PDA

View Full Version : Help Xenar 180mm f3.5 barrel lens



graflex45
26-Aug-2011, 03:13
I am trying to get myself a fast lens to mount on my Speed Graphic and I have been offered black Xenar 180mm f3.5 barrel lens made in 1929. I can not get any infor on this lens. Does anyone had any expirience with this lens. I have seen some fine results from 210mm f3.5 Xenar is it the same lens????
Thank you
http://i618.photobucket.com/albums/tt268/holms1975/graflex/xenar180mmf35.jpg

Ash
26-Aug-2011, 05:32
It will be big and heavy and if it's anything like my Ernemann it will flare. On 5x4 you'll be ok, my Ernemann drops off a bit at 5x7

Steve Hamley
26-Aug-2011, 07:09
Should be the same. I have a 210mm f:3.5 Xenar borrowed from a friend. I think you'll find them low in contrast and a bit flare prone. I always question using the f:3.5 lenses if you don't really plan on shooting a lot at f:3.5. f:4.5 isn't that much slower and you can find a f:4.5 Xenar much cheaper, the performance will be better, and the lens smaller.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers, Steve

Sevo
26-Aug-2011, 07:55
I have a early 50's coated 210/3.5 Xenar - it sometimes can be handy for its limited DOF, but it is noticeably softer at every f stop than my f/4.5 Tessars and Xenars, without having anything like the character of dedicated portrait lenses. That will be even worse on a 1929 lens. If you intend to use it, get it cheap, and don't forget that GDR Jena coated Tessars in barrel mount can often be found for 50€ or less, in effectively unused condition - you might later regret spending a collectors budget on a f/3.5.

graflex45
29-Aug-2011, 12:40
Thank you all for the answer

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
29-Aug-2011, 13:36
I have owned and used a number of f3.5 Xenars and a few f3.5 Tessars, and think that--for the most part--Steve's and Sevo's statement is correct. F4.5 and f6.3 versions of the Tessar/Xenar were sharper, contraster, had larger coverage, and are cheaper. So unless you really need that extra 2/3 stop, or want a crappier lens, stick with a slower one. That said, I do have a late issue (1960s) 240mm f3.5 Xenar which seems as sharp and contrasty as a f6.3...

E. von Hoegh
30-Aug-2011, 10:23
The only really good f3.5 Tessar I've ever used was on a Rollei 3.5T that I stupidly sold. A shame because it was a really lovely lens.
My experience has been that Tessars get better as they get slower, more coverage and sharpness. I've played with some old f6.3 Zeiss/Kodak Tessar types that were outstandly sharp and had more contrast than you might expect from an uncoated lens.