post is a follow up to the above posted by me, showing a highly reduced full frame shot with a Xenon F:2.0 on a Retina reflex (first model) in 2010 using Kodachrome 64 (not the sharpest film, wish it was Kodachrome 25!).</p>

<p>This is a pixel for pixel cut from half way between the center and the edge of the view.</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p><div></div>

<p>Wow. Rick your prowess for repairing things is really gotten good! You don't shy away from anything now do youou? Another success ! Excellent ideal to get a Sonnar .. Ja Klar.. for comparison purposes only of course ??? I really do like the Dreamy excellent tones is this Lucky? I think too the color work is quite nice. I don'T see any reason to avoid it?!? You know Stephen Gandy has a feature on the Combat Graphic 45. http://www.cameraquest.com/graphcombat.htm<br>

The The first time I saw a Speed Graphic .. it was a very dilapitated Army Green whether it was a "Combat" version I can't say. My Dad pointed to it as the Holy Graille of cameras in his youth. This was circa 1980 when I was just shooting SLR B&W and thinking more about photography than cameras. </p>

<p>Thanks Chuck, <br /><br />It might have been the KE-12 your father was thinking about. These are more like regular Speed Graphics with the bellows then the fixed body Combat Graphics. <br />......not to be confused with the KE-4 70mm Combat Graflex.</p>

<p> Get a m39>m4/3 rds adapter on eBay for $20.00 USD and test that lens on a real focusing system in TTL, the DSLM cameras focus TTL @ 6x,,,,,, No Rangefinder can beat that ever! What you find, is: The rangefinder mechanism for focus was the problem, NOT the 1936~1960 lenses from Leitz or Zeiss. So the old war of whose lenses were better is Bull! The question was whose focusing system was more accurate and stable over time and use. If your lens is clean in the inside, a DSLM camera will amaze the unbeliever! Regards, Don</p>