Weaknesses of Schneider Xenar or rodenstock geronar 210 mm?

[Meekyman]

Hi Folks,

I know I may be going against the grain (pun not intended), but thinking of getting into LF for landscape photography. I am interested in light, good quality lenses that don't break the bank and so the two in the title attract me (also as Caltar Pro f6.1 and Caltar E f6.8 versions too, including one for sale at the moment in on this forum).

What are the weaknesses of these lenses? Is flare control good? Will I realistically see any differences against say a nikkor/fuji/rodenstock/schneider symmar s 210 mm f5.6 at apertures that are commonly used? Will the differences be apparent when using larger apertures and how common would that be in any case?

Thanks in advance

Graham

[rdenney]

Both have excellent flare control, being simpler designs with fewer air surfaces than modern plasmats.

The Xenar is a tessar design of good quality, and the Geronar is a modern version of a Cooke triplet. Both work best stopped down a bit (to, say, f/22). The Geronar has been sold in greater quantities more recently so there's a better chance it will be a more modern shutter, but the Xenars were installed in modern shutters, too. (Modern plasmats are derived from air-spaced dagors, and are wider in coverage.)

These have less coverage than a plasmat and do not perform quite as well at wide apertures. If you need the best performance wide open, then the plasmat might be a better choice. But at usual working apertures of f/22 or so, you'll find both to be quite sharp. Geronars often came multicoated and are really contrasty lenses, moreso than the Xenar, probably.

I'd select either unless I needed more coverage or better performance wide open. Both were usable as normal lenses for 5x7, so they have decent enough coverage on 4x5 at that focal length. Of the two, I'd pick the one in better condition unless I particularly wanted a tessar look.

Rick "who has a 150mm Geronar and a number of tessars" Denney

[Frank Petronio]

I'm hardly an expert but I expect a Xenar to be sharp in the center and a bit less so at the edges. A Symmar should be evenly sharp across the frame.

Apologies for the next posts correcting me....

[BradS]

The modern Xenar is quite sharp stopped down anywhere past f11. The geronar.... is actually a lovely little portrit lens for 4x5. Wide open, it is just sublime. Very gentle but not quite soft and mushy. It is also fairly sharp when well stopped down. I have all three - 210mm Geronar, Xenar and Sironar-N as well as a Ysarex. They each have their own place in my kit but the Xenar is by far my favorite.

[IanG]

The Xenar is OK an excellent performer at F22, edge & corner sharpness is just acceptable at f16 but soft at f11 and wider. If you can find on e of the last ones sold in the early 2000's these are the best of all, quite a few were sold in the UK by Robert White and I think MrCad at bargain prices. The last Xenar's were redesigned and had slightly slower apertures 150mm f5.6, & 210mm f6.1 (http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/pdf/xr.pdf).

My Xenr's a 150mm and like the 210mm is light weight and good for bbackpacking but like all Tessar designs it doesn't have a large image circle, so you need to be very careful using movements. If you want to use the 210 on a 5x4 camera then you'll have far better coverage also sharpness will be better at the edges /corners of your image area.

I a;so have a 150mm Geronar and stopped down it's as good as the Xenar and image quality is on a par with my 150mm Sironar N, I've not really used the lens at wider apertures so can't comment but I have experience of the Xenar and other Tessars and as Frank pointed out a Symmar (or Sironar) is much sharper across the frame at wider apertures. The Xenars are coated while the Geronars are Multi coated but I've not found that an issue even shooting into the light in Turkey.

That's a good price for the Caltar E. You might also look for a 203mm f7.7 Ektar, very small and light and extremely sharp at all apertures - the British made ones are the best as they come in Compur #0 or Prontor SVS #0 shutters, or Kodak modified Epsilon #0. (The US versions are in Supermatic shutters).

Ian

[Lynn Jones]

I've found both to be of highly questionable quality. If you are looking for a tessar type sharp and contrasty lens, Caltar f 6.3 or Commercial Ektar f 6.3. Stop them down a stop and a half and you'll be happy.
Lynn

[lbenac]

If you can find on e of the last ones sold in the early 2000's these are the best of all, The last Xenar's were redesigned and had slightly slower apertures 150mm f5.6, & 210mm f6.1[/URL].

These are the two I have in my secondary kit and I find them excellent. The Sironar-N 150mm might be a smudge sharper (specially on corners) and more contrasty = different look but if need be I could leave with these two as a main kit (along with the Nikkor-M 300/9).

Cheers,

Luc

[BrianShaw]

Sharpness is over-rated. There is only so much that is needed and beyond that the sharpness makes little difference. Flare control is best accomplished with a lens hood. A good landscape phtogograph depends much more upon one being there photographing a good landscape than it ever will depend upon which lens you are using.

[IanG]

Sharpness is over-rated. There is only so much that is needed and beyond that the sharpness makes little difference. Flare control is best accomplished with a lens hood. A good landscape phtogograph depends much more upon one being there photographing a good landscape than it ever will depend upon which lens you are using.

Well I've large prints made using my 150mm Xenar and an older 150mm CZJ Tessar (T coated) and there's no difference in apparent shrapness compared to images made with Sironars/Symmars/Super Angulons etc. You just need to use care & f22 if you need overall sharpness.

Both lenses the OP asks about can be found newer and have better glass than old Kodak/Caltar (pre Schneider/Rodenstock) Tessar type lenses and they have better contrast as well. Both my Xenar & Tessar have been used in conditions where the Multi Coated lens on my Canon DSLR is useless and are remarkably flare free.

