S-K 360mm f5.5 Tele-Xenar photos?

[JimboWalker]

Can anyone out there post some images shot with a S-K 360mm f5.5 Tele-Xenar? I have a old Linhof version that I just shot for the first time yesterday. Just curious. I cannot wait to see what I came up with! Thanks.

[Corran]

What kind of images? I had one, briefly, when I first started LF. Used it once and decided it wasn't for me - huge, somewhat lower contrast than my other lenses, and not a focal length I used much (I later bought the Nikkor-T 360/500/720 set for a smaller, more modern tele set, but still don't shoot that much with them).

Here's one of the few images I ever took:

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/v05ss.jpg

[Neal Chaves]

I had one in a Compound shutter and also a 250 Imagon in the same size Compound. I had a barrel mount made so I could use the Imagon on a Graflex. I tried the Tele Xenar a few times, wide open of course as the barrel had no diaphragm.189888

[EdSawyer]

I had one for a while (and a Tele-Arton 360) but later switched to the NIkkor also. I did like the lightness of the Tele Xenar, and it seemed to have more contrast than the Tele Arton, though both were lower contrast than the Nikkor-T set by far.

[Pfsor]

Used it once and decided it wasn't for me - huge, somewhat lower contrast than my other lenses, and not a focal length I used much (I later bought the Nikkor-T 360/500/720 set for a smaller, more modern tele set, but still don't shoot that much with them).


Hmm, interesting.
And you compared it with your other lenses on the same scene, the same light conditions, the same camera etc.? Or does it just mean that this picture had "somewhat lower contrast" than other pictures you took elsewhere another time??

[Pfsor]

I did like the lightness of the Tele Xenar, and it seemed to have more contrast than the Tele Arton, though both were lower contrast than the Nikkor-T set by far.

Again, don't know if I should be impressed or not. Can you elaborate on how, technically, you compared the contrast of these lenses?

[Corran]

Hmm, interesting.
And you compared it with your other lenses on the same scene, the same light conditions, the same camera etc.? Or does it just mean that this picture had "somewhat lower contrast" than other pictures you took elsewhere another time??

If you shoot enough with a variety of lenses, you can pretty easily distinguish contrast differences between them. I don't think it's a surprise that an older design with single coating (I think) has less contrast.

[Pfsor]

I had one, briefly, when I first started LF. Used it once and decided it wasn't for me - huge, somewhat lower contrast than my other lenses,...
Here's one of the few images I ever took:



If you shoot enough with a variety of lenses, you can pretty easily distinguish contrast differences between them. I don't think it's a surprise that an older design with single coating (I think) has less contrast.

Sorry if I missed something, it doesn't sound like you have shot enough with that specific lens before you decided it had lower contrast than other lenses.
And no, even older designs with single coating can have very good contrast - sometimes you can just add a good lens shade and the lens acts as a gem in your collection.
Anyway, I start to see (once again) that hot air so often present on this forum when it comes to lens amateur evaluation. Thank you for your answer.

[Corran]

As usual, you wish to fight over everything. If you have photos to present, have at it. I made several images with it, along with other lenses, on the same day and at the same location, and easily saw the difference. If you wish to waste film on a battery of formal tests, again, have at it.

[Pfsor]

You easily saw the difference? Interesting. Could you compare the same scene taken with a different lens, in the same light, on the same camera - to say at least some conditions necessary to make a judgement about the lens in comparison with the other ones?
What I question is the validity of your comparison, not your act of taking a picture. But I don't insist - I've already understood the technical value of your evaluation, somehow. Just wanted to be sure about it. Thank you again for your help, appreciated.

[Corran]

If you have something to contribute, I invite you to do so. Thanks.

[Pfsor]

I'm of that humble opinion that I just contributed to the understanding of the technical value of your comparison judgement. Don't take it personally, it's the scientific part of me, you know, the education. Nothing against you personally.

[Corran]

I see that you continue to be an elitist jerk that contributes nothing of value to this forum. Thanks.

[Pfsor]

I see that you continue to be an elitist jerk that contributes nothing of value to this forum. Thanks.

Please, a time for you to reread this forum's guidelines. If you're not able to restrain yourself from name calling, restrain yourself from commenting. Thank you. To weed the technical BS is good for the forum, IMO.

[Corran]

You need to learn the difference between opinions and technical measurements. Everyone's opinions here are worth more or less what is charged. Yours too. So take what is said with all the grains of salt you need, and do with it what you will. And again, if you have something to submit regarding the posed question, please do.

[Pfsor]

You know the Clint Eastwood's saying about opinions? I like that. And yes, I did understand that your judgement was just an opinion, not based on any technical measurement or other valid comparison. I think you made it more than clear and I said my thanks to you for it. Hope we can leave it at it.

[Huub]

I used one for years as my longest lens, until i felt i needed something even longer and bought a Nikon 360/500 set, which still sees regular use these days. The Tele-Xenar came in a #3 Compur shutter, dated from the mid '80's and was a Linhof select. It had a bit less contrast then the Nikon lens, which isn't much of a surprise as it is single coated, but as i shoot only B&W that was easely in the printing stage. At the other hand i found the contrast rendering more pleasent then it's Nikon cousin. Both lenses were plenty sharp enough for me. All of this is of course completely subjective and an amateurs view of the lens, based on the evaluation a few hundred shots. The advantage of the Tele-Xenar is it's very short flange focal distance, which make is very useable on camera's with limited bellows.

[Dan Fromm]

Please, a time for you to reread this forum's guidelines. If you're not able to restrain yourself from name calling, restrain yourself from commenting. Thank you. To weed the technical BS is good for the forum, IMO.

Et tu, Brute?

Look to your own highly insulting posts.

[Pfsor]

An example, or just hot air?

[MAubrey]

An example, or just hot air?

**cough** autodescriptive **cough**