Lens Comparison: 135mm 4.7 Xenar and 135mm 4.5 Heliar

[Peter York]

Hi all,

I recently replaced the 135mm 4.7 Xenar on my Crown Graphic Special with a 135mm 4.5 Heliar, and I made one set of comparison shots to share. These were taken at close distance at f/11, beyond the capability of the rangefinder, developed in Pyrocat-HD and scanned on an Epson 4990. There is approximately 1/2" difference in the actual focus point (I aimed for the nose), but the character differences between lenses is pretty obvious irregardless.

First up is the Xenar:
211629

Next is the Heliar:
211630

[Kevin Crisp]

Peter, I guess I'll be the one to ask. What are you seeing that is "pretty obvious"? To me the Schneider one on top has a little more contrast. And slightly better highlight separation. What am I missing?

[Larry H-L]

The light has moved a bit between the two shots, so that makes the comparison more difficult. The Heliar DOF seems to fall off more quickly.

I've always liked the Xenar, its overall look is very nice. Heliars are also great, love mine, except for the higher price point. Can't go wrong with either.

[Peter York]

Sorry Kevin that was pretty obtuse. I tend to yada yada over details these days. I should state up front that I processed the Heliar image to roughly match the contrast from the Xenar. The Heliar is definitely lower contrast. Here is what else I see:
1. The Xenar is really nice! I wasn't expecting to match the Heliar to the rangefinder, and I picked the Crown Graphic Special because of the Xenar (and the Compur shutter). I've learned over the years that I like the rendition of German glass. (There is too much Shinto in Japanese glass). The bokeh is very neutral. Combined with the tonality you get from 4x5 it creates the impression of sharpness as you move out of the zone of focus, which is really nice for handheld 4x5 press work. As Larry said, the falloff is more gradual.
2. The Heliar is quite sharp in the zone of focus but there is less bite than from the Xenar. Really nice for portraits as it will smooth over skin and provide a bit of "glow". As Larry said the falloff is quicker and the bokeh a wee bit less neutral, two things I prefer when working handheld.

[Kevin Crisp]

The Xenar is quite a good lens, used within the narrow limits of its coverage. Several people have commented on their disappointment with the 135, which leads me to believe somebody has messed with theirs. A Xenar as used on the lower rung Rolleicords is still outstanding. It is really hard to do what you're doing, apples to apples in comparison. Just getting two old shutters to agree exactly is tough.

[Robert Opheim]

The out of focus area with the Heliar lens seems more pronounced. Was the f/stop or focus different between the Heliar and the Xenar lenses? They are both are fine lenses - but they may do slightly different things. I have a Rollicord with a Xenar I have been working with for many years.

[Bob Salomon]

The Xenar is quite a good lens, used within the narrow limits of its coverage. Several people have commented on their disappointment with the 135, which leads me to believe somebody has messed with theirs. A Xenar as used on the lower rung Rolleicords is still outstanding. It is really hard to do what you're doing, apples to apples in comparison. Just getting two old shutters to agree exactly is tough.
The two shots were also taken at different ratios. The image areas are different. Should have been done on a tripod.

[Peter York]

Robert, both shots were taken at f/11. I will primarily use the Heliar because of the more pronounced out-of-focus areas. I've learned that for handheld use the out-of-focus bits are inevitable, so you have to take blur into consideration.

Bob and Larry are correct, these were taken a few minutes apart and at slightly different positions (on a tripod). I was having some issues with the Heliar and the Pacemaker's built-in shutter release, so I had to move the camera and do some fiddling. That's definitely another plus for the Schneider press lenses. Their rather long shutter-trip lever works well with the Pacemaker's built-in shutter release.

The shutter for the Heliar does not have flash capability so I expect to use the Xenar a fair amount as well. When I get some more formal comparisons I'll post them for all.

[Bob Salomon]

Robert, both shots were taken at f/11. I will primarily use the Heliar because of the more pronounced out-of-focus areas. I've learned that for handheld use the out-of-focus bits are inevitable, so you have to take blur into consideration.

Bob and Larry are correct, these were taken a few minutes apart and at slightly different positions (on a tripod). I was having some issues with the Heliar and the Pacemaker's built-in shutter release, so I had to move the camera and do some fiddling. That's definitely another plus for the Schneider press lenses. Their rather long shutter-trip lever works well with the Pacemaker's built-in shutter release.

The shutter for the Heliar does not have flash capability so I expect to use the Xenar a fair amount as well. When I get some more formal comparisons I'll post them for all.

The best way to make comparisons is to make them equal. Same film, same exposure, same camera position, same subject, same processing, etc. you have not posted a viable comparison.