Xenar, Xenotar, or Zeiss 105mm?

[paul_ong1]

<p>Hi,<br>

Looking for some advice and information on three possible lenses. I need a lens for a hybrid digital camera that uses the Century Graphic for some limited technical movement. Currently using an 80mm Schneider enlarging lens, which is fine for near distance. But need another lens for distance around 100-135mm, and has to be small and light enough to fit on the Century (LF lenses are out). I have spotted three possible alternatives on ebay:<br>

Zeiss f/3.5 tessar off a Zeiss Ikon Super<br>

Schneider Xenotar Linof Select f/2.8<br>

Schneider Xenar f/4.5 from a Kodak Vollenda 6x9<br>

I did a quick search of this website and google have have some basic information, but any addition insights would be greatly appreciated. So, any information on the relative quality of these lenses? The digital back (a Sony NEX 5) uses the center part of the image circle, so the softness of the edge is not important. Don't mind a faster lens, but not critical.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

[paul_ong1]

<p>Just found another,<br>

Kodak Anastigmat Special f/4.5 101mm, which is not the top of the line Ektar but understand it might be nearly as good in the center.<br>

Thanks in advance for your comments and suggestions.</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>The Xenotar should be the best of the three in y'r first post. Also the most expensive.</p>

<p>The Xenar is pre-WW-II, uncoated, and from the days when Schneider's quality control was so-so.</p>

<p>If the f/3.5 Tessar is post-WW-II and coated it might do, but I wouldn't use it. No good reason why not, but I wouldn't.</p>

<p>Can't comment on the Kodak Anastigmat Special in y'r second post. If it is dirt cheap, get it and try it.</p>

<p>You may want to look at http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html The 90/3.5 for K-O looks good but is in a Copal #0 shutter that's triggered from the rear and that has no "T" setting or press focus. To use that one you'd have to put the cells in a regular #0.</p>

[tom_cheshire]

<P>I don't get it. If you are doing ok with an enlarging lens then why don't you get another enalrging lens? There are lots of 135mm enlarging lenses. If you get a lens in a shutter like those you have mentioned then you have to leave it set on "T" if it has such a setting or on "B" with a locking cable release. Awkward. Anastigmat Specials, from folding cameras anyway, have a tendency of being hazy when you find them.</P>

[paul_ong1]

<p>Dan, thanks. Will make the Xenotar my top priority, but depends on the price.<br /> Tom, thanks for the info on the Anastigmat Specials. As for my choice, it is based on the belief that most enlarging lenses are not good for distant objects. From what I understand, they are optimized for the distance associated with the range of their print magnification. That certainly is the case for my Schneider Componon-S 80mm, good for near distance but not so great for far distance. Hence, the search for the 6x9 format lenses, which is the same size as the Century Graphic. (In my experience, enlarger lenses are also good for high magnification macro work when reversed.) You can see the hybrid camera at<br>

[tom_cheshire]

<p>If you have a Century Graphic why not use the lenses made for them? A 135mm Wollensak Raptar or Optar in the Graphex shutter should be excellent. These are cheap usually. Check out the user page for your camera at <a href="http://graflex.org/speed-graphic/century-graphic.html">http://graflex.org/speed-graphic/century-graphic.html</a></p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Agree with above comments - the Xenotar is the best iof the three you mention, the other two sound like pre-war uncoated lenses. But ... if you buy the Xenotar, you will be paying a lot for its rarity and the fact that it has 2.8 maximum aperture. The obvious choice would be a Schneider Symmar/Symmar-S, performance as good as the Xenotar except that it is a 5.6, and cheaper. If you want a cheap alternative, look for a Kodak Sterling folding camera. Nobody really wants them, they need 620 film, but they have a 105 mm 4.5 Anaston (Tessar-type) lens which is pretty good (of course like any Tessar it needs to be closed down 2 or 3 stops for critical edge definition).</p>

[paul_ong1]

<p>Tom,<br>

Thanks for the suggestion. The lenses I am listing are those I can find on ebay right now. Among the lenses listed for the Century Graphic, my preference is the Kodak Ektar 105mm f/3.7 Heliar. There is one listed on ebay, but it is way beyond my budget. The seller wants $395! I am staying away from the Graflex Graflar or Trioptar, which appears to perform poorly. The Wollensak Raptar or Optar seems to be decent, but not sure if it is up there with the Xenotar. But the Raptar/Optar may be cheaper. <br>

