150mm/4.5 Xenar vs. Tessar

[richardman]

So what are people's opinion on 150mm/4.5 Xenar vs. Tessar re: image quality, image circle etc.?

[richardman]

Moreover, if a Xenar is asking for $160, is that too much for an equivalent condition Tessar? Thanks

[ghostcount]

https://www.google.com/search?q=Xenar+vs.+Tessar+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[richardman]

Thanks Ghostcount, I did some research and listed a whole bunch of background stuff, but the threads were deleted. I am looking for "user experience".

Also, someone else recommends the 150mm Grenonar, which I will look into also.

[Chuck Pere]

I always thought that the Xenar was a tessar type lens. So they would have pretty much identical performance with similar coatings and shutter type.

[richardman]

(Michael Graves?) mentions that the Xenar is newer and has larger image circle. I am looking for confirmation.

[Drew Wiley]

Both names were in use for such a long time that there would quite a bit of potential evolution. It's like trying to compare Ford and Chevy. You've got to get way more specific than that to make distinctions. Tessar is a style of lens design, including the Xenar, which ended up as a Schneider name for their own tessar. But
all kinds of folks made tessars, even Fuji and Nikon.

[richardman]

Both names were in use for such a long time that there would quite a bit of potential evolution. It's like trying to compare Ford and Chevy. You've got to get way more specific than that to make distinctions. Tessar is a style of lens design, including the Xenar, which ended up as a Schneider name for their own tessar. But
all kinds of folks made tessars, even Fuji and Nikon.

Hi Drew, sorry, the original posts were more clear. From people's recommendation of a "softer lens, possibly more suitable for portraits", I went out to look for a 150mm/4.5 Xenar. One LFF offered to sell, but it turns out to be a "Tessar". I have no more info on that as to maker or model. I am walking on eggshells now, not knowing what I am allowed to say.

Anyway, so presumably there may be a lens sold as "150mm/4.5 Tessar" and my questions are as I listed in the first two posts. Thanks.

[macolive]

Hi Richard, this may be an interesting article for you.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/

[Old-N-Feeble]

If it's labeled "Tessar" then it's a Carl Zeiss Jena. If it's labeled "Xenar" then it's a Schneider Kreuznach. If it's labeled "Nikkor-M" then it's a Nikkor. If it's labeled Commercial Ektar then it's an Eastman Kodak. There are so many makes and models based on the Tessar formula it's impossible to list them all. But the CZJ was the first (I think).

Depending on vintage and condition, you may have gotten a good deal, or not.

[richardman]

Hi Richard, this may be an interesting article for you.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/

Macolive: thanks! That's exactly the page where I got the idea of getting a Xenar from :-)

Currently I am leaning toward getting 150 Geronar since there are a couple available in US. There is a Tessar lens coming to my way that needs "resolution" (not image resolution, but somehow sell it or ship it back resolution), but that's another thread.

[richardman]

Depending on vintage and condition, you may have gotten a good deal, or not.

:-) Truer statement has never been made, thanks O-n-F.

I am 99.99% sure that I will not keep the lens. I have gotten the money back, so it's not an issue.

[Old-N-Feeble]

If you got your money back then the resolution is obvious... return it. ;)

[richardman]

If you got your money back then the resolution is obvious... return it. ;)

Yes, but it costs $40 to send from US to Europe, so it's now up to the seller on what to do. I feel bad for him too. I would probably offer him that I could act as a "middle man" and he can try to sell to a US buyer.

All of these were laid out in the original posts.... Now we have 2 pages of me regurgitating one line at a time.

[BradS]

I have both a 150mm f/5.6 Xenar and a 150mm Geronar (Caltar II-E). Both are in modern black copal shutters. Neither has seen much use. I prefer the 'look' of the Geronar but have little use for the 150mm focal legth.

I'd be happy to sell either for $150 + $10 domestic shipping.

[richardman]

Dang, and I just literally, 20 minutes ago, bought a Geornar, off the fleabay. Ah well, thanks for the offer Brad.

[BradS]

Dang, and I just literally, 20 minutes ago, bought a Geornar, off the fleabay. Ah well, thanks for the offer Brad.

You mean this one (http://www.ebay.com/itm/161815409243) for $199 ?

I guess I should up my asking price. :D

[richardman]

Yes, THAT one. It's $20+#$40 (shipping) cheaper than the one from Korea.

[richardman]

I'm having phenomenally bad luck with this adventure :-)

[IanG]

If it's labeled "Tessar" then it's a Carl Zeiss Jena. If it's labeled "Xenar" then it's a Schneider Kreuznach.