Ian

[BrianShaw]

Yes, Ian... f/22 and be there (or something like that). :)

But I'll tell you... I bought a Kodak Comemrcial Ektar a few years ago and if I could only have one lens for the rest of my life I would gladly stop using all of my Plasmats.

[IanG]

Yes, Ian... f/22 and be there (or something like that). :)

But I'll tell you... I bought a Kodak Comemrcial Ektar a few years ago and if I could only have one lens for the rest of my life I would gladly stop using all of my Plasmats.

I think many of our preconceptions of LF Tessar & type designs are based on our worst experiences, mine are with an f4.5 135mm Tessar on a Crown Graphic, I learnt how to get the best from it and I transfer those findings to all other Tessar & type lenses. However I used a 150mm Xenar commercially in the late 1970's & 80's and in fact it wasn't bad at f11 & f16, I just want the best from my lenses and actually have a preference for longer shutter speeds .

One of the sharpest Tessars I own is a 1913 165mm f6.3 lens in a Dial-set Compur and that co-incides with the Kodak/Caltar tessar type lenses, the f6.3 series are by far the best, the f4.5 reasonable and the f3.5 pushing it a bit.

However the last Schneider Xenars the 150 f5.6 & 210mm f6.1 are very much later designs and have much better alround performance and are a match for any old f6.3 design who-ever CZJ, Kodak, etc.

Ian

[E. von Hoegh]

I think many of our preconceptions of LF Tessar & type designs are based on our worst experiences, mine are with an f4.5 135mm Tessar on a Crown Graphic, I learnt how to get the best from it and I transfer those findings to all other Tessar & type lenses. However I used a 150mm Xenar commercially in the late 1970's & 80's and in fact it wasn't bad at f11 & f16, I just want the best from my lenses and actually have a preference for longer shutter speeds .

One of the sharpest Tessars I own is a 1913 165mm f6.3 lens in a Dial-set Compur and that co-incides with the Kodak/Caltar tessar type lenses, the f6.3 series are by far the best, the f4.5 reasonable and the f3.5 pushing it a bit.

However the last Schneider Xenars the 150 f5.6 & 210mm f6.1 are very much later designs and have much better alround performance and are a match for any old f6.3 design who-ever CZJ, Kodak, etc.

Ian

Yes, new glasses and computer optimising gave new life to both the designs. The Geronar is a really nice version of the classic triplet, about it's only weakness is it's relatively scant coverage - the 210 on 4x5 will have plenty of coverage for almost any purpose, though.

[Frank Petronio]

I've had Kodak Commercial Ektars in 8x10 sizes, the Polaroid 110 Yaserex, Linhof and plain Schneider Xenar 135/4.7, and the Rodenstock Geronar 210/6.8 - all have been excellent for general photography. I often wondered why people bothered "upgrading" their lenses on those Polaroid 110 conversions and the Linhof Xenar was every bit as good as a 20-year newer Symmar-S.

I'd buy any of those lenses based on overall condition and the shutter being good. Plus they are bargains (although the Kodaks are getting more valuable).

[Meekyman]

Thanks everyone who's added to this thread. As a potential newcomer to LF and noticing what was for sale on this forum, I just wanted to ensure that I wouldn't potentially be making a regretful purchase. It appears by looking around that f16-f32 would be a common aperture for the sort of shots I like and that would be in the sweet spot of the lenses I mentioned?? I would just have to be aware that opening up might lead to a lower image quality.

Thanks

Graham

[E. von Hoegh]

Thanks everyone who's added to this thread. As a potential newcomer to LF and noticing what was for sale on this forum, I just wanted to ensure that I wouldn't potentially be making a regretful purchase. It appears by looking around that f16-f32 would be a common aperture for the sort of shots I like and that would be in the sweet spot of the lenses I mentioned?? I would just have to be aware that opening up might lead to a lower image quality.

Thanks

Graham

But not exactly poor image quality. Wide open with the Geronar might be just the ticket for, say, a portrait. Don't be afraid to experiment, these are good lenses and I think the Geronars sometimes get an undeserved bad rap.

[Meekyman]

Thanks, but I'm really looking for LF as a way of moving my landscape photography forward. I don't think I'd be using the camera for portraits.

Cheers

Graham

[rdenney]

It appears by looking around that f16-f32 would be a common aperture for the sort of shots I like and that would be in the sweet spot of the lenses I mentioned??

Generally, the sweet spot for large format (particularly for normal and longer lenses) is f/22. We might use a larger aperture sometimes, but usually depth of field becomes so shallow that we only do so when we are looking for selective focus. Often, we need a smaller aperture to achieve necessary depth of field when we want everything sharp.

Don't be afraid of f/16, just realize that f/22 isn't really a small aperture with large format the way it is with small format. And don't be afraid of going wide open if you want selective focus--I think you'll find the focus plane will still be sharp and detailed in ways beyond what you've experienced with small formats.

Remember this: If you decide you need more coverage and later acquire a plasmat, then you can sell this one for at least close to what you paid for it. This is not a marriage--divorce is okay if it doesn't work out.

Rick "noting the advantage of buying full depreciated stuff" Denney

[E. von Hoegh]

Thanks, but I'm really looking for LF as a way of moving my landscape photography forward. I don't think I'd be using the camera for portraits.

Cheers

Graham

I do quite a lot of things with my LF cameras that I never thought I'd do when I started out. Don't rule anything out. You could find yourself doing still lifes on a table top. LF is incredibly versatile.

[BrianShaw]

This is not a marriage--divorce is okay if it doesn't work out.


So is optical bigamy. Many of us practice that.

[rdenney]

So is optical bigamy. Many of us practice that.

Speak for yourself.

Rick "polygamist" Denney