Is the 135mm Raptar a MF or LF lens? My concern is fitting it on the Century Graphic.</p>

<p>David, thanks for the suggestion. Do the Schneider Symmar/Symmar-S MF or LF? I have a couple of LF Schneider lenses for 4x5, and there is no way to fit them on the Century. No Kodak Sterling currently listed on ebay.</p>

 

<table>

<tbody>

<tr>

<td></td>

<td></td>

<td></td>

<td></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

[dhbebb]

<p>Paul, the Schneider Symmar/Symmar-S (data <a href="http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/index.htm">http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/index.htm</a>)<br>

is a standard-type lens, in other words 100 mm would cover 6x9 cm with some movements, 135 would cover 4x5 with slight movements, 150 would cover 4x5 with generous movements etc.<br>

I have a Century Graphic, the only problem with fitting lenses is that the lens panel is a bit small, a #0 shutter is OK but no bigger. A 100 Symmar would definitely come in a #0 shutter.<br>

No there aren't any Sterlings on e-bay right now, but if you check completed sales you will see they go for £15 or so, which is very reasonable!</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Um, er, ah, a number of people who post on www.graflex.org's help board, mainly Glenn Thoreson, and I have tested, formally with resolution charts and informally, most of the original issue normal lenses for 2x3 Pacemaker Graphics. These are all from Kodak and Wollensak. Towards the end of production some Centuries are supposed to have got Rodenstock triplets. AFAIK none of us has tried one of them.</p>

<p>The lenses sort out this way: 103/4.5 Graftar > 101/4.5 Ektar >= 101/4.5 Optar/Raptar > 105/3.7 Ektar.</p>

<p>a > b means a is better than b. a >= b means that b is no better than a, may be worse.</p>

<p>The Graftar is better, center and corner, than the 101 Ektar. The 105 Ektar doesn't really cover 2x3 and is worse than the 101 Ektar in the center at all apertures from f/4.5 down. Interestingly, prices run the other way.</p>

<p>Chris Perez has tested 101 and 105 Ektars, got the same results. 101 > 105.</p>

<p>I haven't tested a 101 Optar/Raptar myself. However, all f/4.5 Raptars were made to the same prescription and Richard Knoppow, who knows whereof he speaks, has reported many times on usenet that they are consistently worse (have to be stopped down 2 stops more to get the same image quality in the corners) than the equivalent Ektar. He blames this on a design error, i.e., failure to correct coma well enough. Paul, since image quality far off-axis shouldn't matter much for you, you may be able to do what you want with a 101 Optar/Raptar. I'd hold out for the 101 Ektar I keep on suggesting or, even better, a 103 Graftar.</p>

<p>Will those of you who haven't tested the lenses against each other stop repeating hearsay?</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>Will those of you who haven't tested the lenses against each other stop repeating hearsay?</em><br>

I have examined this thread closely and can't find any examples of hearsay - who exactly do you mean? One practical factor is that any small theoretical differences between Optars, Raptars and Ektars are likely these days to be totally eclipsed by the difficulty in finding an example of any of these lenses which is in mold-free condition and has not got severe scratching on its front element due to heavy-handed cleaning and/or apparently soft glass!</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>David, this seems to be my Sunday morning for being disagreeable. But before I disagree with you, its been quite a while since we've communicated. I've put my lens diary up on the French LF board. Since you have a Century Graphic you may find much of it interesting. The English version -- if you want it in French, ask or look on the site -- is in three pieces:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.galerie-photo.com/2-lens-6x9-dan-fromm.html">http://www.galerie-photo.com/1-lens-6x9-dan-fromm.html </a><br>

<a href="http://www.galerie-photo.com/2-lens-6x9-dan-fromm.html">http://www.galerie-photo.com/2-lens-6x9-dan-fromm.html</a><br>

<a href="http://www.galerie-photo.com/3-lens-6x9-dan-fromm.html">http://www.galerie-photo.com/3-lens-6x9-dan-fromm.html</a></p>

<p>Comments on lens quality without supporting information ("I tested formally or informally and found ...", "so-and-so's test, reported at URL, ... ") are unsupported opinion or hearsay. I call 'em hearsay. If you prefer "unsupported opinion," that's fine with me. </p>

<p>I reported test results. No one else has in this thread and the original poster has spouted opinions that are in the air and that could be badly mistaken. Like him I'm prejudiced against triplets. But I've discovered that the prejudice is sometimes inappropriate. There's no substitute for testing.</p>