Not correct, I own quite a few Tessar lenses including two f4.5 150mm Tessar lenses, both mine are coated one is from Carl Zeiss Jena the other is marked Carl Zeiss and is in a Linhof shutter and is one of the first from the West German company at Oberkochen.

I've also got a B&L Tessar in an Optimo shutter, before WWI Zeiss licensed their lens designs, they also had a factory in London, so you see the occasional Carl Zeiss (London) Tessars, Ross Tessars, and Krauss in France. There's also Ross, Mill Hill, Tessars made in the former Zeiss factory given to Ross by the British government during WWI.



Macolive: thanks! That's exactly the page where I got the idea of getting a Xenar from :-)

Currently I am leaning toward getting 150 Geronar since there are a couple available in US. There is a Tessar lens coming to my way that needs "resolution" (not image resolution, but somehow sell it or ship it back resolution), but that's another thread.

The Geronar is a Triplet so not a Tessar type lens. Good luck with the one you've bought.

Back to your original question I used to have a 150mm f4.5 Xenar, I now have a 150nn f5.6 Xenar and there's no noticeable difference to my 150mm f4.5 CZJ Tessar I've used both extensively.

Ian

[richardman]

The Geronar is a Triplet so not a Tessar type lens. Good luck with the one you've bought.

Back to your original question I used to have a 150mm f4.5 Xenar, I now have a 150nn f5.6 Xenar and there's no noticeable difference to my 150mm f4.5 CZJ Tessar I've used both extensively.

Ian

Hi Ian, at least in this Comedy of Errors, I do know that the Geronar is a Cooke Triplet. I like Cooke Triplet and own 2 from the 1920s so I think I will be very happy with it. Indeed, if I have known that a modern Triplet exists I would probably have started there! Thanks.

[mdarnton]

I get the idea that you are trying to buy a lens for its defects, and then are going about it by trying to find the most modern, developed version you can. If it's defects that you are specifically looking for, you're doing it backwards. The whole history of photographic progress is one of trying to make today's stuff better than yesterday's stuff, eliminating the very types of defects you are wanting. Just having the same old name in a modern lens will not guarantee you the same bad qualities you are looking for that were characteristic of the earlier types! Likewise with being concerned about things like coverage--going for coverage will drag you into more modern, less desirable lenses. I think the Geronar is actually quite a good lens, and I bet you won't get what you want from it.

That said, if I'd seen this earlier I'd have recommended an Ilex Paragon ( a Tessar forumla) of some sort. For 5x7 portraits my 300mm f/6.3 Paragon is the best lens I have; for 4x5 my favorite is the 210/4.5 Paragon. Both have the sharp/diffused look you want, when used at wider openings, and they're relatively cheap. The 165mm version, which I have but haven't yet boarded up and tried (too short for portraits, in my opinion), is usually under $100. Another cheapie of the same type is the 190mm (7-1/2") Raptar, which I have but haven't tested on portraits.

Also, if you think you will be using any of these lenses stopped down more than a stop you might as well keep what you have. The "good" stuff in a Tessar goes away quickly when you get to around f8 or so.

[MDR]

I find it amusing when people say get a Tessar for the softer look, the Tessar was once one of the sharpest lenses in production even today the centersharpness is on par with many planar and plasmat types off center and corner sharpness wide open is another matter but in the center they are very very sharp. Also not all Tessars even those from Zeiss are equal they sometimes can be quiet harsh (harsh non flattering contrast) especially the coated ones. For portraits softness a triplet is a better choice imo as a small general purpose lens where you don't want to use a lot of movement a Tessar is hard to beat though. For portraits the Commercial Ektar has a good name other than that I would prefer a pre-war uncoated Xenar for portraits. (Schneider was a second tier mfg before the war so the lenses were not always as sharp as Zeiss lenses but had often a more rounded pleasing look better suited for portraiture than the razor sharp Tessars)

[djdister]

A good point. Many, many years ago I was talking with a Portrait photographer and the subject of Tessar lenses came up -- he referred to them as "ugly sharp."


I find it amusing when people say get a Tessar for the softer look, the Tessar was once one of the sharpest lenses in production even today the centersharpness is on par with many planar and plasmat types off center and corner sharpness wide open is another matter but in the center they are very very sharp. Also not all Tessars even those from Zeiss are equal they sometimes can be quiet harsh (harsh non flattering contrast) especially the coated ones. For portraits softness a triplet is a better choice imo as a small general purpose lens where you don't want to use a lot of movement a Tessar is hard to beat though. For portraits the Commercial Ektar has a good name other than that I would prefer a pre-war uncoated Xenar for portraits. (Schneider was a second tier mfg before the war so the lenses were not always as sharp as Zeiss lenses but had often a more rounded pleasing look better suited for portraiture than the razor sharp Tessars)

[Bernice Loui]

Tessar as a family of optics design does produce high definition images... when stopped down and if the specific optic is properly designed and manufactured. As with all optics, Tessar has it's specific set of trade offs.

What a really good Tessar design can offer is nice rounded out of focus rendition at larger apertures ( about f11 to f8 and larger) at apertures f11 to f16 and smaller, Tessar designs can be extremely high resolution and more. There is nothing "soft focus" about a proper Tessar optic.

With this in mind, consider the elements of what makes a classic photographic portrait. Point of focus is at the eyes, with the areas of focus falling off by the tip of the nose and cheek to ears, at the area of focus behind the sitter should be softly and roundly out of focus. Two classic optics known for this personality would be the Tessar and Heliar both of which has been used for this style of portraiture. The other group would be the entire world of speciality "soft focus" optics such as the Pinkham Smith, Kodak Portrait Ektar, Imagon and a host of many others.

Paul Rudolph developed the Tessar while at Zeiss about 1900's. This resulted in Zeiss being the first to produce this design. At some point, Zeiss stopped making the Tessar in longer focal lengths for sheet film. Schenider also produced the Tessar design as Xenar long after Zeiss stopped production of their Tessar optics. Kodak began production of Tessar optics (Commercial Ektar f6.3 and f4.5 Ektar) post WW-II using Lanthanum glass and coated to improve light transmission.
Of these three, my faves are Kodak C. Ektar, Schneider Xenar (post war production and coated in the later style with click stop aperture dial) last would be Zeiss Tessar due partly to when they were designed and produced and their overall optical performance. Zeiss might have been the first to produce this design, time and optics technology does move on resulting in others significantly improving the initial design and work.

To this day the Tessar remains one of my all time fave optics along with the Dagor for normal to slightly longer focal length sheet film images.



Benice



I find it amusing when people say get a Tessar for the softer look, the Tessar was once one of the sharpest lenses in production even today the centersharpness is on par with many planar and plasmat types off center and corner sharpness wide open is another matter but in the center they are very very sharp. Also not all Tessars even those from Zeiss are equal they sometimes can be quiet harsh (harsh non flattering contrast) especially the coated ones. For portraits softness a triplet is a better choice imo as a small general purpose lens where you don't want to use a lot of movement a Tessar is hard to beat though. For portraits the Commercial Ektar has a good name other than that I would prefer a pre-war uncoated Xenar for portraits. (Schneider was a second tier mfg before the war so the lenses were not always as sharp as Zeiss lenses but had often a more rounded pleasing look better suited for portraiture than the razor sharp Tessars)

[IanG]

Zeiss might have been the first to produce this design, time and optics technology does move on resulting in others significantly improving the initial design and work.

To this day the Tessar remains one of my all time fave optics along with the Dagor for normal to slightly longer focal length sheet film images.

Benice

Some of he LF Zeiss Tessars were reformulated a few times over the years, newer glass was used in some of them around the time Compur switched from the Dial set to the rimset shutters and and again just before WWII when the first T coated Tessars were made. In addition the LF Tessar was offered in a number of maximum aperures f3.5, f4.5, f5.3 and f6.3 and the slower the speed the higher the optical quality.

I've 2 post WWII Xenars and they are no better than similar post WWII Tessars CZJ or Carl Zeiss ((Oberkochen). My CZJ 150mm f4,5 T coated Tessar was probably destined for Linhof it's SN dates it to the time that Linhof switched to Carl Zeiss (Oberkochen) Tessars but was designed around 1937.

The biggest difference though is between an un-coated Tessar and a post WWII coated Tessar or Xenar, that's from practical experience as I have a lot of Tesaar and type lenses. Like you I enjoy using my Tessars as I do my Dagor.

I also like Cooke Triplets.

Ian

[Mark Sawyer]

Hi Richard, this may be an interesting article for you.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/


Macolive: thanks! That's exactly the page where I got the idea of getting a Xenar from :-)


If you read the comments on that article, you'll see that a lot of people thought it was a train wreck. The author went back and rewrote a lot of bad information after people corrected him, and the moderators eliminated a lot of the negative comments about it. But it's still a pretty questionable article at best.

[richardman]

Well, I have a 150/4.5 Tessar (CZJ) and a 150/6.3 Geronar coming next week, and I have a 7 1/2" Series II Cooke and the 9" Cooke PS945. I have a Fujinon 150/5.6 as the Plastmat standard. May be I will do some "test-off"

[Old-N-Feeble]

That will be interesting to see, Richard.