About the 350 Apo-Tele-Xenar and other 350-360mm lenses

[Trimitsis]

Thanks -- I didn't know about this lens. Do you know if it is still available new anywhere? Or if you've seen a used copy around? And any idea how it performs in comparison to the Fujinon-A 360?

Cheers,

Milton

[angusparker]

Thanks -- I didn't know about this lens. Do you know if it is still available new anywhere? Or if you've seen a used copy around? And any idea how it performs in comparison to the Fujinon-A 360?

Cheers,

Milton

This is a relatively new lens that was debuted in 2009. It covers 8x0 not 11x14 like the Fuji. More compact and a little lighter but not much. I own both lenses. Have to say the Fujinon A is my favorite lens for 8x10 but it rarely comes up for sale. The APO-tele-xenar is also rare but does show up from time to time and is cheaper.

[Sal Santamaura]

Thanks -- I didn't know about this lens. Do you know if it is still available new anywhere? Or if you've seen a used copy around? And any idea how it performs in comparison to the Fujinon-A 360?

Cheers,

MiltonThree months ago I completed a comparison of the 350mm f/11 Schneider Apo Tele Xenar Compact, 355mm f/8 Kern Dagor and 360mm f/10 Fujinon A. This was on my 4x5 Phillips with some rise, all exposed at f/22, absolutely no wind, using Delta 100 in XTOL 1+3, since ultimate sharpness was my interest for shooting real world scenes (not flat subjects up close) on that format.

Evaluating the negatives, which included a USAF resolution chart at 50 foot distance along with general landscape content, the order was


Fujinon A sharpest

Apo Tele Xenar Compact next

Kern Dagor least sharp

By no means was the Dagor unsharp; it was just the least sharp of these three samples. I bought the Fujinon from Kerry Thalmann 14 years ago, the Kern Dagor from an eBay seller about seven years ago and the Apo Tele Xenar Compact brand new a few months ago. The Fujinon was not only sharpest among this group, it has the most coverage. However, if one cannot find a clean sample, and can live with its 350mm image circle at f/22 (compared to the Fujinon's 504mm), I wouldn't hesitate to recommend an Apo Tele Xenar Compact. My source was Linhof Studio outside London, which still has new stock:


http://www.linhofstudio.com/products/Analogue-Lens-Schneider

I had no issues dealing with them or shipping/customs when ordering the lens.

[angusparker]

Three months ago I completed a comparison of the 350mm f/11 Schneider Apo Tele Xenar Compact, 355mm f/8 Kern Dagor and 360mm f/10 Fujinon A. This was on my 4x5 Phillips with some rise, all exposed at f/22, absolutely no wind, using Delta 100 in XTOL 1+3, since ultimate sharpness was my interest for shooting real world scenes (not flat subjects up close) on that format.

Evaluating the negatives, which included a USAF resolution chart at 50 foot distance along with general landscape content, the order was


Fujinon A sharpest

Apo Tele Xenar Compact next

Kern Dagor least sharp

By no means was the Dagor unsharp; it was just the least sharp of these three samples. I bought the Fujinon from Kerry Thalmann 14 years ago, the Kern Dagor from an eBay seller about seven years ago and the Apo Tele Xenar Compact brand new a few months ago. The Fujinon was not only sharpest among this group, it has the most coverage. However, if one cannot find a clean sample, and can live with its 350mm image circle at f/22 (compared to the Fujinon's 504mm), I wouldn't hesitate to recommend an Apo Tele Xenar Compact. My source was Linhof Studio outside London, which still has new stock:


http://www.linhofstudio.com/products/Analogue-Lens-Schneider

I had no issues dealing with them or shipping/customs when ordering the lens.

Most interesting - funny that a more modern lens isn't sharper but then again the Fujinon A is quite a bit bigger.

[Ken Lee]

The 360mm Fujinon A isn't dramatically sharper than other lenses in the same focal length but combines the wide coverage of a plasmat with a compact size typical of dialytes.

If you don't need extra coverage, you can get equivalent resolution from a dyalite like a 360mm APO Ronar or APO Nikkor. Those lenses are superb performers.

If you don't need the compact size, you can get equivalent coverage and performance from a 360mm Sironar, Fujinon W, Nikkor W or a Symmar. Additionally those lenses open several stops wider and are correspondingly easier to use in dimmer light.

[Sal Santamaura]

Most interesting - funny that a more modern lens isn't sharper but then again the Fujinon A is quite a bit bigger.I'm not sure the A's size has anything to do with its sharpness. Also, environmental regulations have decreased the types of glass available to lens makers since the A was designed and manufactured. Those with more knowledge of this subject than me have stated that new glasses can't quite achieve the same performance levels as older ones could.


...If you don't need the compact size, you can get equivalent coverage and performance from a 360mm Sironar, Fujinon W, Nikkor W or a Symmar. Additionally those lenses open several stops wider and are correspondingly easier to use in dimmer light.I've not used the Fujinon, Nikkor or Schneider lenses you mention, but own a 360mm f/6.8 Caltar II-N (Apo Sironar N). It's certainly bright, but can't hold a candle to the 360mm Fujinon A in terms of sharpness. It also has a 69mm smaller image circle than the A.

[Oren Grad]

Discussion moved from FS/WTB thread.

[John Layton]

To respond regarding "other" 350-360 lenses, I'd like to chime in for the 14" (latest issue Swiss) Kern Blue-Dot Trigor - an example of which I'd owned and used for 4x5/8x10/11x14 a few years back...and which was breathtakingly sharp. Don't know about sample variations on these, although I might assume good consistency among the later Swiss-Kern lenses. Then again...the 355 G-Claron ain't no slouch either!