<p>Re Symmars. I've shot my 135/5.6 convertible Symmar against a 127/4.7 Tominon, a superb tessar type. On 2x3 there's no clear winner; I expect the Symmar would be better on 4x5. I've never had a Symmar-S. By all accounts -- the VM, Perez/Thalmann -- the -S is much better than the convertible. It may indeed make sense for the OP to pursue a modern f/5.6 plasmat type.</p>

<p>Since you have a Century, you may be interested to know that I use a number of lenses in Copal or Compur #1 shutters on mine. Shutter + board are easily attached but the box won't close on any of them. The largest shutter I use on my Century is an Ilex #3 that has a 60/14 Perigraphe stuffed in it. The shutter had to be mutilated to be usable with the lens, but the mutilation didn't change its outer diameter.</p>

<p>Using a #1 shutter on a 2x3 Pacemaker Graphic with the front shutter release in place can be difficult. I solved the problem by removing all of the front release hardware from my Speed and Crowns.</p>

<p>I also use a number of lenses whose rear cells won't pass through the Century's front standard. Read about 'em in my long article.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>Dan,</p>

<p>Interesting material. But Part 1 appears missing. the link, "<a href="http://www.galerie-photo.com/1-lens-6x9-dan-fromm.html">http://www.galerie-photo.com/1-lens-6x9-dan-fromm.html</a>" points to part 2 of your article... as does also "<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.galerie-photo.com/2-lens-6x9-dan-fromm.html" target="_blank">http://www.galerie-photo.com/2-lens-6x9-dan-fromm.html </a>".</p>

[paul_ong1]

<p>David, I agree with you that finding an older lens in good condition is very challenging, and aging problems could effectively render one ineffective despite its original potential. Ebay descriptions are often less than accurate. I love it when the seller says or replies that "I am not camera expert so I cannot say." This hold even when asked specific questions that would only require looking through the lens. Somewhat evasive, and makes shopping on ebay a risk, although I have gotten some good things on ebay.</p>

<p>Dan, thank you for your comments, and thank you very much for the links. Looks very informative, and I have downloaded the PDF version so I can study it in more detail when I have time. One thing that struck me is your examples and illustrations adapting so many different types of lenses to the Pacemaker, which I assume would also apply to the Century. You have opened my eyes to other alternatives beyond just the lenses originally made for 6x9 folding cameras, and have raised some serious questions about the relative strengths of the lenses I have considered. I have to rethink and regroup my strategy, so more reading and researching. </p>

<p>Brain, had the same problem with the link, and I just replaced "2-lens" with "1-lens". There is also a link to a PDF for the whole series. Dan has provided some interesting read. One of the great things about the internet is the ability to access such information (albeit, some work and judgement are required to evaluate the quality and reliability of the information).</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Brian, thanks for pointing out a bad link.</p>

<p>Here we go again: http://www.galerie-photo.com/1-lens-6x9-dan-fromm.html</p>

<p>I just tried it and it seems to work. The whole thing (20 MB) is at http://www.galerie-photo.com/telechargement/dan-fromm-6x9-lenses-v2-2011-03-29.pdf</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>Paul,</p>

<p>Given the tiny digital sensor in the NEX-5 (compared to 6x9 film), I think that you may be needlessly going after 6x9 format lenses. Why not some modern multicoated 645/6x6/6x7 ones? For example, screw the front and rear lens cells of any Bronica SLR lens (ETR/SQ/GS1 series) into a #0 shutter on your Century Graphic lensboard, and you have a fine and inexpensive lens with plenty of coverage, sharpness and a relatively wide aperture.</p>

<p>OK, not <em>any</em> Bronica lens - some of the bulkier telephotos are in more complex mechanical assemblies involving more than 2 groups. But nearly all of them from very wideangle to short telephoto (150mm), do remount easily into a #0 shutter on a lensboard. As far as size and weight limits of your Century Graphic: if you can fit an f2.8 Xenotar you can definitely fit the groups from an f2.8 Bronica standard lens or one of the Mamiya 645 leaf-shutter lenses.</p>

<p>I've done this sort of thing - remounting 80/2.8 and 65/4 PS lenses from the 6x6 SQ series, and the 70/2.8 LS lens from the Mamiya 645, into Mamiya Press #0 shutters-and-barrels.</p>