A friend of mine who is looking for a lightweight 210 mm lens for a 4x5 camera has the option to buy either a Congo 210/6.3 lens or a Schneider Xenar 210/6.1. What are the pros and cons of each lens as far as sharpness, coverage and other factors are concerned? The Congo sells for 33% less than the Xenar.
The age of each one and the shutters (if any) could be major factors. All else being equal, the Schneider is the one familiar to users around the world and that is why the difference in price. I would expect coverage of the two to be about the same. Whether any specific Xenar would have enough benefit in sharpness over any specific Congo to warrant a major price difference is a question that would be very hard for anyone to answer.
While it is fairly certain that the Xenar is a good lens, the Congo is a bit of a crap-shoot. Their quality control isn't great, so they produce some excellent lenses and some dogs. Can your friend can try it before buying?
I must have a "good" Congo 210/6.3. I find it sharp, contrasty, relatively flare free and light weight. The low price decided me after I tested the Congo against Schneider and Rodenstock 210's. The Congo was the worst but at f.22 or smaller for my regular 4x5 landscape work the differences were truly trifling; not enough to turn a good photograph into a bad one or vice versa.
Amazingly I found that the Congo 210/6.3 also fully covers the 8x10 format for infinity subjects. There is absolutely no leeway for front movements and f.22 or smaller is needed for sharp(ish) corners. The lens was a better bargain than I thought!
Photography:first utterance. Sir John Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society. "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..".
Apologies for giving one of those: "Allow me NOT to answer your question" replies,
but I can't resist a plug for another great budget/"sleeper" lens: The 210/6.3 Komura-Commercial. This is not the same lens as the Congo and covers 5x7 nicely, too (235mm). Comes in a Copal 1 and regularly crops up s/h. If I had a scanner I'd post some colour transparencies or b/ws taken with examples of them I've had over the years.
http://www.jeffbridges.com/perception.html "Whether you think you can, or think you can't, you are right."
It is generally thought that most of the Congo lenses are Tessar design lenses, very similar to the old Kodak Ektars. The Schneider Xenar lenses are also Tessar design lenses. The Schneider lens line would have much better quality control. Xenars have been available for many many years. It is possible that the Xenar could be in an older, less desirable shutter, whereas the Congo is most likely in a fairly modern Copal shutter. The funcutionality of the shutter should be considered in the overall evaluation of each particular lens under consideration.
Gene, for specs straight from Congo, go here: http://www.cosmonet.org/congo/index_e.html and click on specifications.
The 210/6.1 Xenar under discussion is the latest most best in that line.
There have been many discussions about which (Compur, Copal, Prontor) shutter is best. There's a weak consensus that Synchro Compur cock-and-shoot shutters are preferable to Copal cock-and-shoots and that Prontor Press shutters are preferable to Copal Press.
There's a somewhat stronger consensus that when a faster lens isn't needed f/6.3 tessar types are the best tessar types.
I have a set of lens elements for a Congo 360mm that I used to use a lot because they screwed right into my #3 shutter for my 300mm Fujinon. I was very satisfied with both sharpness and contrast. Flare was a bit of a problem with it. The only reason I no longer use it is that I found a 14" Artar in a shutter, so I no long had to risk my Fujinon elements making the change. While I realize that this isn't the same focal length you're looking into, the general comparison of quality should be safe to assume.
I have no experience with the Congo lens, but I am a very happy user of a 210/6.1 Xenar and recommend it highly.
The Congo line has been around for a long time and is still available new. Recent samples are multicoated. I have not tested or used any of the Congo tessar-types. My experience is limited to the WA line which are four element air-spaced wide-field gauss designs. I tested a number of these several years ago. None were awful, but some were better than others. I ended up keeping the best one, a 90mm, that I use for backpacking. Other than the limited coverage, which I have learned to live with, I am very happy with the performance and resulting images made with this lens.
Yamasaki also makes the Osaka lenses for Ted Bromwell. If you're looking to buy new, but are concerned about variable quality, I believe Bromwell has a generous return policy on these lenses.
The 150mm f5.6 and 210mm f6.1 Xenars are the most recent incarnation of Schneider's long running Xenar line of tessar-types. They are in modern Copal shutters and excellent performers. They are only single coated, but still provide excellent contrast and overall performance. The 210mm f6.1 Caltar Pro is an OEM version of the 210mm Xenar that Schneider manufacturered for Calumet. In terms of design, specs and performance it is identical in every way to the Schneider-branded 210mm f6.1 Xenar. Since they are lesser known, the Caltar Pro often sells for substantially less on the used market. There's one on eBay right now with a $175 opening and no bidders.
Another compact, single coater tessar-type is the 210mm f5.6 Fujinon-L. Performance is comparable to the 210mm Xenar. KEH has one listed on their web site for $275 in excellent condition.
My personal favorite among the tessar-types in this range is the 200mm f8 Nikkor M. The max. aperture is a bit slower than the others, but that allows it to fit in a Copal 0 shutter. It's substantially smaller and lighter (180g) than the others mentioned. It's multicoated and the performance is absolutely wonderful. The only drawback is it's not seen that often on the used market ans usually fetches much higher prices than the others. Still, it's my lens of choice in this focal length range for backpacking.
Kerry
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks