What are Xenars and how do they compare to Schneider's other lenses of the same focal length?
What are Xenars and how do they compare to Schneider's other lenses of the same focal length?
They are Tessar formula. 4 elements in 3 groups. They cover about 60 degrees compared to 72 for the Symmar's. They have very nice contrast characteristics but the mtf drop off from the center is more severe than plasmat types. So a 150 or 135 on 4X5 will have corners sharpness degraded enough to be troublesome in 11X14 prints.
A Xenar is a Tessar-type lens, so they vary somewhat over the ages, but it's probably the most popular photographic lens design in history. Xenars have a nice look and are very sharp in the center, but not quite as sharp in the corners as a Symmar or Sironar, and with less coverage than the modern plasmats. They're also fairly compact, relatively fast, and fairly affordable.
If this is your first lens, and you're on a budget, and are looking in the range of normal lenses for the format you shoot, I'd say you're better off with an older Symmar convertible than a new Xenar of the same focal length, because the Symmar will have a larger usable image circle.
Xenars are Schneider's version of the Tessar - four element, single coated, and very lightweight. I believe Schneider has discontinued the line, but they can be found on Ebay and elsewhere at low cost. They are extremely sharp in the middle of the field, the so called "sweet spot", but they fall off in sharpness toward the edges. The coverage of a Xenar is not as great as those offered by other lens designs, but when stopped down to f22 or f32 they are wonderful (if you don't need a lot of movement).
Everything that has been said so far is correct.
Xenars have been made since around 1930, so there are several different versions of them. Pre-WWII Xenars will be uncoated, and the focal length will be given in cm, not mm. The LF Xenars were mostly f:4.5, with some rare exceptions (e.g. 500mm f:6.3). There was a different type too early on, the f:3.5 "Typ D". This is not a Tessar, all the others are.
The last Xenars made were a 150mm f:5.6 and the 210mm f:6.1. These lenses were made with smaller max. aperture to fit in smaller shutters - the 210mm f6.1 takes a #1 shutter, the 210mm f:4.5 takes a Compound #3.
I already have a Schneider Symmar-S 180: great coverage and a little bulky.
I was looking for a 150 to complement it. So I was thinking of something cheap, small, and of a completely different design in order to experiment with different "looks." Hence my question about the Xenar.
A 150mm Fuji WS (I think that is the designation) is also a Tessar, single coated, has a max aperture of f/6.3, and has a larger image circle than the 150mm f/5.6 Xenar. It might be a good alternative for you.
There's not much difference between a 150 and a 180, at least on a 4x5.
I agree. Even if I tend to carry two 150mm's, a 165mm and a 180mm lens with me, I wouldn't recommend a 15mm as a second lens if you already have a 180mm.Originally Posted by Mark Sampson
Something in the 120 to 135mm range would be better, IMO.
My view is: If already 180, then NOT next 150. See Steve Simmons' discussion on selection of lenses for an outfit --in his book on view camera technique.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks