Tele-Xenar versus Tele-Arton 250 and 270

[Paul Schilliger]

Hi,

I wished I could find accurate infos on the Schneider website, but some are missing and others are just too good to be true. Would someone have the exact numbers for both the image circle and the focal flange distance for the following lenses:

Tele-Xenar 5,5/270 coated (red triangle or later)

Tele-Arton 5,5/270

Tele-Arton S 5,6/250

Additionally I would appreciate any comment on image quality, weight etc.
Thanks!

[Ole Tjugen]

Tele-Xenar 5,5/270 coated (red triangle or later): Made for 9x12cm, coverage on 4x5" is adequate but allows little movements. The only data I could find indicates an image circle of just over 7 inches. I can't find the flange focal distance.

Tele-Arton 5,5/270: Just about the same as above. See Schneider's data page - judging by my experience with the 360mm tele-Xenar, the data is correct.

Tele-Arton S 5,6/250: Image circle even narrower - made for 9x12cm, not 4x5".

The only experience I have is with the 360/5.5 Tele-Xenar. It's a good lens for when you need a longer focal length with less bellows draw. Front movements will drive you crazy the first times you attempt it. Sharpness is good, but not outstanding.

[Henry Ambrose]

There are multiple versions (3 I think) of the Tele Arton 250. The latest ones have a much larger image circle than older models and a much larger front diameter to go with it. The two older versions take 67mm filters and just cover 4x5. The last model is 86mm (I think) on the front and cover maybe 190-200mm.

I have a Tele Xenar 240 f5.5 in Compur. Its compact, quite sharp, covers 4x5 adequately and is of moderate contrast. Compared to new lenses its about one contrast grade softer. It has a very short flange to focal - a good bit shorter than the Tele Arton 250.

I would be interested in hearing any more information on these lenses you turn up.

[Doug Dolde]

I had a 360mm Tele Xenar in a modern Copal shutter and found it to be too soft for my liking. I think the new 400mm ones are better but still a tele is not as sharp as say an APO Symmar.

[Paul Schilliger]

Thanks for all the informations so far! Just what I thought: there are many versions for each model. I own a 46 y/o TeleXenar 360 in Compound and find it acceptable, that's why I am looking for shorter one in the 240-270 range for a top secret project ;-).

What I need is a sharp 170-180mm image circle and a film to flange distance of less than 200mm. Henry, do you think the 240 5,5 would reach a 170-180mm circle? (The similar TeleArton won't). This lens is much smaller and lighter than a recent Tele Arton 250mm which requires also a longer extension.

The older 270 Tele Arton has the coverage but I am not sure I can trust the ff distance of 152mm given on the website which seems extremely short and too good to be true, any confirmation on this point? It is also a big lens.

[Frank Petronio]

I had a 60s era 270 Tele Arton (67mm filter in Syncro Compur) that had plenty of coverage and sharpness, just lower contrast. Infinity only required 140-150 mm of bellows, it stayed on the first track of my Technika.

[Paul Schilliger]

>Infinity only required 140-150 mm of bellows, it stayed on the first track of my Technika.

Then the 152mm are accurate. Amazingly short! Thanks Frank.

Anyone would have the image circle for the 240 f5,5 TeleXenar? (theoretical or actual). It is missing on www.schneideroptics.com

[Henry Ambrose]

Paul,

I just tried my Tele Xenar 240 on my 8x10 to see what happens on the larger GG. It is about 150mm flange to GG and illuminates about a 200mm circle but it gets very soft nearing the edge at f22 at infinity. I see almost no difference in size of the illuminated circle at 5.5 and 22 at infinity. I know it covers 4x5 adequately but I don't think you will have much if any room for movements. I've only shot film with it straight on and it was sharp across the 4x5 image area.

[Paul Schilliger]

Thank you for going through the trouble, Henry! So it would be sharp on 150-160mm but soft from there... That's just 1 or 2 mere cm missing for my purpose.

[Henry Ambrose]

Paul,
I think the two latest versions of the Tele Arton might be the ones you want. It seems they both have the larger 190ish image circle specification although I think a longer flange to film distance. Let me know what you find as I might like to own one. My Tele Xenar is nice but I really prefer Copal shutters as thats what I have on all my other lenses and more room for movement would be nice. I'd probably carry that lens with me.

[Paul Schilliger]

Thanks again, Henry.

If someone has it, I would be interested in knowing if the Tele-Xenar 270 f:5,5 differs from it's Tele-Arton counterpart. Apart from the design with one more element for the Tele-Arton, would the coverage and the flange to film distance be the same? The numbers for the Tele-Arton 270 are 152mm ff and 178mm image circle. Unfortunately Schneider has no information for Tele-Xenars shorter than 360mm.

[Paul Schilliger]

One more detail: I have seen some recent multicoated Tele-Artons 270 5,5. They are probably not the same design as the older ones, are they? I would supect that they require a longer extension, just as the recent 250mm.

[Ole Tjugen]

There are data for some older lenses available on Schneider Kreuznach's page - see www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/archiv.htm (http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/archiv.htm). Some of them are available in English, some are German only. You'll find other Tele-Xenars there.

[Ted987]

I have a Tele-Xenar 5,5/270 coated (red triangle, single-coated), made in 1951. It's 480g mounted in a Technika board. Filter size is 58mm. FFD is 162mm (not a typo). Mine is in a Compur #2 dial-set shutter, with a min aperture of f/57. Image circles at infinity (full pupil) are: f/5.5-f/16= vignettes; f/16= 154mm; f/22= 170mm; f/32= 184mm; f/45= 191mm; f/57= 194mm. Full cut-off of pupil occurs at 215mm -- it's a 4x5 lens with very little movements. Sharp all across the image area.