Tell me about Xenar

[Rider]

What are Xenars and how do they compare to Schneider's other lenses of the same focal length?

[Jim Galli]

They are Tessar formula. 4 elements in 3 groups. They cover about 60 degrees compared to 72 for the Symmar's. They have very nice contrast characteristics but the mtf drop off from the center is more severe than plasmat types. So a 150 or 135 on 4X5 will have corners sharpness degraded enough to be troublesome in 11X14 prints.

[David A. Goldfarb]

A Xenar is a Tessar-type lens, so they vary somewhat over the ages, but it's probably the most popular photographic lens design in history. Xenars have a nice look and are very sharp in the center, but not quite as sharp in the corners as a Symmar or Sironar, and with less coverage than the modern plasmats. They're also fairly compact, relatively fast, and fairly affordable.

If this is your first lens, and you're on a budget, and are looking in the range of normal lenses for the format you shoot, I'd say you're better off with an older Symmar convertible than a new Xenar of the same focal length, because the Symmar will have a larger usable image circle.

[Rob Vinnedge]

Xenars are Schneider's version of the Tessar - four element, single coated, and very lightweight. I believe Schneider has discontinued the line, but they can be found on Ebay and elsewhere at low cost. They are extremely sharp in the middle of the field, the so called "sweet spot", but they fall off in sharpness toward the edges. The coverage of a Xenar is not as great as those offered by other lens designs, but when stopped down to f22 or f32 they are wonderful (if you don't need a lot of movement).

[Ole Tjugen]

Everything that has been said so far is correct.

Xenars have been made since around 1930, so there are several different versions of them. Pre-WWII Xenars will be uncoated, and the focal length will be given in cm, not mm. The LF Xenars were mostly f:4.5, with some rare exceptions (e.g. 500mm f:6.3). There was a different type too early on, the f:3.5 "Typ D". This is not a Tessar, all the others are.

The last Xenars made were a 150mm f:5.6 and the 210mm f:6.1. These lenses were made with smaller max. aperture to fit in smaller shutters - the 210mm f6.1 takes a #1 shutter, the 210mm f:4.5 takes a Compound #3.

[Rider]

I already have a Schneider Symmar-S 180: great coverage and a little bulky.

I was looking for a 150 to complement it. So I was thinking of something cheap, small, and of a completely different design in order to experiment with different "looks." Hence my question about the Xenar.

[David Karp]

A 150mm Fuji WS (I think that is the designation) is also a Tessar, single coated, has a max aperture of f/6.3, and has a larger image circle than the 150mm f/5.6 Xenar. It might be a good alternative for you.

[Mark Sampson]

There's not much difference between a 150 and a 180, at least on a 4x5.

[Ole Tjugen]

There's not much difference between a 150 and a 180, at least on a 4x5.
I agree. Even if I tend to carry two 150mm's, a 165mm and a 180mm lens with me, I wouldn't recommend a 15mm as a second lens if you already have a 180mm.

Something in the 120 to 135mm range would be better, IMO.

[Peter Collins]

My view is: If already 180, then NOT next 150. See Steve Simmons' discussion on selection of lenses for an outfit --in his book on view camera technique.

[Andy Eads]

Xenars also have very low distortion which can be an advantage for photographs needing rectilinear precision.

[David Karp]

I agree. Even if I tend to carry two 150mm's, a 165mm and a 180mm lens with me, I wouldn't recommend a 15mm as a second lens if you already have a 180mm.

Something in the 120 to 135mm range would be better, IMO.

If you want a 150, you want it, and nothing can stop you. I had a 125 and a 210 and did not need a 150, but I did. Eventually, I got one.

If, however, you might want to go wider, my suggestion in a very reasonably priced used lens is a Fujinon W 125mm f/5.6. Mine is the second version with EBC coating. I really like this lens. Jim Galli mentioned the other day on this forum that he has the earlier single coated version and it is his most used 4x5 lens.

[Ole Tjugen]

The Fujinon W 125mm is the one I would have recommended if I had remembered what it was called.

125mm is just wide enough to be perceptibly wide, but not WIDE-wide. It feels about like a 35mm lens woyld on a 35mm camera. I, being me, carry two 121mm lenses instead...

[Christopher Perez]

I can't live without the 110 Schneider Super Symmar XL! (Just kidding. I can live fine without a whole lot of things these days. Including sanity..)

Seriously, though, if you have money to throw at a kit, the 110SS-XL is hard to beat. Combined with a nice 210mm there'd be nothing stopping you from making incredible images. :)


The Fujinon W 125mm is the one I would have recommended if I had remembered what it was called.

125mm is just wide enough to be perceptibly wide, but not WIDE-wide. It feels about like a 35mm lens woyld on a 35mm camera. I, being me, carry two 121mm lenses instead...

[Rider]

Seriously, though, if you have money to throw

What gave you the impression that I have money to throw? :) The $hneider 110 is way out of my league...

I am not looking for perfection, just looking to learn the art!

[domenico Foschi]

Rider,
I agree with the others.
You already have a wonderful 180 mm( I have it also and I am very fond of it), a Xenar would be a step down in quality, plus the Symmar-S 180 Is a more versatile lens being suitable also for portraits in my opinion.

[Turner Reich]

I have Xenar 150 in a Copal No 0 that I bought new in the late '80's and it is sharp, crisp, light and worth having. I have it on a 4x5 field camera and the prints, 8x10 are great. I would recommend it without hesitation. I also have the Schneider 210 Symmar Convertible and yes it is bulky and heavy for what it is. I bought it new and it is really a winner of a lens. Although I have a bunch of Artars and Ektars etc. I like the 210 Symmar about the most. For light backpacking the 150 fits the bill. Schneider says the 210 won't cover 5x7 but mine does just fine and it's a winner there too.

tr

[Dan Fromm]

tr, welcome to the club. My memory's failing too. I just checked with

http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/pdf/sr_5.6_a.pdf

and lo! it says the 210/5.6 Symmar covers 297 mm at f/22. So yours should cover 5x7 with no trouble.

Cheers,

Dan

[Ole Tjugen]

What Schneider say is that the 210 Symmar won't cover 8x10" - or 18x24cm.

many photographers don't really care what Schneider say, and use it on 8x10" anyway. :)

[Dan Fromm]

Yeah, Ole, and many male photographers are bearded and a little fuzzy around the edges.

[Ernest Purdum]

Dan, a friend once told me that my picture of a gibbon was out of focus. I told him that there is no such thing as an in-focus gibbon.

Yes, I'm bearded and a little fuzzy around the edges.

[Struan Gray]

Not mentioned yet, but cheap, small and low-coverage are the 135-ish mm press lenses like the 127 mm Ektar and 135 Optar sold with Speed Graphics. In the UK you can find the equivalent Wray Lustrars and 135 mm f4.7 Xenars quite easily. Most are Tessars or Tessar clones/derivatives.

There are also mild wide angles or true wide angles for 5x7 which will give you a different look and more movements. The 121 Super Angulon isn't small, but it gives nothing away in terms of sharpness. 120 Angulons have a mixed reputation, but can be good.

There are also older 135 mm plasmats like the Symmar which give you a coverage between the Tessars and the true wide angles and are still very cheap.

Finally, for a very different look, but still on a budget, you could try the older 90 mm lenses like the Angulons, Wide Angle Raptars and Optars and Wray (89 mm) wide angles. These give you almost no movements, but a definite wide angle look.