360mm Tele-Arton or Xenar?

[Tim Meisburger]

I'm thinking of buying a 360mm telephoto lens for my Ebony 45s, as that is realistically the longest lens I could put on it. I don't want to spend a fortune on a lens I'm not sure I will use much, and Schneider seems the most economical of the major brands. I checked the coverage and focal length on the Schneider data page and the Arton is bigger and the focal length shorter, but is also significantly heavier. The Xenar has been made longer (I think), and so I might have more chance of picking up a bargain. In the end though it comes down to the image. Has anyone shot both and care to comment? I think the regular Xenar is a tessar. Will the tele-xenar render like tessar?

Best, Tim

[Dan Fromm]

The Tele-Xenar isn't a tessar. It is a classic telephoto, two cemented doublets. Trade names can mislead.

The Tele-Arton is a different design --five air-spaced singlets in the 1983 catalog -- and by all accounts is much better than the Tele-Xenar. Tele-Artons were made in in focal lengths up to 360 mm. See http://web.archive.org/web/20100922053809/http:/www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/archiv.htm

For all I know a Tele-Xenar will do well enough to suit you. But I don't know much, haven't used either. I have used, didn't like at all, a 250/5.6 Tele-Optar, another classic telephoto. Probably no relevant to your decision.

[Tim Meisburger]

Dan, grazing the internet I have the feeling 360mm is the sweet spot, with people not as enthusiastic about the 250 Optar or the 240 Tele-Xenar. I think the 240 and 250 just cover 4x5 (made for press cameras), but the 360 will cover 5x7, so would do double duty for me.

[Chauncey Walden]

I only have the Xenar which I use on 5x7 but if the Arton is better it must be in areas outside the normal range of LF shooting (wide open?) because I couldn't ask for anything better in my use than the Xenar.

[Tim Meisburger]

Thanks Chauncey. That raises my confidence level. How is it wide open? The lens is fairly fast (5.5) and I wonder if you use it more for portrait or landscape, or both?

[Peter Gomena]

I owned a 360 Tele-Xenar for a dozen years. Sharp as a tack, no complaints. Be aware, however, that it comes in a Copal 3 shutter and weighs about a pound and a half. I found this taxed my Zone VI (Vermont) 4x5's front standard and movements. I sold it last summer here on the LFF for $350, it was cosmetically perfect and mechanically sound. I found it was my least-used lens, and it was time to let it go.

[Bill_1856]

The most important thing is what shutter they're in. Carol at Flutot's wasn't too thrilled over my Tele-Arton's great big old Compound.
You might also look at 15" Tele-Raptar. The glass is just as good, and the shu tters more fixable.

[Dan Fromm]

I only have the Xenar which I use on 5x7 but if the Arton is better it must be in areas outside the normal range of LF shooting (wide open?) because I couldn't ask for anything better in my use than the Xenar.

Xenar, Chauncey, or Tele-Xenar? They're not at all the same.

[polyglot]

I scored a 360 Tele-Arton off LFPF after doing basically the same searching you seem to be and it works very well. I chose it on the basis that it has plenty of coverage (I like to use swings) and seems to be the best-reviewed of the affordable teles, and is about the longest I can meaningfully use with my only-300mm-of-bellows. I haven't got any other teles to compare it with though.

It is, however, heavier than my Toyo 45A, which is not a particularly light camera. I do backpack with the lens but sometimes I regret that ;)

[Chauncey Walden]

Dan, we're discussing 360 Tele-Artons and 360 Tele-Xenars. They would break the front standards on your 6x9s;-)

[Bill_1856]

It turns out that my Tele-Arton is actually a Tele-Xenar -- I use it so little that I'd forgotten!
In Compound shutter it only weighs 1# 9oz. Not so heavy at all! No problem with even so light a camera as my Nagaoka.

[Dan Fromm]

Dan, we're discussing 360 Tele-Artons and 360 Tele-Xenars. They would break the front standards on your 6x9s;-)

So a sensible person like you would think. But since I'm not a sensible person I use heavy lenses on them with not much difficulty.

I have a nearly invisible crutch that supports a 12"/4 TTH tele on my little Speed Graphic. My heaviest lens, which weighs nearly nine pounds without adapters and shutter, is too long to be used on a 2x3 Graphic. I use it on a 2x3 Cambo, whose little standards won't support it, with the help of a crutch. The crutch is a mutilated 4x5 Cambo standard.

When in doubt cheat, my motto.

Cheating will allow using a 360 Tele-Arton or Tele-Xenar on a 2x3 Graphic. Extension may not be a problem for distant subjects, but the Tele-Arton's rear cell is too fat to be inserted from behind and the Tele-Xenar's rear cell is too fat to fit in the front standard's lens throat. So a sensible person would look at the situation and give up.

The cheater would use my 12"/4 TTH trick. A stepped threaded bushing that passes through the lens board, is held to it by a retaining ring, and that screws into the lens' rear filter threads. At the worst the rear of the barrel may have to have threads cut. If this isn't a good idea, then a stepped bushing that clamps the rear of the lens barrel. A crutch may not be necessary. My tandem Graphic's front camera (Century Graphic) easily supports a 480/9 Apo-Nikkor (860 g without adapters). Neither lens would be a problem for a 2x3 Cambo.