Schneider Xenar 135/4.7

[chris_waller]

<p>I recently moved up to LF when I bought an old Calumet 5x4 (model unknown, but probably circa late 60s) with a Schneider Xenar 135mm. The lens is OK but does not seem to have the 'bite' (that 'etched' quality) of newer lenses. How good was the Xenar and how does it stack up against a newer lens? What lens (135mm or 150mm) would you recommend?<br>

TIA.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>The Schneider Xenar 135/4.7 was made primarily for press use, I suspect it was made f4.7 instead of the usual f4.5 to fit into a #0 shutter, and it will just cover 4x5" at infinity with little or no camera movements. It is of 4-element design, historically (before multicoating) 4-element lenses were considered to have slightly better micro-contrast (the "bite" you speak of) than 6-element lenses, but this will be lower than with a modern lens. Alternatives with more covering power and micro-contrast would essentially be anything more modern (and multicoated) - in the 135 FL there's practically only the Nikkor-W (I have one and like it a lot), in a 150 there's Nikkor-W again and also Schneider Symmar S (or indeed XL if the budget will stand it). Note that the original ("convertible") Symmar has micro-contrast like a Xenar. Any modern lens will also have a flatter field than a Xenar.</p>

[dave_s]

<p>(i) Schneider made a Symmar-S in both 135 and 150mm, and of course both are good for 4 x 5. If you get a Symmar-S, look for one that says 'multicoating' on the barrel. (Any Symmar-S with a S.N. < 13 000 000 is single-coated. They started multicoating different focal lengths around 13 01* ***, but look for the word 'multicoating' to be sure.)</p>

<p>(ii) I am pretty sure Rodenstock also had a 135 in its different Sironar lines.</p>

<p>(iii) I believe a 135mm Xenar in Copal 0 was supplied by Schneider until recently-- maybe five years ago. Certainly there was a recent 150. IIRC, the Xenar was single-coated, not multicoated, right up to the end of production. Schneider is famously very conservative about lens performance, but I guess they determined that with only six glass-air interfaces, single-coating met their high standards.</p>

<p>FWIW, I have an ancient (early 50s) single-coated 135/3.8 Xenar in Compur 1, that I use on rollfilm. It's not a bad lens, but I always use a shade, and on rollfilm I'm only using the sharp center of the field. It's probably not as contrasty as my Symmar-S.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>You have a Tessar type lens design which is over 100 years old. It is a great lens; once called the eagle eye lens. Its faults are it only has a moderate coverage.</p>

<p>A Tessar can be tack sharp in the central core when stopped down a few stops; and with good contrast even with single coating since it is a a simpler lens with only 6 air to glass interfaces.</p>

<p>A Tessar's great performance is over a moderate angle; A Symmar or Angulon of the same focal length will often have sharper corners.</p>

<p>The 127mm Ektar here out resolves my 50 megapixel scan back in the central region; but the back exceeds the lens at the corners of the 7x10cm scan area.</p>

<p>To illustrate how a Tessar type lens can vary with angle; my 127mm F4.7 Kodak Ektar clocks in at 85 line pairs per mm on axis measured on film at about F11 to F16. This is with a high contrast USAF chart; like about all lenses are tested with. It has more contrast than some more complex multicoated lenses.</p>

<p>The 127mm is really good over a 3x4" negative; with a 4x5 negative the resolution of mine is way down to 12 to about 18 when looks at the data sets of the 4 far far corners. In formal lens testing one uses the lowest of the radial or tangential data sets; and the lowest of all 4 corners. Thus one would say that mine is really a very crummy 12 in the corners of a 4x5 frame. This still means one can do a 2x enlargement if one uses the full 4x5' or maybe 4x to 6x if one uses the spec'd 3x4 frame. Over a 2x3" area mine is super great</p>

<p>Over a century the refractive indexes with some Tessar lens has been increased. A Tessar from 1905 can have lower glass refractive indexes than a modern Nikon 45mm F2.8 Pancake lens for 35mm.</p>

<p>In begineer camera school courses; Tessar type 4x5 lenses are/were often used on 4x5 rail cameras; but they were longer in focal length' ie 180, 210 and 240mm. This allows one to "learn movments" with a moderate cost lens. One got more coverage than a 4x5 frame because the lenses were longer. The drawback is one cannot be close to a close to a tall building and tie ones rail camera into a Pretzel for corrections.</p>

<p>One does have build quality with any lens; thus a Tessar; and the Goober/Kilroy factor of folks leaving out shims can ruin performance. One can have element separation.</p>

<p>*****Tessar type lenses are sort of the Rodney Dangerfield here on the LF board; they often get not much respect.</p>

<p>With the 127mm F4.7 Kodak Ektar; it is one of the best Ektar lenses they ever made. It is short enough that a ED type glass lens design really is not needed. The design is so great on axis that the lens works well too on a 16mm cine camera as a super telephoto.</p>

<p>*****A Tessar type lens is often NOT the lens many LF users want if one wants movments; since its coverage is just moderate. Like any great tool; when used in its great region; a Tessar can be totally an outstanding lens.</p>

<p>A brand new "modern" non 135mm Tessar lens will give you better corners; and 2/3's way out too. Your lens is only 8mm longer than my Tessar design 127mm Kodak Ektar.</p>

<p>***Whether this matters is an other story; with a group shot of a mess of folks a longer Tessar or same focal length Symmar gives way better corners.</p>

<p>If you subject matter is in the central core; a more modern lens may not matter; or even be worse. There are really many variables; you might have a Xenar that has a problem like separation.</p>

<p>Before WW2 the Tessar lens design was the King of the Hill. This is because one did not really lens coatings for the masses yet. With uncoated lenses the simple Tessar gave sharp high contrast images; higher than the more complex designes.</p>

<p>In Tessar type lenses I have a 300mm F4.5 Xenar; a 210mm F3.5 Xenar; a 210mm F4.5 Xenar; a 150mm Kodak Ektar; a 135mm F4.7? Optar; a mess of 127mm F4.7 Kodak Extars dot dot dot down to my 23mm F2.8 Tessar on my Rollie A110 that is killer sharp. On Graflex 4x5 slr I have B&L Tessar from about 1918; and others are Kodak Anastimats of the 1920's and 1930's.I have also a Russian 210mm F4.5 Industar-51.</p>

<p>FORMAT SWITCH: </p>

<p>Here is a Tessar type Russian Industar-50 Leica Thread Mount 50mm F3.5 lens Wide open versus my "Modern" brand new in 1995 Leica Summicron Rigid LTM 50mm F2 wide open at F2:</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/LTM%20lenses/tripods-213.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/LTM%20lenses/tripods-210.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/LTM%20lenses/tripods-209.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Here is a Canon 50mm F1.2 LTM wide open at F1.2:</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/LTM%20lenses/tripods-211.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Here is what the modern 1250 buck LTM 50mm F2 looks like:<br /> Note that the 100 year old Tessar type Industar-50 on the Ebay Russian rig is sharp too wide open; and its cost was a tiny fraction of the Summicron. The ugly Industar-50 on axis is up there with the Summicron in performance; and it is not a modern lens design; it is a 100 year old one.</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/LTM%20lenses/Leica50LTM.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Chris Perez has a great writeup on some LF lenses:</p>

<p>http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/kit.html</p>

<p>His main entrance to his site:</p>

<p>http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/index.html</p>

<p>Chris's nice test of 210mm LF lenses:</p>

<p>http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/BigMash210.html</p>

<p>Chris; I hope it is ok to post the first direct link.</p>

<p> </p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Geez, he only asked what lens we recommend<g>. I would second the Schneider 135mm and 150mm (though I prefer the 150mm). I don't know the Rodenstock line that well, but have colleagues who also love them. I owned both lengths in the Nikon line and found the 135mm to be soft, but the 150, while not the "bite" you mention, had great color and good subtle contrast capabilities. There are 120 and 121mm lenses that are superb, but they are big and expensive.</p>

[tom_cheshire]

<p>So, no one is going to mention the Commercial Ektar or a Komura? </p>

[colin carron]

<p>In my experience it should be a pretty sharp lens especially in the centre of the field. Its main drawback was almost zero movements on to 4x5. 135 and 150 'standard' lenses are often quite reasonable second hand and it should be possible to pick up a nice multi-coated example from one of the four main makers without too much difficulty. The Rodenstock Sironar series from the 90's onwards are pretty sharp and are also compact in size making them useful for folding designs. The more modern lenses will also come in the Copal shutter which in my experience is more reliable than the Compur.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>I don't know what you want said about the Commercial Ektar, but I'll say that I use one. They are Tessar formula too and seem to have plenty of "bite". I also use an older Kodak Anastigmat. When I hear comments about lack of bite with Tessar-fromula lenses I believe them, but urge the person to double check that they aren't over/under exposing/developing, which can contribute to the lack of bite.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Many thanks, everyone, for your comprehensive responses to my query. The serial number of the lens is 4381406 and there is no mention of multicoating. I suspect, from David's comments, that what I am calling lack of bite is lower microcontrast. That said, a closer examination of the lens reveals a fair amount of dust on the inner elements so a clean and service is due.<br>

Thanks once again.</p>

 

[dave_s]

<p>1955, will be single-coated.</p>

[chuck_pere]

<p>One of the best 135's is the Rodenstock Apo-Sironar S. Good coverage and a reputation for being a sharp lens. But costly. I've been trying out a later model 135 Xenar that came with a Crown Graphic special. Early 70's in a Copal. The negatives look great to me as do the first couple prints. I'm sure the Apo-Sironar S would be better but for no movement straight on use the Xenar works for me. I do normally try and cleanup any haze in old Tessars. If your lens has any that may be one of the problems. You will have to get on the inside of the front to clean it. Could be easy or difficult. My Xenar is pretty new and I didn't have to clean the inside.</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>When new the Crown Graphic came with a Graphic Optar as standard, the Crown Special had the Xenar and was $20 less than the standard Crown.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>The main problem I see with Xenars is that their front glass is quite soft and easily scratched, by careless cleaning for example. The image quality from a pristine condition Xenar should really be a match for most modern lenses, and it's only the limited coverage on 5x4 that makes it an "inferior" lens, especially in the short 135mm focal length.</p>

<p>With any lens, condition is everything. Careless cleaning, dust or condensation between the elements, fingerprints, in fact anything that helps to scatter light within the lens; all of these will lower contrast and take that "bite" off the image - far more than the slight difference between single and multi-coating.</p>

<p>Chris, check the condition of that old Xenar carefully before you consign it to the back of a drawer. Shining a small penlight torch through it from the back while you look through the front of the lens is a harsh test that easily shows up any blemish. Micro-scratching through poor cleaning can't be repaired, but dust or misting inside the lens can usually be easily removed by a CAREFUL clean using a blower brush, alcohol if necessary to removed stubborn grease (cheap vodka will do) and a few lens tissues. Using a properly designed lens hood wouldn't hurt either, nor would making sure that the inside of the camera bellows is free of dust, since even the best lens won't give good results if the camera is bouncing stray light around inside.</p>

<p>If you're still disappointed with the results after trying the above cheap fixes, then I'd second the recommendation to go for a Symmar-S or Sironar. But again, check the condition of the lens carefully. A single-coated lens in mint condition will nearly always be better than an abused lens that's multi-coated, and will also probably be a lot cheaper.</p>

[profhlynnjones]

<p>I'm surprised Chris,</p>

<p>Schneider made these for Graflex for the last couple of years of their press camera manufacture and the lenses that I used and tested were darned good. This is a modified tessar to slightly extend the coverage.</p>

<p>Lynn</p>