View Full Version : Tele-Arton?

Tony Galt
26-Feb-2002, 23:56
I've seen no discussion on this forum of the Schneider 240 mm Tele-Arton. (I als o did a search but found only the listing in the specs charts.) They seem to com e relatively cheap on the used market. What do people think of this lens? (I act ually have one, but it is for my 35 mm Retina IIIS-85 mm).

Thomas Vaehrmann
27-Feb-2002, 03:12
Hi Tony,

the Tele-Arton should be a good tele-lens (actually I don't have one) and should be a better performer than the Tele-Xenar for LF. Your 85mm for the Retina is a different design. In case of the 240mm for LF, consider that there were two different lenses for 2x3'' and 4x5''. The pros and cons of tele-lenses are discussed on this forum often.

Enrique Vila
27-Feb-2002, 09:36
I own a classic Tele-Xenar 240mm, and are quite satisfied with it. It is quite sharp and luminous at 5.6

Have no used the Tele-Arton, so can't really compare

27-Feb-2002, 12:53
I'm very happy with my 180mm f5.5. It's a Linhof version and very sharp. And it just fits into the front standard of my Century graphic. I would give the 240 a try if you need the tele due to bellows limitations.

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
27-Feb-2002, 18:22
I have found that while the lens is sharp, and reasonably contrasty, there is really NO space for movements, the lens just covers the film. If you are happy never using movements the lens might be fine.

see Schneider's site: http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/ large_format_lenses/tele-arton/data/5.5-240mm.htm

1-Mar-2002, 05:12
It is a very interesting lens. Sharp, yet not too contrasty. You can get great negatives with a wide tonal scale. It is great for portraits. It is rue that it does't have big coverage , but....do you need it?

Tony Galt
1-Mar-2002, 09:36
At that focal length, for landscapes, I could foresee using slight tilts to brin g near and far into focus. For portraits I don't see using movements. Is the len s incapable of even slight tilts and swings?