I inherited my brothers old negs and trannies, and even have some 16x20 prints he made of shots taken with the 360 Xenar and Technika. Good commercial quality for that era. But it was good ole Super XX film - very grainy enlarged from 4x5, and a very basic darkroom setup. A far cry from what I use today. Even my Med format 16X20's are way way sharper.
I own both a fairly modern, mid eighties 360mm tele-xenar and a T* Nikkor 360mm. Both are capable of very sharp images. I haven't done side by side comparisons, shooting the same image with both lenses, but I doubt you would see much differences up to moderate enlargements. The micro contrast on the tele-xenar i think is a bit better / softer compared to the nikon lens, which is more contrasty. No surprise there.
Advantage of the Schneider lens is that is flange focal distance is quite a bit shorter, so it can be focussed closer. At the other hand: the Nikon can be changed into a 500mm and a 720 mm without much hassle.
There was also a 360/5.5 Tele-Arton. Flange focal length 209mm and alas, a huge front filter, 95mm.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks