A walk with a Super Frankarette

<P>I should admit at the outset that I wasn?t looking for this

camera. I?ve not been harbouring a desire to own one. But it was just

too cheap a deal to pass up. And even then it definitely wasn?t love

at first sight. In fact I thought it looked like a boring little

camera. But the pedigree was good: Schneider Xenar 45mm f2.8 lens,

coupled rangefinder, Prontor shutter 1 ? 1/300 s, cast metal chassis.

For a pound (that?s nearly two bucks) I couldn?t say no. How many of

you could have walked on by?</P><P>Anyway, I got it home, gave it a

cursory clean-up, found everything in absolutely tip-top condition,

but I was still not moved. It sat on the shelf for some time, while I

did things with other, more interesting cameras, then I finally got

round to loading a roll of ISO200 print film and taking a stroll with

it. There is no meter on this camera, so I elected on this occasion

to nail my exposures using Rick Oleson?s famous pocket exposure

calculator (for which many thanks, Rick). Here?s the first, a quiet

back alley near the cathedral.</P><div></div>

<P>Another one, West Pallant. Nice detail in the flint walls here.</P><div></div>

<P>Finally, down at the canal wharf.</P><P>I was pleasantly surprised by these images. I originally set out to compare this camera with the Minolta A, as they come from about the same era and are similar in specification, and I must admit my money was on the Minolta. It?s a much prettier camera and also nicer ergonomically, but the Xenar lens outperforms the Rokkor comfortably. I still can?t say I love it, but as a vintage picture taker, the Super Frankarette takes some beating. If you see one, don?t pass it by. </P><div></div>

This Frankarette of yours certainly performs well. But that's only half the story. How's its hairdo -- up there with the Marvelettes and the Ronettes?

Great stuff. To hell with digital. BTW The Ronnette had an inferior lens and The Marvellette was prone to jammed iris blades.

Is your Frankarette made by Franka? I own two medium format Franka folders, and their Schneider lenses are quite good for their age.

Yes, Franka-Camera-Werke Bayreuth. Franka started in about 1910 and disappeared in the 60s.

Very nice results. I've been hoping to find a good Xenar for a long time. Judging by what you got, along with what I saw sometime ago from a fellow in HK, it is a very capable lens. My one old book on optics indicates that the Xenar was basically a Tessar with the lenses arranged in reverse order.

Hi, Brian Hey, mate, for just a quid I think you've done very well. Frankawerk were a bit on the lower social scale of German camera makers, so us Collector Folks tend to avoid them. However, I got offered one of these Super Frankarettes myself a couple of years back for a song, and bought it. Like you, I was pleasantly surprised with its construction, and a Xenar lens is always a Xenar lens, no matter what it's fitted to. I've since parted company with it, in my eternal search for more cupboard space for Diaxes, Exaktas, Mirandas and AGFAs, but I think I learned a lesson there. "Don't judge a book by its cover?" PN

Mike Connealy wrote: "My one old book on optics indicates that the Xenar was basically a Tessar with the lenses arranged in reverse order."

 

I guess these Xenars were very early. The later Xenars (99,99999% of them) are almost exactly like the Tessar. You would have to look at the written formula to see the difference between the Xenar and the Tessar.

Guys - Regarding these various configurations of the Xenar - a la Tessar, or not - I acquired a very early (c. 1936) Xenar last year to fit a Reflex Korelle body. It's an f2.8 7.5 cm, obviously uncoated, and in the screwthread mount unique to the Korelle. I did some research about lenses for the Korelle, and found the usual "quick" standard one was the f2.8 7.5 cm Zeiss Tessar. This Xenar was relatively rare. However, further investigations about fast prewar Xenars revealed that they had FIVE (not four) elements, BION. So, clearly, comparisons with 4-element Tessars are not valid.

It seems these five-element Xenars disappeared in the immediate post-war period, when coating began to surface (!, and thereafter all Xenars were equal to all men. PN

To be fair to the author I cited, Greenleaf, the context of his comments on the Xenar was actually a discussion of variations on the Tessar design. He was referring to two specific lenses, a 2.7 Tessar and a 3.5 Xenar that exhibited the reversed order of the elements. There were a lot of variations and elaborations of the basic Tessar design that usually involved the cemented group. I'm not sure about the number of 9's in Patrick's assertion, but I think his basic idea that the Xenar was a Tessar and a nice lens is ok. Now, if I could just figure out why the one on my Retina I is so soft...